Alright, you asked for it. I’ll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I “hate” George W. Bush? Isn’t that a little strong? Isn’t he just your average politician? Isn’t this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views?
No, not really.
[…]
…the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual contempt for human life. There aren’t words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation’s television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… “let’s put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.”
[…]
When I look at George W. Bush, I don’t see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the “whacko fringe.”
— ‘Geoff’, Why I hate George W. Bush (via Len)
Rob,
When I read the last response (as I am in the habit of doing when surfing these types of websites), posted on February 14th 2004 by Hurin, I expected someone of Hurin’s caliber as an opponent. How wrong was I? Your incoherent article underlines your ignorance of society. You are not a good representation of rich people (I know you’re rich because only rich people think the way you do!) For example, your article said:
“who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?”
Well this is charming isn’t it? I’ll address this issue as briefly as I can. Did it ever occur to you that some people are born into poverty and have no choice in life? Did it ever occur to you that the neighborhoods in which poor people live provide no basic forms of education, welfare, training, leisure, etc (at least nothing similar to what you have experienced)? Did it ever occur to you that some people live differently from you and hence don’t think the same way as you? Did it ever occur to you that not all poor people do drugs? Did it ever occur to you that not all poor people make the wrong decisions? And thus, did it ever occur to you that some people are poor because they want to (i.e. some people choose a low paid salary because they like what they do and cannot afford the same commodities as yourself)? Consequently, did it ever occur to you that not everyone is an opportunist like you and most rich people? Did it ever occur to you that most poor people haven’t been raised in a comfortable, loving environment like yourself? Did it ever occur to you that poor people haven’t got the same options as you and can’t achieve the same social status as you?
You seem to have no idea of how the world works. Away from your relaxed lifestyle there are people who live harder more difficult lives than you. I do not doubt, for one second, that if you were placed in that same situation you would break down. And by the way, these poor druggies are the people that pick up your trash, clean your streets, maintain public buildings not to mention businesses. Without them society would collapse, just remember that. What would happen if the trash men went on strike, hey? (And don’t say the army would do it!)
Hurin,
It is a pleasure to read your article and reassuring to know someone likeminded on asite like this. This site isn’t anything like the other mindless hate sites I have come across; I may become a regular visitor…
Bill-
Thanks for the stereotype, man you can sure call a rich uneducated person out, because they are the only ones who think like I do. (this shows the exposure you as a grown man have to the world… touché)
My sense of the globe is fine and what makes it such is the reason that I do this. I’m here writing this stuff because I feel that I need to argue to, firstly, work on my writing and secondly to truly become aware politically. I’m here because I want to learn. I’m not here to randomly join in and try to support someone. There you go Bill. That’s all I have to say to you.
I was thinking about society the other day while I was tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys on the beaches of Saint Barths (because I have all money ever created) I came to the conclusion that not all poor people use drugs and that they may in fact be in underprivileged circumstances. Still, I had to conclude that a welfare system based on charity was one doomed to failure, simply by economic analysis.
Rob
I couldn’t help reading your last article and I thought I’d give you some help. Not because I am trying to discredit your work (in fact, I agree with most of what you said), but because you said you were trying to improve you’re writing, and I thought I would help. Though I’m no Shakespeare myself, I do know a bit about spelling, punctuation and grammar. You said:
“Thanks for the stereotype, man you can sure call a rich uneducated person out, because they are the only ones who think like I do. (this shows the exposure you as a grown man have to the world… touché)”
You could have said
Thanks for the stereotype man; you can sure call a rich, uneducated person out because they are the only ones that think like I do. (This shows the exposure, you, as a grown man, have to the world… touché).
Yes thank you. I’m extremely afraid of comma splices so don’t use commas like they should be used. Thank you
Rob
Well, it seems that I stand justified on the first paragraph. I am sorry for being stereotypical and acknowledge that I was a bit aggressive in my response, again, sorry.
The second paragraph was a bit unclear but I think I realize what you are trying to say. I am here for the same reason, that is, I am here to learn too (you see I am not a man, but someone still in full time education). Nonetheless, that shouldn’t make my opinion of the world any less credible. In the paragraph you said,
“I’m not here to randomly join in and try to support someone”
Here, I could go through your entire article and pick holes in it, down to every word (as you probably could do with mine), but I’m not. This one sentence annoys me insofar as you are implying you only listen to people you have previously spoken to. I recognize I was a bit harsh with my first article and that may consequently lead you to ignoring me in the future but that does not make my opinion any less probable.
I know your response was not a reply insofar as it was more a general criticism of my opinions (and it included no direct criticisms of my article) but I would like to address the last issue you mentioned in the third paragraph. Call it a matter of principles, if you may. You said,
“I had to conclude that a welfare system based on charity was one doomed to failure, simply by economic analysis.”
Well how do you suppose we, the people who are not living in terminal poverty, tell the people who are that we can no longer feed/support them? Maybe I misread your article but if you’re saying what I think you’re saying than that is a very spiteful remark. I can understand that people shouldn’t have the ‘luxury’ of a free living, but, how then, do you suppose the people who depend on ‘charity’ carry on living?
Surely, it is the society that has driven them to poverty (“one mans riches is another mans rags” serves as a nice case in point). Your suggestion may work as a guarantee that people would feel obliged to work (and if they didn’t they would gain no free handouts) but it falls short when considering the people who are confined to poverty today. These people, Rob, cannot get employed. Would you disregard them just because they have the misfortune of being born into a poor family with no great prospects ahead of them in life?
My point being: You, just like me, could be born into a poor neighborhood. Can’t you see that this would drastically affect you life chances? Presuming you have inherited your wealth, is it not your duty, and others like you, to help people in less well-off backgrounds? Walt Disney was born extremely poor; he did not make the ‘poor decisions’ in life. What I’m saying is just because one person is poor that does not make them any worse a person than you. (Even more so if you have inherited your wealth.)
Keep up the writing and you’ll get there. I respectfully await your response, not that I expect one!
Rob, you say that you critique of welfare is based on the economics of the situation, however I can see only a minimal basis for this assesment. It is true that welfare is not the most efficient program, and that it is prone to fraudulent claims, however I fail to see how this condemns it as a whole. Welfare is in a continual state of reform, and with the right set of changes it may well become more efficient. The fact however is and remains that not only has the program been relatively small in the scope of past government spending, but recently George W. Bush has slashed social spending even further in order to curb deficites, and to minimal gain. The deficite is still projected to be over $500 Billion, and the fault of this lies on the tax cuts which drastically lower the government intake, while spending for more beefy programs, such as defense remains largely the same. Among the really greivios issues here is also what defense spending has been recently allocated to: in the face of the unconventional terrorist threat, president bush has chosen to allocate large amounts of the defense budget to buying such weapons as new bombers tanks and other conventional weapons useful for a conventional war, but useless against small groups of terrorists. He has also proposed a regan style missle defense which is still unfeasable with current technology. This kind of mis-allocation of funds is what needs to go, not welfare.
Off the topic, one way you could improve the strength of your points, would be to resist the temptation to include statements that distract from the points you wish to make with your response. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
“I was thinking about society the other day while I was tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys on the beaches of Saint Barths (because I have all money ever created) I came to the conclusion that not all poor people use drugs and that they may in fact be in underprivileged circumstances.”
when I read this passage I was so confused by your references to tripping and playing with monkeys that the point I think you meant to emphasise, about realizing that poor people may be the product of thier circumstances, was fundamentally comprimised. Rather than that point sticking in my mind I was contemplating whether you were serious about the monkeys, or what you might have meant by that part of the statement. Also bear in mind that such statements can undermine your credibility as they make you appear less serious.
P.S. Bill, thank you for your flattering assesment of my response, I look forward to seeing more commentary from you should you choose to return.
Bill-
Your chatisement spurned a new wave of thinking within me. I realized just how spiteful I sounded. I want to apologize for saying what i have said about poor people, for they don’t all use drugs and abuse the welfare system. Though I still feel strongly about welfare reform I know that welfare is in fact a good thing.
The line about tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys is a direct quote of hansel from Zoolander (right before the walkoff). It was meant to confuse, and well entertain if you were in on the joke.
Alright back to work.
ah, that makes much more sense; I thought you were saying it in earnest and it totally threw me.
All politics aside, I think GW Bush is just pure evil and that his family raised him that way. Any man that sends our men and women off to die in a war that never should have taken place has to be an evil man. The Italian military intel that found the false documents about nukes in Iraq disproved them in a matter of minutes. How could our government claim not to have known that they were false documents? If you believe the NSA didn’t know they were false documents, you’re certifiable. Oh, and just a note there are documents in the Italian government’s hands stateing that the nuke documents were proven false by a Google.com search. It’s disgusting what you’re being led to believe America and you eat it up!
PS Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. If you don’t know this by now you’re really brainwashed.
I just want to say, the thing that pisses me off most, Military families are barely given enough pay to survive. Now the administration is talking about takeing away vital overtime pay? If you support GW Bush it’s obvious you don’t give a sh-t about our men and women in uniform. The current administration has done nothing but make the life of our Vets more difficult. Want to call yourselves Patriots, stop supporting the sick campaign Bush has against our military! He’ll gladly sacrifice our friends and family but he won’t spend any money to keep VA Hospitals open, secure overtime pay for soldiers or give families who have lost loved ones the restitution worthy of their sacrifice. It’s really disgusting. And you should be as pissed off as the military families are! At some point military families aren’t going to stand for the crap they’ve had to deal with for over thirty years plus! I’m not sure what it’s going to take but I’m sure they’re going to get pissed off enough to do something about the straights they are in. GW Bush is a purely evil man and I’m going to stand by that, no matter what you have to say. Oh, and to you folks that believe this bullshine, if America were in Iraq for humanitarian reasons America would have been in China, Africa, Cuba and a host of other countries before we ever went to Iraq. Always remember, those chemical weapons Saddam used on the Curds were the ones the US gave him. WAKE UP America and stop happily eating the sh-t you’re being fed!
Rob-
First of all, thank you for your response; I cannot say I expected it. (Again, this website, and the people who visit it, surprises me!)
Secondly, the line about tripping acid and playing with spider monkeys entertained me even though I didn’t have the slightest idea what you were saying! In fact, when you mentioned ‘acid’ and ‘spider monkeys’, I was considering if you were referring to psychedelic drugs, and was in the process of rebutting the statement “I was tripping acid” because over here, in Britain, we call it “tripping on acid”. But of course, I stopped myself short, remembering different countries have different terminology relating to things of that sort!
Moving on, it’s great that you have managed to start thinking in a different way. If you still feel strongly about issues such as welfare, then research into arguments that support your theory. It is also helpful to research into arguments that oppose your theory; you can then readily point out the fallacies of differing arguments, if any! Find a subject that you have great interest in, and instead of regarding researching as chore; you will find learning invigorating and interesting.
It is recommended when learning, to be as open minded as possible (this sounds easy but in practice I find it very, very hard). If you want a general knowledge, find books that you can easily read, and not just ones that you are personally interested in, read the daily newspapers and intellectual magazines. That is the path to general knowledge. If you want a more specific knowledge, the same resources apply but I find the Internet more interesting and practical.
You mentioned wanting to become politically aware, I recommend an Australian journalist, John Pilger. He is my main source on ‘political’ issues and a writer/director that comes highly recommended; please read some of his articles/books. He has directed documentaries and written thousands of articles on the state of the world today. He is impartial and (I believe) the best journalist in the world. He bases all his beliefs on evidence. Not like most novelists, Pilger uses sources (and if you are going to read one of his books, you will see no less than three footnotes on every page!). I am in the process of checking out all the sources of his most recent book “The New Rulers of the World”. So far they all check out! I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK. Anyone else who happens to be reading this, make an effort to read his work.
Hurin-
It’s a pleasure and I shall return. I think you shall enjoy the next article if you haven’t read it already.
K-
I cannot say that I disagree with most of what you said. I hate GW Bush, that’s why I’m on a website entitled “Why I hate George Bush”.
I know that weapons have been sold to Saddam by America. I also know the CIA funded the Taliban. I also know that 50,000 conscript Iraqi soldiers were carbonized when marching home AFTER the end of the first Gulf War. Hell, I even know that 567,000 innocent children were killed as a direct result of the sanctions put in place by the British and American government from the end of the first Gulf war to march 2003 in Iraq. If you refuse to believe this, (as a lot of people are in the habit of doing) type in “UNICEF (that stands for: United Nations Children’s Fund), sanctions, Iraqi children” into a search engine and you should find the information you are looking for. If that’s not enough to swat you, you shouldn’t trust anyone, because UNICEF is an organization funded and approved by the U.S. and the U.K. (To make it more clear than it needs to be, these are the same governments that emplaced the sanctions)
Back to Bush’s, I also know that while GW Bush is preaching freedom and ‘trying’ to generate a culture of liberty, he is disallowing prisoner’s fundamental human rights. Guantanamo Bay is even in breach of the Magna Carter, not to mention article 6 of America’s constitution. Here, I could write all day long about the way the Bush family illegally made money through oil, the real reason why Bush senior attacked Somalia (made into a film called “Black Hawk Down”) and a hell of a lot of other things but I can’t be bothered! You come across as a like-minded individual so you’ll probably agree with me anyway.
However, one thing I am not K, is a patriot. You may call me a ‘weenie’ but I am in no position to support my country, or any other, when they behave in the way in which they do. I believe you’re right when you say the government mistreats its soldiers. That’s why half of all homeless people in Britain are said to be homeless! But Bush, just like Hitler, has to respect his army. You see, without them, he is nothing. But saying this, out of all the stupid things GW Bush has done, I don’t think he will accomplish that one! I think it’s a shame really!
Just in case you, and everyone else, think I have gone mad (with rantings of children’s deaths and homeless people), I will be posting some history on Iraq later just to prove all my wild accusations!
Just as I promised, here is an article written by a former U.S. attorney General. Ramsey Clark. It illustrates the history of Iraq from the start of the 20th century. Please read this with an open mind as most people who do read this refuse to believe it. The fact of the matter is, this is fact, if it wasn’t, Ramsey Clark would be jailed for treason and up to his eyeballs in lawsuits!
Iraq has been a target of U.S. covert actions since at least 1958, when a popular revolution led by Abdel Kassem overthrew the Iraqi monarchy, which was installed by Britain in 1921. In 1960, the new government helped found the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to resist Western oil monopolies.1
The CIA plotted Kassem’s assassination and U.S. generals in Turkey devised a military plan, called “Canonbone,” to invade northern Iraq and seize its oil fields.2 In 1963, Kassem and thousands of supporters were massacred in a CIA-backed coup.
In 1968, the Baathist Party came to power. In 1972, it nationalized the U.S./U.K.-owned Iraqi Petroleum Company under the slogan “Arab oil for the Arabs.” After a meeting with President Nixon, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and the shah of Iran, the CIA urged Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq to rebel against the Iraqi government. The U.S. promised to back them all the way. The House Select Committee on Intelligence Pike Report described it as a “cynical enterprise, even in the context of clandestine operations.”3 The Shah funnelled U.S.-supplied arms to the Kurds.4 The Pike Report stated that neither the Shah “nor the President and Kissinger desired victory for [the Kurds]. They hoped the insurgents would [maintain] a level of hostilities to sap the resources of [Iraq].”5
In 1975, Iraq agreed to share the Shatt-al-Arab waterway with Iran. Support for the Kurds was terminated. The fate of Kurds left behind did not concern the U.S. As Kissinger said “Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work.”6
In 1979, the Iranian people to overthrew the shah’s despotic regime. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski then publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.7
In 1980, the U.S. provided Iraq with intelligence reports that Iran would quickly collapse in the face of an Iraqi advance. At the urging of U.S.-backed Arab rulers in Kuwait, Egypt and elsewhere, Saddam Hussein unleashed a war with Iran in which hundreds of thousands died.8
The attack served U.S. interests by weakening Iran, where U.S. embassy personnel were still kept hostage. The U.S. did not want either side to win. “We wanted to avoid victory by both sides,” a Reagan official told the New York Times.9 Kissinger was more blunt: “I hope they kill each other” and “too bad they both can’t lose.”10
Iraq could not have sustained the eight year war without massive assistance, direct and indirect, from the U.S.S.R., Eastern bloc countries, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, the U.S., U.K., France, and West Germany. The Pentagon and CIA provided Iraq with satellite and AWACS intelligence on Iranian forces.11 The U.S. sent CIA and Special Forces to train Iraqi commandos and the U.S. helped funnel billions of dollars worth of arms to Iraq.12
Egypt, a major recipient of U.S. military aid, sent troops, tanks and heavy artillery to Iraq.13 In 1980, the military dictatorship in Turkey – a major recipient of U.S. military aid – sent troops to fight rebels in Iraqi Kurdistan, freeing Iraq’s army to concentrate on fighting Iran.
The U.S.-supported regimes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also supported Iraq’s war effort. Kuwait’s contributed over $30 billion. The U.S. sold over $20 billion worth of arms to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states during this period and allowed Saudi Arabia to transfer large quantities of U.S. arms to Iraq during the war.
In 1984, the U.S. became Iraq’s principal trading partner by increasing its purchases of Iraqi oil while encouraging Europe and Japan to do likewise.14 The Reagan administration increased intelligence-sharing with Iraq. Vice President Bush, the State Department and the CIA lobbied for large-scale financing of U.S. exports to Iraq.15 In 1986, the U.S. sent a CIA team to advise the Iraqi military.16
But the U.S. was supporting both sides. In 1983, U.S. and Turkish generals were preparing to re-implement the 1958 “Cannonbone” plan.17 Until 1986, the U.S. funnelled arms to Iran through Oliver North, Israel and Pakistan.18 In 1985, Oliver North told Iranian officials that the U.S. would try to engineer the overthrow of Hussein.19
In 1987, the U.S. became directly involved in the war on Iraq’s side by protecting the passage of Kuwaiti tankers with a major military presence in the Persian Gulf. Some U.S.-escorted, Kuwait tankers carried Iraqi oil while Iraqi planes attacked Iranian tankers. The U.S. sank Iranian patrol ships and destroyed their oil platforms.
In 1987, Army General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. became commander of the U.S. Central Command. He had a unique background for the assignment.20 In the 1953, his father assisted in the CIA’s coup in Iran.
When the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988, U.S. war contingency plans made Iraq the enemy.21 In January 1990, CIA Director William Webster testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on growing Western dependency on Middle East oil.22 In February, Schwarzkopf told the committee that the U.S. should increase its military presence in the region and described new intervention plans.23 In 1990, the U.S. conducted at least four war games directed at Iraq, some premised on an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The U.S. wanted a new war in the Middle East: the Pentagon, to maintain its tremendous budget; arms industries, to feed their Middle East and U.S. military contracts; oil companies, for increased profits; and the Bush administration, which saw the USSR’s disintegration as a chance to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East to control of its oil resources.
The challenge was to force Iraq, a country more interested in rebuilding than expansion, to take action that would justify U.S. military intervention. To create this crisis, the U.S. invoked its special relationship with the Kuwait. In his book Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, Pierre Salinger observed that Kuwait drastically increase oil production one day after the Iran-Iraq ceasefire.
During the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait seized 900 square miles of Iraq’s Rumaila oil field. Using U.S. drilling technology, Kuwait was also stealing oil that was indisputably inside Iraq. When Iraqi troops amassed on the border, Hussein summoned U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to his office to clarify the U.S. position. Glaspie assured him: “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. [Secretary of State] James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction.”24
Footnotes:
1. Middle East Economic Survey, May 12, 1961.
2. New Statesman, July 15, 1983.
3. Gerard Chaliand and Ismet Seriff Vanly, People Without A Country, 1980, 184.
4. Will Safire, New York Times, Feb.12, 1976.
5. See Chaliand and Vanly.
6. See Chaliand and Vanly
7. Christopher Hitchens, Harper’s Magazine, Jan.1991, 70.
8. Dilip Hiro, The Longest War, 1991.
9. S. Hersh, New York Times, Jan.26, 1992, 1.
10. Shahram Chubinl and Charles Trip, Iran and Iraq at War, 1988, 207.
11. The Christic Institute, “Covert Operations, the Persian Gulf War and the New World Order.”
12. The Economist, May 6, 1982.
13. Francis Boyle, “International Crisis and Neutrality: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward the Iraq-Iran War,” in Neutrality: Changing Concepts and Practices, 1986.
14. Leslie Gelb, “Bush’s Iraqi Blunder,” New York Times, May 4, 1992
15. “‘Nightline’ on the Bush-Iraq Connection,” in Israel and Palestine Political Report, June 1991, 5.
16. Toward 2000, Mar.16, 1991.
17. Far Eastern Economic Review, Dec.19, 1991.
18. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Appendix A: vol. 1, Tape 12, 1500.
19. Fred Halliday, Arabia Without Sultans: A Political Survey of Instability in the Arab World, 1975.
20. Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for Control of Iran, 1979.
21. William Webster, Senate Cttee. on Armed Services, Jan.23, 1990, 60.
22. Norman Schwarzkopf, Senate Cttee. on Armed Services, Feb.8, 1990, 577-579.
23. U.S. Army, “A Strategic Force for the 1990s and Beyond,” Jan.1990, 1-17.
24. Stewart M. Powell, San Fransisco Examiner, Sept. 24, 1990, A12.
Uh yeah, looks like the “overwhelming body of evidence” against invading Iraq that I talked about in the Iraq debate has just surfaced. Wow I had heard a great deal of those things from various sources but the sheer ugliness of the facts when all stated together is kind of mindblowing. What I want to know is why none of this history is never mentioned when it is inconvenient for the Bush administration. It seems like these people are thriving on the ignorance of a huge chunk of america.
George W. Bush is nothing but an overgrown frat boy who got lucky. Let’s hope to God that this time the voting system won’t fail us miserably. I still cannot believe that he got away with going AWOL.
George W. Bush was never lucky. The only luck he had was his daddy and his daddy’s oil buddies who were happy to do Bush Sr. favors as long as Bush Jr. was their puppet. Bush Sr. has always been around to pull all the strings for Bush Jr. That’s the only way he managed to get into the White House. People thought Clinton was a corrupt, unprincipled, slimely politician, but I’m afraid the Bushes have that market covered.
Arg! My hand twitched and I accidently double-posted! Damn my sleep-deprived motor skills! Feel free to delete and make look less stupid ;-)
Hurin-
Thankyou for the response, it’s a shame i haven’t heard from Rob too. I’m in the process of writing an article in response to what you said. It will probably arrive in the next few days.
Hurin-
I had a spare 5 minutes and I thought I might tell you another fact to further substantiate my Iraqi children claim. You’re gona love this, the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it for the maintaining of economic sanctions. She replied, and I quote,
“we think the price is worth it”
It may not come as a surprise that she no longer has her job. But seriously, this is an illustration of the sheer ignorance of politicians today. I recently found out she has won an award for her ‘tenacity’ in her career.
Type in Madeline Albright, sanctions, comments, Iraqi children to any search engine
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:
“Liberal Democrats claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Let’s clear up one point: We didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists on 9/11.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Worst president in history? Come on!”
LET’S NOT FORGET THAT EVER ONE SUPPORTED THIS WAR BECAUSE OF 9-11.
Edward (and anyone else who might have seen the letter that Edward posted):
I strongly suggest you visit Making Light: Disinformation, where a number of people are in the process of taking apart that letter and exposing it for the well-written piece of misleading propaganda that it is.
Some samples:
There’s a lot more there in the thread I linked to. End result, this letter purporting to “clear things up” is just one more piece of slickly produced propaganda.
Edward,
Ditto to what Woody said above. And in addition to that, there is one minor piece of clarification I would like to add: The war in Iraq was not in response to 9/11. It was in response to Bush’s misguided belief that Saddam was producing the much touted WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). There is no doubt that Saddam was a terrible dictator that sucked the life out of his people, the wealth out of his country and ordered human rights atrocities. The sanctions that were imposed upon Iraq for over a decade didn’t help either. But in the end, were we, as a nation, justified in invading Iraq? Well, Bush told the people of the United States that it was suspected that Saddam and his gov’t were hiding WMD’s and nearly a year after the U.S. invasion there are still NO WMD’s to be found. Bush, due to public pressure I imagine, has even admitted that he must’ve been wrong.
The real deal with this whole war thing is not about the imaginary WMD’s – it’s about securing the U.S.’s interests in Mid-East oil. It also helps that the Bush family has close ties to the Saudi royal family AND to Osama Bin Laden’s family living in Saudi Arabia. The only interest W. has is his own. What makes him the worst president is that he has put his own interests before the country he is supposed to be leading. And he hasn’t even done a very good job at hiding his connections and failings because he knows he’s got the power through his father and political ties.
All this information is actually rather easy to find if you’ve got some time on your hands. Don’t swallow what the media and the Whitehouse tries to spoonfeed the public. The information is all there in public record just waiting to be put together like a great puzzle. Do a little digging and you’ll find a goldmine.
I hate “president” George W. Bush. He literally stole the election.(People with names that SOUNDED like felons were not aloud to vote.Unless, of course, you had the money to fix it)
I am 12 years old, but even I can plainly see that Bush is a lying hypocrit. He invaded Iraq, claiming that they were a threat to the US.It really scares me to think about a country on the other side of the world in the middle of the desert that does not have any nuclear weapons. He claims that it was still the right thing to do, because Iraq was lead by Saddam, a cruel leader.I cannot argue this, but if he is going to “liberate” Iraq, then why doesn’t he liberate countries all over the world that need our help. Especially countries like Liberia or Haiti, nations that we, The US, set up.
Bush has passed a countless number of bills that astonish me. Cutting funding of programs like UNICEF, giving tax cuts to rich people, not to those who need it most, and many, many more. He violated the U.N., and is basically well on his way to the demise of our country.If he is re-elected in 2004,things will get much worse. But what astounds me the most is that no one seems to care. The ignorance of Americans is amazing.You would think that Americans would look and see what was happening to thier own country, and try to look past what the goverment tells them but they don’t. Please, in the elections, don’t vote for Bush. I don’t care if Carey, Dean, or Edwards is elected, ANYBODY BUT BUSH!
Everyone here get a custom t-shirt that says ” Behold the sum of all our fears, Bush may be back for four more years”, and have a picture of bush under those words. I have one.
I think hatred is something that must be cautiously distributed. But I hate Bush. He is not my president. He was not elected by the public. He was elected by Scalia, Kennedy, Rehnquist and, most distressingly, O’Connor and Thomas. A woman and an African-American elected this stupid good ‘ole boy who cannot even spell his own name or score in the top 50% on the SAT. The highest office in this pathetic excuse for a democracy is occupied by someone dumber than more than half of the people who took the freakin’ SAT. I am so sickened to be an American under his watch that I have honestly considered moving to Europe. Maybe France. Maybe some place that does not think that you have to be a militant hawk in order to be a patriot. Excuse me, but I have to go throw up now.
Twas the night before christmas
and all through the land
Florida was still counting there ballets by hand…….AGAIN!
Some were going for Bush
some were going for Gore
The supreme court was baffled
Ohh what a bore
While Nadar was still tring to get 5%
So the green party would be funded
and he could represent
Clinton was celebrating
thats all that we know
5 extra weeks in office
ho ho ho ho!!!
Then down in Tallahase
there arrose such a clatter
they stoped the hand counting
to see what was the matter
The supreme court declared
they would postpone the fight,
they would settle it all on monday night
But allas!
the supreme court did not keep their word
they settled it on tuesday
how absurd
The supreme courts vote
was 5 to 4
to elect cheating Bush
and ditch honest Al Gore
So Bush has won
and Gore had lost
but before Al Gore went off the wire
He said “Ill be back” as the election expired
I think possibly the most disturbing thing about this administration is something you just said, that an unquestioning worship of the administration is now “Patriotism.” Fuck that . A real patriot is one who will question the workings of the government, and strive for its improvement. Indifference is the real anti-patriotism. People who do not involve themselves in politics are the real anti -patriots. I also beleive that blind faith in a government that espouses “Christian” views to push an agenda that goes squarely against anything ever taught by Jesus is the ultimate Anti-Christianity. The Bush Administration’s “Christianity” is the Christianity of hate and intolerance and it should be a horrible travisty to anyone who takes thier faith seriously. Even those who have different systems of beleif should feel the extremity of this contradiction. Many people are quick to point this same contradiction in one Osama bin Laden, a muslim who delights in perverting his own faith. This is why I have an extremely visceral reaction to the fact that some of bush’s biggest supporters are right wing Christians. Because Bush is the Osama bin Laden of Washington DC, and instead of al-Queda we have the “moral majority.”
Hurin-
A response to your last article:
Yes, you are correct, which is why it’s important our civil rights are kept intact and our media is not censored. Funnily enough though, America has implemented the notorious ‘patriot’ act, and Britain the ‘anti-terrorist’ laws, at a time when we need our rights most. Apparently, the FBI can walk into any library at any time and demand to see what people are reading! University staff are also advised to tell government officials if they think a person is showing ‘dissenting’ views! All this, at a time when Western countries should be making a good representation for the rest of the world to follow. Unfortunately, countries stricken with terror are not going to look towards the West if they want a desirable social system.
Ah well, moving swiftly on. You wanted to know why certain issues are never raised when appropriate. This is a very difficult question, but one I think I may have the answer to. The answer can be split into two sections.
-1) why do newspapers ignore certain stories/issues?
-2) who can benefit from telling the ‘general public’ lies?
Answering the first section requires an overview of the corporations that produce newspapers and magazines.
A good example of censorship in the newspapers is the 5000 deaths of Iraqi children each month. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT IN ANY NEWSPAPERS. (Though I’m not saying it hasn’t been printed) This information is indisputable, why then, is it not on every single front page, of every newspaper in the world? Well, the editors of newspapers are known as ‘gatekeepers’, who pick and choose what a paper prints and what it doesn’t. Surely it follows, the editors of newspapers control, and effectively censor, what is said. (And if you pick up any newspaper you should find an editorial (even though few papers call it an editorial), which is a sign of the type of political ideology and, consequently,
bias that may occur in that paper).
But, even so, the people right at the top of media corporations are the ones ultimately in control of what is said. They employ the editors and control what they say. It is important to understand these people are owners of huge corporations, primarily interested in profits, not telling the truth. They are in favour of right wing governments that will endlessly give them tax rebates and other useful laws that will help their companies make a larger profit. They support wars (and censor information) because they make more money (news sells in wars). They also tend to have friends in other companies in equally high places who would benefit from wars.
I think, in the case of the Iraqi children, the information is hidden from the general public because it is generally shocking. In these circumstances 99.9999% of the public would be shocked at the upholding of sanctions by their own government. But saying this, withholding information, such as this, has a deeper meaning. As I’ve said above, the people in charge can benefit. Media moguls never make decisions knowingly that will not make them benefit in some way or another. After all, this is a business of making as much money as you can! If the bosses are free to tell lies to the vast majority of the population, then they are affectively free to make a greater profit (my point being: they are free to exploit people). They can also misrepresent local topics, such as welfare, often resulting in profit for either them or someone they are connected or associated to. They can make it easier for the government to pass laws by swaying public opinion. This could lead to laws passed to benefit them. Really Hurin, the list goes on and on and on and on…
Moving on to the second section:
There are loads of people benefiting from this war, not all of them from the Bush Administration. I know Dick Cheney was, or still is, CEO of Halliburton Corporation. They are the single largest company to benefit from the Iraq war. Is it a coincidence that they have seen a profit rise of 30% since the Iraq war? I’ll leave it there. Another beneficiary was the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. The list goes on and on and on…
However, most of the companies who benefit from the war have some connection to the Bush Administration. It is hardly a surprise that information is often withheld from the ‘general public’ in order to maintain public support. Huge corporations fund (or invest in) election campaigns for presidential candidates in the U.S.A. They obviously want their money back, with interest. This is why information such as dead Iraqi children is withheld at times appropriate to the Bush regime. It brings me to the conclusion that they are bastards (with lack of a better word), they really are.
And just in case someone was going to try and criticise my answer (which is expected), it follows that in order for this argument to work, you have to assume people believe, or are influenced by, what they read and see in the media. Personally, I think they do. (Why would we have age restrictions on movies, music etc?)
A response to your most recent article:
I agree that religion plays a key role in the governing of America. Apparently, Bush is personally seeing to it that homosexuals should not be given the right to marriage! This sort of fundamental Christianity is, again, not a very good representation to other countries. On one hand, we are fighting the war on terror and promoting freedom, and on the other, we are limiting our freedoms at home! It is hypocrisy at the highest order. Furthermore, during all this, Bush has also used the ‘war on terror’ as a safeguard against criticism on the failing American economy, as well as the implementation of ‘Patriot’ laws. As you said, the word patriot used in that context is humiliating.
Back to religion, I think there is a very disturbing link between religion and nationalism in America—definitely more than in other Western countries. Oddly, the case is alike in certain Middle East countries, the very ones that are suffering from terrorism. This, as well as increasing bias when dealing with situations like the Iraq war, also provides countries with a bad representation of their ‘liberators’. Another disadvantage outlines that people tend to believe they are doing the right thing when such a powerful thing like religion drives them.
I hope to hear from you soon…
Daniel-
Well done, I’m surprised to see a person of your age on this site. Even more so, a person as well informed. Keep up the research. And keep up the fight…
Robulous,
I sure GWB gets pleasure in knowing you are one day closer to meeting your death, too.
Rightwinger, typical of a republican to find the easiest line to attack and hone on to it, if you actually have some intellegence to express with that mouth of yours then why dont you go after a real point instead of someones personal feelings? Any asshole can spout a meaningless one liner and leave. So if you have some real point to make here like a convincing arguement for Bush (which I have yet to hear from anyone let alone a mindless dittohead), why dont you make it , and if not then why dont you do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
I agree with Hurin
Bush R Evil
9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq is all about oil. Bush is evil incarnate
’nuff said.
HERE HERE!!!
I Concur
Well said
I’m back. I’m sick of reading this bullshit. I hate to say it but some people who respond on this website fly off the handle, not cool, bring it back to earth guys. I will probably be leaving this website and never returning, due to the fact that midterms start next week.
peace.
prosperity to Bill and Hurin
Dude theres no way that daniel is a twelve year old. Thats ridiculous.
Media bias? Read Bias by Bernard GoldBloom, never heard of it? not uncommon, it and its author were blacklisted from the press. Check it out.
now to stop procrastinating
I go only a few comments down, and I see bullcrap.
War is, sadly, a ubiquitous component of human history. However, it has been shown that reckless use of this argument of kings has led to much disaster. And going to Iraq was certainly reckless. It has gained us nothing. Iraq now belongs to nobody, except the dead. I mourn all of them. The 650 precious lives lost by the coalition. I got to see their faces on the CNN website. Do you know what an impact that has? To see those poor souls, whose faces looked so brave, are now six feet under. All in the name of politics. ruthless, evil, powerhungry politics. look at the faces of those now dead human beings. Bush must believe he is God’s knight on earth. Nice crusade you have us in, Mr. Bush. You will be punished for your lies. First in this election, and then on the day of reckoning that is soon to come. If you have any hope, become humble, admit your lies, and at least save your soul. Take the consequences, for you have called for them.
I thought I was done speaking yesterday, but I have a question to pose. If there are no WMD’s in Iraq, then why did we go to war? If I am not mistaken, I believe Bush and his associates said that it was to rid the world of an evil man (obviously this is a paraphrase). Well, if that is the case, I hope to see American tanks rolling into Pyongyang by this time tomorrow, and hope to see those same tanks in Beijing and about 50 other world capitals by this time next week.
P.S. Good luck with the Chinese, Mr. Bush. I do hope our world survives after that war.
Actually Chuckam, I have heard reports that suggest very strongly that bush does in fact beleive that he in a worker of god in the world. I have heard him quoted in articles on counterpunch.org saying that he beleives that he beleives that he was appointed by God to lead America. This kind of suggestion scares me deeply, as someone with that kind of delusion is going to keep going with what they feel they need to do at all cost, and cannot be reasoned with as “God is passing them thier orders” this actually coincides very well with the behavior we have seen from bush. He is never willing to take responsibility for, or even admit misteakes, and his mindset is always summed up by the simplistic Good vs Evil argument, and a blunt “you are either with us or against us.” Beyond this it is remarkable what lengths he is willing to go to to avoid being found out and called out on the lies desception misdeads mismanagment and underhandedness that most sane people can easily recognise as his to claim. Republicans gave Clinton crap for being slippery and hard to pin things on, but Clinton never had shit on bush. Clinton was impeached for a blowjob, bush has yet to receive any official reprimand for sending our troops to die in a war based on a personal vendetta. To my mind that is equivalent to him shooting each fallen soldier in the head personally. Now bush has resorted to using footage of firefighters carrying bodies from ground zero and footage of the world trade center for a campeign commercial trumpeting his “steady leadership in times of tragedy,” even in spite of the protests of the firefighters union, and the fact that the sympathy and support that our allies readily gave us after the tragedy (which both could have been used to bring about real multilateral change in policies that help make terrorists) were wasted on bushes idiotic war with saddam. “Steady Leadership” seems to be bushes new campeign platform, as it has become very clear that he has no record to run on and no real qualities to offer, so instead of specific accomplishments, we have nebulous hypocracy.
American people aren’t going to like me for what is posted below. It is a section of an article revealing the similarities of Senator John Kerry and President George Bush. It seems there is not much difference between the two after all (save a few billion-brain cells!)
“Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a 19-page manifesto for the “New Democrats”, who include all the principal Democratic Party candidates, and especially John Kerry. This called for “the bold exercise of American power” at the heart of “a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party’s tradition of muscular internationalism”. Such a strategy would “keep Americans safer than the Republicans’ go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies and overstretched our resources. We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of US global leadership
Just as the plans of the Bush gang were written by the neoconservatives, so John Kerry in his campaign book, A Call to Service, lifts almost word for word the New Democrats’ warmongering manifesto. “The time has come,” he writes, “to revive a bold vision of progressive internationalism” along with a “tradition” that honours “the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt… and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war”. Almost identical thoughts appear on page three of the New Democrats’ manifesto:
As Democrats, we are proud of our party’s tradition of tough-minded internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United States to victory in two world wars… [Truman’s policies] eventually triumphed in the cold war. President Kennedy epitomized America’s commitment to “the survival and success of liberty”.”
So there you have it. The difference, John Pilger writes, “between Coke and Pepsi”. If you guys want the rest of the article, go to:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print
Bill, I sorta kinda couldn’t make sense of what you said. I mean, if the idea that Dems are pushing “tough internationalism” and the policies of Truman/Kennedy would mean that the Democrat’s mind is still stuck in the Cold War and that there is an open threat from some entity like the Soviet Union (China does fit this criterion, but trade heavily reliant on the U.S. markets restrains China). Besides, the possiblity of a tank battle in Europe is nil. As for staying in the Cold War mindset (we say China is the Main Enemy, terrorists are just nuisances), it would mean that the democrats are violating a key principle of liberalism: progress in all aspects.
But then again, I didn’t quite understand what you meant…
well, i gottta say george bush sucks. just go to my site for all the details.
all politics suck. really bad. im just going to canada where marijuana is legal.
lmao. cya
Question: Where, prior to invading Iraq, does the Bush administration blame Iraq for 9/11 other than to reference the tragedy as something we must be aware of and not forget. I know that now Bush says “there’s no link between Iraq & 9/11”, but who ever said there was as a reason for invading?
Bush = worst president EVER. And I do mean EVER.
Not only should he be impeached and lose the presidency, but he should get the electric chair.
An $87 billion debt. A pointless war in Iraq that has let to the death of thousands of Americans. Tax cut upon
tax cut supporting the rich and not giving two fucks about the rest of the country. Lie after lie, in front
of the camera, to the American public. And last but not least, he aint even legit.
Matter of fact, not only do I hate Bush, but I hate 90% of all Republicans. They’re all a bunch of fucking
racist, close-minded, ignorant bastards. Bush can kiss my ass, as can Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter.
And for all you right winged pricks that read this post seathing with anger, ill save you the time: Yes, I am
a crazy, loud-mouthed, foul radical Liberal. And guess what?? Im damn FUCKING proud of it too.
Off with Bush’s head!!!! This country has gone down the shitter the last 4 years, and im fucking sick of it.
Bill, while I do understand your point about Kerry sharing some key traits with GWB I think the difference of several billion brain cells that you mentioned is fairly key. To me one of the most dangerous things about bush is that his alcohol demented brain can only comprehend situations around the world in the context of a simple black and white: good vs. evil. Government under Kerry may also bear similarities to that of the bush administration, there are several key differences that lead me to support Kerry. First off when shit happens on Kerry’s watch which I believe will happen given the fact that Bush took a violent situation and made it worse, is that Kerry will be more likely to take a less simplistic aproach and may be more likely to use diplomatic and socio-economic tactics whereas the perfered bush approach to anything seems to be violent assault. Kerry has fought in a war as well so he knows the horror he is sending people into, and therefore he will most likely try to avoid it in situations where bush would jump in without a second thought. Second Kerry is not using “Christian” beliefs to further his campeign, and I see no reason why he would suddenly become a president who, like Bush, would be willing to comprimise the constitution in favor of his personal take on religion. Third I beleive that Kerry, like any reasonable person realizes that taxes need to go up to cover the defecit. Some of these issues probably matter more to me than to you given that I live in the US, and I may be wrong about any one of them , only time and the outcome of this election will tell for sure. I also beleive however that a remedy for the horrible direction that this country has taken can not be changed through electoral action alone, particularly if Kerry is elected, and that sustained activism is the only way that we are going to get the country off the road to hell down which bush is currently steering it.
P.S. all those on this site concerned about the current directions of american politics and the policies of the bush regime are stronly encouraged to visit a site called MoveOn.org, which is devoted to turning this country around through petitions, letter writing drives to senators, etc. as well as getting Bush the fuck out of office.
GWB ISN’T MY PRESIDENT HIS FAMILY FIX THE ELECTION HE DIDN’T EVEN WIN THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALL U HAVE TO DO IS WATCH HIM FOR TWO SECONDS AND REALIZE HE’S A MORON. HE MIGHT OF WENT TO AN IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE BUT HE DIDN’T PASS ON HIS OWN HE MADE IT OUT CAUSE OF HIS DADDY’S MONEY AND POWER. ALL OF YOU REPLICANS THOUGHT CAUSE CLINTON SMOKE WEED ONCE AND DIDN’T GET A BUZZ WHAT ABOUT THE COKED UP DRUNK HE WAS A HORRIBLE GOVENER WHO RUIN TEXAS ECONOMICS AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM AND KILLED THOUSAND OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN TEXAS THROUGH THE DEATH PENATY HE DON’T CARE WHO HE KILLS AMERICAN OR NOT. I DON’T KNOW IF HE’S RACIST LIKE HIS DAD BUT HE SURE IS PREJUDICE AND IF SAADAM WOULD OF PAIED HIM OFF WITH MONEY LAND OR OIL THIS WAR WOULD OF NEVER OF HAPPEN WHAT ABOUT N. KOREA THEY HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND TOLD BUSH AND COMPANY TO THEIR FACE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DISMANTLE THEM AND WOULD USE THEM IF U.S. TRY TO STOP AND BUSH BACK OFF OF THEM AND IT TO YEARS BEFORE THE STEP IN TO HELP HAITI AND THEY SCREWED THAT UP HE SAYS HE WANT TO ELIMANATE ALL THE EVIL DICTATORS WHAT ABOUT THE ONES IN AFRICA SOUTH AMERICA OR CENTRAL AMERICA WHY BECAUSE ONE THE SKIN COLOR AND HIS WASN’T THREATEN BUY THEM. COME ON PEOPLE HE LIED FROM DAY ONE HE’S BEEN LYING SINCE HE’S BEEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE VIETNAM MAYBE IF HE ACTUCALLY WOULDE OF SERVED HIS COUNTRY INSTEAD OF HIS DAD GETTING HIM AN EASY WAY OUT AND HE DIDN’T SHOW UP FOR THAT HALF THE TIME ON LEFT A YEAR EARLY AND HE WONT LET THE RESERVES RETIRE NOW COME IF THIS MAN STAYS IN OFFICE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OUR ECONOMY GOING TO BE WORST IT’S BEEN SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION THOSE TAX CUT DONT HELP THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS HE GIVES THE RICH BREAKS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND FIGURE WHERE POOR SO HE’LL GIVE THE POOR 300 AND FIGURE HE CAN SHUT US TILL SOME ELSE IS AND CAN HAVE THE PROBLEMS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE AND VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE BEFORE HE STARTS WWIII AND GET THE COUNTRY DESTROYED.
He makes me want to vomit!
He is a LIAR and is only look out for his self.
He calls himself a UNITER…PLEASE! Americans are at each others throats thanks to this Monkey! I can’t believe people don’t see what he is doing to America! He is killing it from the inside out!
Things will be A LOT better without him believe me.
And since I am black and hate this fucker you guys will automatically think I am Democratic…
He deserves nothing from the people of America, most people that vote for him are either white, rich, racist, bible thumpers, god fears, older, homphobic, and much much more.
Leave no child behind my ass! The money should be going into shchools, not this little WMD war rampage! I’ve been around the net and I am happy that a lot of use to be Republicans are (for the first time) voting against Republicans!
Not only is Bush pure evil he is a moron.
Sorry Hurin i’ve been away for a while (family troubles). I totally agree with what you said and i couldn’t have put it better. As you implied, only time will tell if Kerry turns out to be the person he claims he is-presumming he is elected. Until then, we (but primarily the people who live in America) should do everything we can to expel Bush and his administration from office.
If it takes petitions, protests, days of action, and so on; so be it. Whether Kerry is elected or Bush is asassinated, it will be a good day for the planet Earth when George Bush is no longer president of the United States!
Almost all of these arguments against George W. Bush are without grounds of support and like one comment says, just liberals out bashing the conservative Bush. What in fact we have is a president who has cared enough about the united States of America to send troops across the globe in order to secure our freedom. The question of whether or not there were WMDs is not something to be blamed entirely on George Bush. Information was given to us from several foreign sources as well as our CIA, and he acted upon it. Also after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN put sanctions on Iraq which the UN failed to uphold, and the dictator was allowed to continue illegal activities. This is why in 1998, President Clinton ordered the bombing of strategic targets inside of Iraq, many inside Baghdad itself. When in 2002 when UN weapons inspectors again went to Iraq, they were still denied access to many areas, but they took this lightly and did not pursue a UN ultimatum to continue their search. This is where the UN went wrong and America went right. The United States then began a procedure giving Saddam several options besides war and stepping down, but yet again, Hussein still would not budge from his hardline position. Perhaps he thought that America’s army would not attack with the bleeding heart liberals protesting the soon-to-be war, and therefore, did not sway in his stance. It was after all these chances that Bush was forced to launch the war into Iraq. I believe Saddam had WMDs and managed to move them to other areas, possibly Syria, before the war started. But one must ask themselves, even if no WMDs turn up, wasnt Saddam himself a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Ask the Kurds of the North or the families of people who dissapeared through the night and were returned in a body bag or not even returned at all. Just look at clips on TV from the days that American forces took Baghdad or the day on which Saddam was captured……you will find yourself looking at thousands of Iraqis celebrating their final freedom from the oppressive regime that they lived under. As my closing statement, do me a favor and ask yourself this question: If you were at constant risk of being killed by a dictator for speaking out against the government, would you want someone to help you? This is very simple, almost everyone of you would be executed by that dictator because what is on this page is arguments against our government. But thankfully we have a free country under which we have the freedom of speech, and this is not a worry to us. But what if?
President Bush may have done one of the single most humane things possible by freeing those people in iraq. What I don’t understand is why many democrats which are pro-humanitarian efforts such as Kosovo, or Somolia, would be so against the President in going in to help these people. Or is it simply the fact that we didn’t have the United Nations backing that makes our presence in Iraq that bad. The United Nations failed to recognize a serious threat to the well being of people in that country. This dictator was mass murdering his own people, many because they belonged to a seperate sect of muslim religion, or if they didn’t agree with his way of ruling, sound familier. Example for those who don’t see the connection, World War 2. If you people believe that Bill Clinton was doing everything right for this country I’d have to say your sadly mistaken on that point. If anything the man was a greater risk to our national security than any other president that I can think of, he’s the only one I’ve ever heard of losing the nuclear launch codes. If you want to read something truly disturbing about our friend FORMER President Bill Clinton I suggest you pick up the Book “Derilection of Duty” by the auther Robert Patterson. Robert Patterson is the man who carried the nuclear football for Former President Clinton. He brings to light some truly distrubing facts about his administration, their actions, and their compromises to national security. Read it before you comment on this statement.
For all of those, the majority it would seem, against President Bush and his actions, I’d like you to answer me this question:
If you could do such a better job, what would you do differently? You don’t like the War in Iraq…what would you do differently? You don’t like his policies…what would you do differently?
You think it’s such an easy thing to do. Let me tell you something, as involved in professional politics, I can tell you that the job of the President is not an easy task. And for those using the argument that he was paid through school and that he’s stupid or whatever, take note that just because you don’t do well in a University does not mean you are stupid or unintelligent. There are thousands of Americans who have not attended a University and are successful
in their own regard.
As far as being inspired by God…is that really such a bad thing? All of our previous Presidents have had some sort of religious faith and applied it to their job. Not to mention that this country was founded on Christian principles and a Christian styled way of life, but allowed room for people’s right to choose. The President has chosen to use his faith in his decisions, and no one should strip him of that. And one final note, when the President was innagurated, he placed his hand on the Bible and accepted the Presidency as Presidents have and will continue to do.