# President George W Bush



## Infanteer (15 Jan 2004)

Just wondering what some of you Bushophobes think of this article.

I like it.  If anything, flying into to have Thanksgiving dinner with the troops Baghdad earned him my respect.

-----

Why the President drives the Bush-haters crazy
Critics can‘t stand a leader who acts on his convictions

Kelly McParland 
National Post 


Thursday, January 15, 2004





Once when I worked in Washington, I had dinner with a Clinton-hater who had some inside intelligence to share.

It seems Hillary Clinton was not only a lesbian who had trysts inside the White House but knowledge of her affairs was being used to blackmail her husband‘s administration into adopting her extremist views. So why wasn‘t I putting any of this in the newspaper?

It was loony, of course, but there was a lot of it around, and it persists among those who fear the former first lady is plotting a comeback via her seat in the Senate. And it seems to have jumped SARS-like from its original carriers to new hosts, who view George W. Bush in no less paranoid terms.

A Toronto newspaper columnist this week compared Mr. Bush to Hitler and living in Canada as akin to dwelling next door to Nazi Germany. Mr. Bush launched a war that cost several thousand lives and overthrew a tyrant who had killed somewhere between one to two million Iraqis. Offer Iraqis a straight choice: Mr. Bush‘s war or the return of Saddam, and it‘s pretty clear which they‘d choose. Yet this is equated with a man who burned millions of people in ovens? Wow.

But hating Mr. Bush is not about having a firm grip on reality, just as hating Bill or Hillary Clinton wasn‘t. Mr. Clinton was a terminally dishonest philanderer who treated the truth as a convenience and had an attitude toward women that sometimes bordered on contempt. Mr. Bush, to his detractors, is a jumped-up little rich kid with squinty eyes who knows little and cares less and doesn‘t appreciate how privileged he‘s been.

At heart, Bush-haters believe he isn‘t worthy of the White House, probably because he‘s not enough like them. In this, they consider themselves superior to most Americans, just as they‘re smarter than the poor deluded Iraqis, most of whom are dumb enough to be glad to see the back of Saddam.

Mr. Clinton, if he‘d been allowed to run again, probably would have won the 2000 election, just as Mr. Bush looks to be in good shape for re-election in November. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll yesterday found two-thirds of Americans think he has "the right personal qualities for the presidency," and attributed his high job approval rating -- 59% -- as a sign of respect.

"It looks as if Bush‘s strength is who he is, more than what he stands for," CNN pollster Keating Holland said.

But what does the public know? Far more useful to Bush-haters was the publication this week of The Price of Loyalty, a book for which former treasury secretary Paul O‘Neill was the main source.

Mr. O‘Neill was a bust as Treasury boss, developing a reputation for running off at the mouth, but evidently feels the administration failed to appreciate his full worth. He paints the President as a bit thick and his closest advisors as ideologues.

At their very first meeting, when Mr. O‘Neill expected a detailed discussion about the job he was taking on, Mr. Bush instead spent his time obsessing about some absent cheeseburgers. He‘d ordered the cheeseburgers but they hadn‘t come. The new President called in Andrew Card, his chief of staff.

"You‘re the chief of staff. You think you‘re up to getting us some cheeseburgers?" he demanded, according to the book.

"Card nodded. No one laughed. He all but raced out of the room."

This is amusing enough. But there are also charges that Mr. Bush was set on invading Iraq well before Sept. 11 gave him an excuse. At the first Bush National Security Council meeting on Jan. 30, 2001, the book says, the President ordered Donald Rumsfeld to "examine our military options" with regard to Iraq.

Mr. O‘Neill is already having second thoughts about some of this. A "red meat frenzy" in the media has distorted his views, he claims. He says he didn‘t really mean Mr. Bush was plotting war in the early days of the administration, when White House policy was just a continuation of Clinton-era hopes for "regime change." He‘s amazed that anyone would think he‘d said otherwise, though his words seem to speak for themselves.

But his criticisms go to the very heart of Bush-hating. Bush-haters think the President flat-out lied about Iraq: about when he made up his mind to invade, and about the likelihood Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Clinton, of course, lied all the time.

"I want to say one thing to the American people," he said on one memorable day. "I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

He added: "I never told anyone to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people."

It was different for Mr. Clinton, though. He didn‘t seem to care whether the words he spoke were true, as long as they had the desired effect. He was a rogue.

Mr. Bush isn‘t a rogue. He gives every impression he believes what he says and tries to act according to his beliefs.

There‘s something about that that drives Bush-haters over the edge. It‘s as though they can‘t accept the notion of a president who follows his convictions and assume he must either be stupid -- a man more interested in cheeseburgers than economic policy -- or dishonest.

And he‘s getting away with it. That‘s what really makes it too much to bear.

kmcparland@nationalpost.com 

© National Post 2004


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (15 Jan 2004)

I think as soon as someone compares anyone to Hitler you can disregard what follows as mindless gibberish. Bush may be alot of things but Hitler he is not. 

A stable middle east is good for everyone involved, however don‘t p*ss down my neck and tell me it‘s raining. If you want to invade Iraq because you don‘t like their leader, or you think he might be some kook who may pose a threat to you then tell me that is why you are invading.

It may not be legal or ethical but at least troops know what they are fighting, killing and dying for. WMD? nope. Directly supporting those who did 9/11? nope. Bad man who needs to be sorted out? OK.

Slainte...


----------



## meni0n (15 Jan 2004)

US invading iraq made the region even more unstable.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (15 Jan 2004)

I think (hope?) that this is a relatively short term effect to be expected. Their first few terms at self government won‘t be any better than the status quo till they get the hang of it. 

We Canadians (and you ‘Mericans too) have been practicing democracy for quite some time yet and we still drop the ball once in a while. It may not even work much to Bush‘s chagrin.  Democracy isn‘t for everyone.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (15 Jan 2004)

Id just like to remind everyone of what happened to armyapp, in regards to the Bush/martin Flaming..etc. I dont want that to happen to this site (even though army.ca isnt bound by the same legalities as armyapps is). Continue the convo with some discretion

Not that anyone is guilty of anything, but just a heads-up


----------



## onecat (15 Jan 2004)

"he was a worm a liar and a cheat...sounds like all career politicians doesn‘t it? "

Thanks S_Baker I think goes for Bush too. Only I would add self rightous, vandictive to that list for Bush. Of course don‘t forget to add Jean to you list, as career politicans who get this friends contacts and waste money... he surely belongs on that list too.


----------



## onecat (16 Jan 2004)

I‘ve also noticed that CF forum is closed.  Not sure why its shut down though.  They are very strict at that site, so I don‘t think it had anything to do with disagreeing with Liberal defense policy or the lack of it.


----------



## Enzo (16 Jan 2004)

The article is biased, but what isn‘t these days. There are no absolutes in the media, politics or life. So don‘t believe everything you read as if it were gospel and enjoy a moment of free thought.

Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2004)

I know it is biased, I was presenting it as an opposing view to what you see in alot of Canadian newspapers.  There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with his administration...its the ad hominem attacks that I find silly.


----------



## Slim (16 Jan 2004)

There is nothing out there that scares people more than a man with conviction who is willing to act on it.


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> [qb] There is nothing out there that scares people more than a man with conviction who is willing to act on it. [/qb]


Wrong!
What scare‘s people more is a man who is willing to act from the PULPIT!

Just as OBL is doing!!

What get‘s me about Dubya was and is his fixation on Iraq.

Texas Family Honour?

Iraq was contained before the Invasion.
Iraq was no threat because of all the sanction‘s as been proven after the fact.

Some have mentioned his Unconventional Weapon‘s research,don‘t you think by now after capturing nearly evry one in the deck of card‘s they would have found them by now from Intel from the interogation‘s that have been conducted or the Bugger‘s who are doing the daily attack‘s would have used them by now just because thier hatred is so great!

It has cost over $100 Billion never mind the $87 Bil. + now.

Why has has not Dubya expended the same energy to find OBL as he has agianst Iraq?
OBL is and will be the bigger threat to the world than Saddam ever was.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (20 Jan 2004)

Remember Bush Family and Bin Laden Family get to split the Iraq oil bonanza. also one needs to remember those weapons of mass distruction etc. if they are so evil why did the USA issue them to their man in, Iraq Sadam Hussein in the first place? They murdered or aided in the murder/removal of his predecessors so that he could use those weapons against US enemies in the middle east, like Iran Syria, and anybody else that has oil. No other reason people, some of you claim to be able to read, then do so! The truth is out there and it is not in comic books, rambo, the terminator or disney. Also you might like to research a bit about the history of the Caspian Basin and it‘s oil reserves, then maybe the larger picture of rampant greed will show itself. Pior to Russia invading Aphganistan, Aphganies under the direction of the CIA were making guerilla war against civilians oil companies in the Caspian blowing up pipelines killing exploration/drilling crews etc, trying to drive them out so that the yanks could take over. Read some kids, you need it! badly!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Jan 2004)

Oh Oh conspiracy theorist alert...


----------



## Franko (21 Jan 2004)

There are no men in black or JTF 2....Wait a second...wrong conspiracy   

We all know the reasons of why dubbyah went in...control of oil. Everyone knows this to be true, he just used the veil of freeing the Iraqi people( a just cause, to a certain extent) as the target reason. The icing on the cake was WMD. Lucky for him they "found" some.

As for the CIA in Afganistan, we all know about the guerilla war going on in the ‘80s with the Mujahadeen and Russians. AS for the conspiracies you speak of tmbluesbflat...please provide a reference for us. Don‘t just spout off without evidence to back up such a claim. You just made some pretty broad topics open to speculation on this forum...please back them up!

Ex-Dragoon, your comment,......BWWWaaahahahaa   

Regards


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jan 2004)

Oh - and tell me what Prime Minister Blair gets out of all of this?

War for oil is sooooo tired.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jan 2004)

It‘s a matter of causality.

Ask yourself, if September 11th would not have occured, do you believe George W Bush would have unilaterally invaded Iraq?


----------



## Jungle (21 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb] Remember Bush Family and Bin Laden Family get to split the Iraq oil bonanza. also one needs to remember those weapons of mass distruction etc. if they are so evil why did the USA issue them to their man in, Iraq Sadam Hussein in the first place? They murdered or aided in the murder/removal of his predecessors so that he could use those weapons against US enemies in the middle east, like Iran Syria, and anybody else that has oil. No other reason people, some of you claim to be able to read, then do so! The truth is out there and it is not in comic books, rambo, the terminator or disney. Also you might like to research a bit about the history of the Caspian Basin and it‘s oil reserves, then maybe the larger picture of rampant greed will show itself. Pior to Russia invading Aphganistan, Aphganies under the direction of the CIA were making guerilla war against civilians oil companies in the Caspian blowing up pipelines killing exploration/drilling crews etc, trying to drive them out so that the yanks could take over. Read some kids, you need it! badly! [/qb]


I just saw a black helicopter fly over the area...


----------



## mattoigta (21 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb]some of you claim to be able to read, then do so! The truth is out there and it is not in comic books, rambo, the terminator or disney. [/qb]


Nor is it in Dude, Where‘s My Country? Stupid White Men, etc



> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb]Aphganistan, Aphganies [/qb]


why are people like you allowed to exist?


----------



## Gryphon (21 Jan 2004)

You want conspiracy?

Supposedly, Saddam was captured months ago..

He had a cactus in his hole, or whatever you want to call it, and it was in bloom..

problem with that is that botanists say that these cactii only bloom in July...

Another thing.. notice that Bush‘s rating falls, and then he finds Saddam??

oh wait.. lemmie guess... come election time, he‘s going to find Osama!

Oh, and the superbowl is also rigged


----------



## jrhume (21 Jan 2004)

Gryphon,

The next thing you‘ll be telling me is that pro wrestling is fake.

   Heh-heh.

Everyone knows going to war for oil is sooooo much more cost effective than just buying it.

LOL


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (21 Jan 2004)

S_Baker,

Why is it that as soon as someone disagrees with what Bush is doing you cry out "Anti-America". 
Can‘t someone just say aloud that "I think he is wrong, or the way he did it is wrong" or ""He‘s just plain batty" without the knee-jerk reaction from south of 49?

Anti-American rhetoric is indeed getting old, at least to my ears. I don‘t really like how he sold it to us, but at least his idealogy is right.
I don‘t buy into the whole world domination bit but he is one of the few western leaders actually doing something that he is claiming to be for the better of us all.


----------



## Gryphon (21 Jan 2004)

S_Baker...

Putting your Republican biases aside, who do you think would be more fit to run the USA...

George Bush or John Kerry???


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Jan 2004)

I‘ve disputed some statements, but never really stated what I think. Honestly, I think Bush and Blair acted in good faith, based on the intelligence that they were presented. Now, it seems that intelligence was flawed. Whether it was flawed on purpose or not, I don‘t know.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jan 2004)

Well, here is something to go with your tin-foil hats kids... George W Bush Conspiracy Generator


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (21 Jan 2004)

muskrat89,

After reading that last post of yours it made me wonder how easy it is to manipulate foreign policy through the Prez by his Snr staff. Kinda like the tail wagging the dog? Just put the puppet behind the podium, insert hand up *** and be a good ventriloquist.

Come to think of it I‘ve never seen Condoleeza Rice drink water while George is talking, eh!


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jan 2004)

Check out some of the video‘s here.

Brain Terminal 

It seems the far-right doesn‘t have a complete monopoly in lala-land.  Isn‘t it odd that if your a political radical, picking on the Jews is a primary concern.

Unfortunaltly, these sheep are often seen as "progressive" by society.  To bad none of them have the cajones to really stand up for what they believe in....


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jan 2004)

PS...

Ever wonder what protesters REALLY feel?

I always felt that if you weren‘t part of the solution, you were part of the problem.

Protester Interviews


----------



## mattoigta (21 Jan 2004)

SO you dont think bush will be re-elected?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jan 2004)

S Baker. Take heart in knowing almost all Canadians are actually like myself and support the U.S. almost 100%. But like in most debates the happy, normal people dont say a whole lot so it seems lopsided. Just remember for the most part I would‘nt waste my limited typing skills on some of the nutbar types and maybe thats wrong but you can‘t argue politics and stuff with people who remain hidden behind fake names. {exeption for those who must]     CHEERS


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jan 2004)

_Infanteer‘s Left-Wing Idiot Quote of The Week_

(Taken From one of the video‘s above)


"Geez, things were pretty good under Clinton...what happened in the last three years?!?"


----------



## mattoigta (21 Jan 2004)

those videos were gold


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (21 Jan 2004)

I think that poster who said I‘m tired of getting bullied was talking about himself personally at his school.

Can someone explain to me what "Dozens of WMD related program activities" means?


----------



## winchable (21 Jan 2004)

PAdraig did you also just watch "The Daily Show"
?


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

Well, it gets exasparating - someone asking how many wrist curls they have to do to pass a PT test, or discussing the latest "cool" way to lace up combat boots in one thread - suddenly has a political science degree in another thread. And how that same person, not even living in a country- can sum up all the complexities of that country‘s politics in a few bold, broad statements. Meanwhile, pundits/experts/analysts who have spent their lives studying this stuff make whole careers of trying to figure it out. Amazing.

Not saying people can‘t form opinions - what I question is how they form those opinions, and how they can be so sure of themselves. There are some people here who have made perfectly reasonable anti-Bush, or anti-US statements, and you can tell they have put some thought into it, or have some real world insights into what they are talking about. With those people, I have no quarrel.

I don‘t like haughty armchair generals - be it politics, football, military life, or whatever. It sounds ridiculous.


----------



## karpovage (22 Jan 2004)

Alright, lemme jump in. I went out with a new buddy of mine last night and after a few cold ones we, of course talked Bush (Pres, that is). I found out he was completely Anti-Bush and a left -wing liberal opposed to our actions in Iraq. His main reason was that by Bush putting the UN on notice that it had better act after 12 years of failed negotiations and sanctions was that we burned our international bridges with certain countries, ie France, Germany, Canada, etc. The fact that we now look bad or act as a "bully" to others in the international community. The fact that we acted pre-emptively, the fact that we said we are coming in to take care of business on our own for our own defense of national interests instead of forming the big international coalition is what made him anti-bush. His thinking is fine. That‘s his viewpoint but my comeback and the Bush Administration‘s was that the UN is impotent and corrupt. And my President said it best in his recent speech. "We don‘t need a Permission Slip to act in defense of our security." I take pride that my president acted like a cowboy. I am completely fine with that because cowboys who stand up and take a stand, that back their words with actions, in my book is a role model and a true leader. My Commander-in-Chief has my survival interests at heart as opposed to the selfish, anti-military buffoon that preceeded him. I liked Clinton at first but after his actions or lack of actions and selective memory after Oct. 3-4, 1993 in Somalia, I lost all respect for him as a leader. Then when he soiled the Office of the Presidency and almost got himself impeached while launching a half-hearted attempt at Al Queda via cruise missiles to take the press off of him that‘s when I wanted to see his downfall. Because, in both cases he acted selfishly. One, by balking at his own political fallout of Ranger body bags and Two, lying to the American people while under oath. Now, I am liberal on social issues but very conservative when it comes to defense and the military. I am also very scared of the far right religious coalition in the Republican Party but it‘s something I have to live with if I want my taxes lowered. So, I guess that‘s my opinion. 

Oh, and by the way, OIL is a national interest. OIL is the blood that runs through our industrial veins. Deal with it. It drives the global economy. If one dictator can control the taps and thus manipulate the economic power of the world then it is a national interest. In fact, the Carter Doctrine (Jimmy - Democrat) stated that was the reason for escorting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf back in the late 70‘s during the oil crunch. But no, a Republican uses the same thesis and is considered a "Bully". Oh well.


----------



## jutes85 (22 Jan 2004)

> Remember Bush Family and Bin Laden Family get to split the Iraq oil bonanza. also one needs to remember those weapons of mass distruction etc. if they are so evil why did the USA issue them to their man in, Iraq Sadam Hussein in the first place? They murdered or aided in the murder/removal of his predecessors so that he could use those weapons against US enemies in the middle east, like Iran Syria, and anybody else that has oil. No other reason people, some of you claim to be able to read, then do so! The truth is out there and it is not in comic books, rambo, the terminator or disney. Also you might like to research a bit about the history of the Caspian Basin and it‘s oil reserves, then maybe the larger picture of rampant greed will show itself. Pior to Russia invading Aphganistan, Aphganies under the direction of the CIA were making guerilla war against civilians oil companies in the Caspian blowing up pipelines killing exploration/drilling crews etc, trying to drive them out so that the yanks could take over. Read some kids, you need it! badly!


Hehehe, this made my day.      :blotto:  He does live in Surry remember.


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

I think Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents the US has had recently, he was an educated scholar, a very rational man with enormous insight in politics and the economy, you people don‘t appreciate how prosperous the US was under Clintons reign. Don‘t you remember the huge economic boom that lasted from 1992 till 2000. I lived in Europe during his presidency and remember that the US was loved and admired in all countries. And most importantly - Clinton was respected abroad, unlike his succesor who is made fun of everywhere. The situation has dramatically changed since the fake president form Texas took over. Nothing good ever came out of Texas, well maybe Texas Instruments - I buy their electronic equipment. And I don‘t understand why Clintons critics keep recalling the incident with Monica Lewinsky? So the guy liked women... I think that is less sinister than destabilizaing the Middle East. Oh, and by the way - I am NOT anti-American. I love the US, its the greatest nation in the world. I am against the current administration as I believe it is a threat to the american people. You could probably say that all the states besides Texas are currently anti-american. After 9/11 you would think that the administration would do something to ease anti-american sentiments in the muslim world, like.... maybe solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It really isn‘t that hard. You would just have to get rid of those Zionist Lobby groups that prevent peace in the Middle East. But no. Wolfowitz ordered Bush to invade Iraq. Now every child in the muslim world is dreaming of becoming a freedom fighter and killing as many americans before themselves being killed as martyrs. Now the US has 2 options: #1 - Get rid of the Jewish Neoconservative group that is currently in power and cut the bullshit about "fighting terrorists", #2 or massacre all of the muslim population age 7 and up, to finally defeat the "terrorist" threat.
And I don‘t want to hear another post saying that I am an anti-semitic ****hole from Surrey B.C. full of conspiracy bull****. It is unfortunately true, all intellectuals believe so.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

More on your hero, FUBAR

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08,1964, accepting all contractual conditions of
registering for the draft.Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.

Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.

Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.

Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not
inducted into the military..

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes.

Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of
enlistment.

Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.

Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report....remain liable for induction".

Bill Clinton‘s birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction is INELIGIBLE!

Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a
fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40.

Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General
(1976), while a fugitive from justice. Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from
Carter.

Bill Clinton (FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON) ever to serve as President.

All these facts come from Freedom of Information
requests, public laws, and various books that have
been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton..


After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which
killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton
promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. "geez - I thought the mideast was fine, when Clinton had the reigns?"

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa,which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

AN INTERESTING QUESTION: This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?


I think I‘m going to recruit every American I can find, that‘s ever heard of Canada, to join this site and pontificate about Canadian politics, idealogies, and policies... and watch how you guys react  lol "Who the heck are you to say that?? You‘ve never lived here!" "You arrogant &^%$^&&&&*s !"


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Muskrat89 can you sum up George W. Bush‘s biography before his illegal presidency in the same way that you did to Clinton above. Maybe we can compare them later. OK?


----------



## Danjanou (22 Jan 2004)

> all intellectuals believe so.


Fubar are you implying that all intellectuals feel Bill Clinton was a great president?

Well I‘ve got a news flash for ya there bud. I‘m an intellectual and I feel ole slick willy was a walking disaster.

In addition to the points muskrat posted lets look at a few others.

You ever hear tell of something called Whitewater?
If not might I suggest a quick google search. I think you might find it enlightening. Hint nothing to do with extreme sports.

As to the whole Monica thing. As you so eloquently pointed out he liked woman so what. I couldn‘t agree more. I‘ll even give him one for cheating on his wife. Hey if I was married to Hilary I probably would have thought about it too.

The fact is he lied about it. I don‘t care if it was lying about playing hide the Cohiba, or lying about shady real estate deals and creative book keeping, or even how many Big Macs he scarfed for breaky.

The fact is the man lied, and really didn‘t see anything wrong with it. To me that speaks of lack of morale fibre and that‘s really something I would prefer not to see in world leaders especially those with their finger on the button.

The man should have grown a set of cojones and come straight out and said from day one. "Yes I had sex with Monica (and others), look at my wife, you would have too if you were married to that. Oh yeah and by the way I inhaled too." 

That I could have respected.

We won‘t even get into missing codes, and White House sleepovers.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

> Muskrat89 can you sum up George W. Bush‘s biography before his illegal presidency in the same way that you did to Clinton above. Maybe we can compare them later. OK?


That‘s funny. Not sure he ever lied about his shenanigans. Under oath. Who are you to proclaim to know more about another country‘s laws, more than their Supreme Court? Of course, maybe those justices were not "intellectual" enough.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jan 2004)

I quote directly...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

Yeah, alot of moral fiber there.  FUBAR, your out to lunch.


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Danjanou, how could an intellectual be supportive of President Bush? That is almost as rare as a gay black Republican.
I can tell you‘ve got no strong arguments against Bill because you‘re once again pointing out the Lewnisky story and his troubled student years. Come, name at least 1 thing that pres. Bush did that will actually benefit the US in future years.


----------



## karpovage (22 Jan 2004)

FUBAR, **** you are FUBAR. And definitely beyond repair. 

Here‘s why I like cowboys:

1. They were never looking for trouble.

2. But when trouble came, they faced it with courage.

3. They were always on the side of right.

4. They defended good people against bad people.

5. They had high morals.

6. They had good manners.

7. They were honest.

8. They spoke their minds and they spoke the truth,regardless of what people thought or "political correctness,"which no one had ever heard of back then.

9. They were a beacon of integrity in the wild, wild West.

10. They were respected. When they walked into a saloon (where they usually drank only sarsaparilla), the place became quiet, and the bad guys kept their distance.

11. If in a gunfight, they could outdraw anyone. If in a fist fight, they could beat up anyone.

12. They always won. They always got their man - Saddam the Rat. In victory, they rode off into the sunset.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Jan 2004)

Fubar, where in my post did I say I was supportive of Bush? 

I said I was against Clinton. Where does that automatically become support for George W? The two are not mutually supportive. My opinions on Bush pro or con were not asked implied otherwise so I didn‘t offer them. Don‘t put words in my mouth.

Re slick willy, yes I did bring up the Monica bit Again, but as I pointed out his actions re the denial are what I have issues with, not who or what he is shagging. Personally as long as it was an adult and consenting I really don‘t give a flying...

As for his youthful "indiscretions" well we all have to live those and the consequences of them.
Get a criminal record as a teenager for something stupid here in Toronto and it may affect the rest of your life re jobs, educational opportunity, travel etc. Why should that be any different for the former so called leader of the free world.

Sorry you have yet to convince me that the man was anything more than what I feel he was both as a man and as "leader." It will be interesting to see how history judges him, 30-40 years from now.

When I was a kid, JFK was almost a god. Now we know he had feet of clay, almost got us into  a fun game of swap the ICBMs, and in the covet thy neighbours wife role made the Big Mac spokesman from Little Rock look like a rank amateur.,

Nixon who at the time was villified over Watergate, may in turn go down as a great statesman for his attempts at detante with the Soviets and Communist Chinese. (then again maybe not.)


----------



## karpovage (22 Jan 2004)

FUBAR, you do sound a bit anti-semitic in your writings. Muskrat - nice, nice response on Clinton. I too would have looked elsewhere if married to Hillary (my great Senator) - sex is not the point. The fact that THE PRESIDENT (who enforces the law of the land) LIED under oath. My beef about losing respect for him after Somalia was the message he sent to the rest of the world. Kill a few Americans and our resolve buckles - hence the stepped up attacks against my country. Terrorists could then count on little to no repsonse under Clinton, the educated, rational man. And geez, wasn‘t it 1998 that Al Queada actually declared war against my country. Yes they did. They don‘t like us because we support Israel. And why should we support those bad Zionists - hmmm. maybe because the UNITED NATIONS turned Israel into its own nation in 1948 and under the UN all countries are obligated to support them as a sovereign nation, right FUBAR? The Arabs didn‘t think so, so they attacked again and again and year after year. And the great Israel Army and Air Force fought them back each and every time. But now America is evil and my President is evil because we support a nation that has been slaughtered and persecuted all throughout history?! There is black and white in this world. There is right and wrong and targeting innocent civilians to promote your religious beliefs in downright wrong. But to let it go unchecked as Clinton did was even worse. 

Although I am a military author and a publication designer I am also a volunteer firefighter in New York State and you make me sick FUBAR with your idiotic statements that my legitimate President is a threat to my fellow citizens. Tell that to my fellow firefighters who died on 9-11 trying to save innocents from an attack that could have been thwarted years earlier if your Clinton had the balls to act!

One thing W has done to benefit the U.S. in the future is made the bad guys think twice about screwing with us! Ooh, does Gaddafi in Libya ring a bell. Ding! Ding!

Name another thing - hmm, maybe the biggest increase in educational funding for our citizens, how about $15 billion in funding for AIDS research and assistance in Africa, or armed air marshals so ****heads like Mohammed Atta can think about paradise a little sooner before carrying out his mission. 

I think I better stop now.


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Karpovage a few questions for you:
#1. Why does Al Queada want to destroy the US, what is the cause of Anti-americanism in Muslim countries, and not for example anti-German, or anti-british sentiment. 
I will give you a hint - It has something to do with Israel, and powerful individuals of semitic origin within you‘re country.


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Nobody has responded to the last section of my introductary post, let‘s leave Clinton alone. Don‘t you agree that in order to counter the terrorist threat the US would have to exterminate most of the muslim population?


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Check out the latest video commentary on the Presidents State Of The Union:

 http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/browse.php?s=ds


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2004)

No because most of the muslim population are just average joes/janes who want the same thing as everyone. [peace,security,etc.] Its just that these people don‘t sell headlines. Solving the mid-east crisis really would‘nt be that hard? Well smart guy I‘m sure I speak for all most everybody when I say lets hear it.{its like the car wreck thing} Judging by your posts you think jews should disappear and Bush would have to wipe out most of the muslim population. I think your a confused sick little man.


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Sorry, but can you read my posts before commenting. That is not at all what I am saying.


----------



## East Side Soprano (22 Jan 2004)

I‘m beginning to agree with Karpovage more and more. He should come over for a beer one day and shoot the sh!t.   :warstory:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2004)

FUBAR- actually you are a lot like Clinton, you both have all the answers -untill you have to produce them. I reread your posts and I guess i was‘nt intellectual enough to comprehend weasel. Oh well ,my fault. I made a post earlier about my limited typing skills and I guess I will have to invoke what I said there.


----------



## winchable (22 Jan 2004)

Fubar-Please for the sake of this thread, re-think your introductory paragraph, type it out (with paragraphs) collect your thoughts in a sensible manner (with supporting links if at all possible) and relax. 
Perhaps you are trying to point out something extremely important and revolutionary, I have no idea, and perhaps no one else does because your post is a stream of conciousness about things without support.
You will find eventually that the site is a highly respected place for a reason, becuase (to a certain extent) the posts are well thought out and at the very least paragraphed and easy to read(for the rest of us who aren‘t quite intellectual)

Just give it a try for the sake of the thread.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

Let it be noted - Che and I have agreed on something


----------



## koalorka (22 Jan 2004)

Sorry for my chaotic response - just to clear things up, I do not support Bush administration politics, and...that‘s about it.
Cheers.


----------



## Danjanou (22 Jan 2004)

> Sorry for my chaotic response - just to clear things up, I do not support Bush administration politics, and...that‘s about it.
> Cheers.


Gee I‘m glad you cleared that up for there. Kind of hard to tell from your posts.

BTW I‘ve got a friend who‘s gay, black and republican (well Canadian Alliance and Mike Harris Tory, but close enough). He‘s a nice guy. You want me to set you up?


----------



## karpovage (23 Jan 2004)

East Side - next time I‘m up in the Toronto area I‘d love to have a beer - a Canadian beer. Maybe catch a Sabres vs. Leafs game, eh? American beer is too much watered down anyways. No arguement there!

FUBAR, your reasoning on muslim extermination and Jew conspiracy theory is not worthy of my time. Tell you what, Buy one of my books, read it thoroughly and let‘s have a different discussion on Quebec secession. Maybe the reasoning of the terrorist group FLQ and why they went on a murderous rampage. Were there Jews controlling Canada at the time in the 70s?


----------



## koalorka (23 Jan 2004)

Stop bragging that you‘re some kind of a book author. You sure don‘t sound very reasonable, you‘re posts are very similar in nature to a 18 year-olds, who is joining the army after high-school just to kill some arabs, because his uncle knew a person that died in 9-11.


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Jan 2004)

That, gentlemen, is the response of an "intellectual"....


----------



## karpovage (23 Jan 2004)

FUBAR, I AM a book author. I was published in November 2003 after years of writing and research into the subject matter of Quebec Secession. The book is called "Flashpoint Quebec." I have a post under the Canadian Army Author‘s Forum. Please go take a look for more information. I also placed an advertisement in this website that helps pay for your anti-semitism free speech. So, I have nothing to brag about because I AM. Click below my signature for a direct link to my website.

I‘d say the motivation to wipe out the terrorist organization that killed somebody‘s uncle who died in 9-11 is completely justified whether it‘s from an 18-year new recruit or not. Or whether I knew anyone or not. They are still my fellow citizens who were just banging out a days hard work to get by like you or me. It‘s still about defending your country from further attack by going after the enemy that declared war on you and doing it in his own back yard. Seems reasonable, eh? 

I suppose the 18-year old in WWII who joined up to stop Hitler from invading Britain or the 18-year olds that joined up to stop Japanese Imperialism or the 18-year old Jew that joined up to stop the extermination and deportation of his people are wrong as well? 

You are a student and a new military recruit FUBAR, I challenge you to buy my book and enlighten yourself. Although it is fiction it is based IN reality and events that have actually happened and may happen in the future. It directly plays off of politicians like your man CLinton and how they can screw things up for the groundpounders.

I would also suggest, as a student, you major in Military History, especially Israel‘s history of warfare and then you‘ll learn what survival instinct and defending your people mean instead of subscribing to conspiracy theory of Jews ruling the world.

I mean Bill Gates, owner of Microsoft, has the most money in the U.S. so why not go after him. He virtually controls all of the operating systems on our computers. Is that not real power. Oh, he‘s not a Jew. Sorry. He must be okay then.


----------



## koalorka (23 Jan 2004)

I believe what you‘re saying is true and I agree with you that all forms of terror must be suppressed and eliminated, but the Bush crew is going after the wrong people and producing no results in the war against terrorist organizations.

And please stop accusing me of anti-semitism, I have noticed that anyone who raises the issue of powerful jews is labeled anti-semitic. I admire those people because they are very smart and united. Also I do not support any of those far-fetched "Zionist NWO" theories. But these people do have significant influence on the US government (hence billions of dollars in military aid to Isreal).


----------



## karpovage (23 Jan 2004)

I will stop that accusation -that‘s not fair. But please be careful in some of your writings - maybe preview or edit your post before adding it because some of your statements can be construed that way. I agree there is a heavy level of influence/lobbying. In fact that is where much of the corruption of politicians does come from - hence reform after reform. But you know, it‘s always been there. ANyways, good debate even though it got heated these forums are are still a great way to toss ideas back and forth without shots or fists fired. 

Truce Mate.


----------



## koalorka (23 Jan 2004)

Yes quite a "lively" debate. I sincerely apologize for comparing you to an 18-year old army recruit.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jan 2004)

> but the Bush crew is going after the wrong people and producing no results in the war against terrorist organizations


Ok Henry Kissinger, what is the right way to go about eliminating the Anti-Western strain of Islamic militancy.
If you‘ve figured it out, I encourage you to send it to president@whitehouse.gov


----------



## Travis (23 Jan 2004)

Most of the Muslim pop. is just an average joe as said above.  I have many friends from countries such as afghanistan, and pakistan.  The problem is that its corrupt to the core in those places.  With enough money you can controll peoples everyday intakes on society especially foreign society through the one n only.. media.  Theres a huge diff. in how people take "American troops have invaded iraq to oust Saddam Hussien" and " American troops have invaded Iraq ".  Anyways to solve the problem in the middle east.. then wouldnt we need to control the media just as it is here.  Ahh were all victims of society and its ideologies which is controlled by the media.  Personally I think america is the only nation showing a little balls gettin rid of  terrorists....... " One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. "


----------



## jutes85 (23 Jan 2004)

:blotto:    :blotto:


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (24 Jan 2004)

Karpovage,

This murderous rampage you talk about that the criminals went on in Quebec, how many people were killed? One? Five? Where is the whole movement now?


----------



## tmbluesbflat (26 Jan 2004)

non of what I am saying is ANTI American but it is definately anti MULTI-National big business. One chap said that the trouble with the Russians invading Afganistan started in the 80‘s wrong! the Afgans with CIA help began raiding the Russian oil patch 15 years before the Russians invaded Afdganistan. The russians invaded to try and stop the killing of their oilfield woers and their families, by the time they invaded more than twenty thousand civilian casualties had occurred. All of this is in the public domain, CBC just had two programs one of which was Guatamala. All of these so called wars have been by the same people about the same **** thing OIL!


----------



## koalorka (26 Jan 2004)

I agree with tmbluesbflat, as someone mentioned earlier crude oil is a strategic resource for the industry, and without it, our Western civilzation would crumble. This is widely known and accepted, so get over it. You like you‘r GMC Envoy? Well you can afford it only because the US fought for it in 1991 and 2003.


----------



## karpovage (5 Feb 2004)

FUBAR, TM blues. Right on the head. Rightly put about oil. Ya see we agree on something. it is very very troubling that rich elite corporations pull the strings of war in this world. ALways have. Alas, what can a poor boy do? But Oil is just a recent resource worth fighting over. Among other things the Somali warlords in early nineties fought over control of food distribution because it was a RESOURCE that controlled the population. The early North American settlers and explorers fought over control of the trade routes for a RESOURCE called fur or animal skins to supply the demand for fashion in Europe. The Native Americans fought back to keep control of their RESOURCE of hunting grounds that allowed them to survive. The early American colonists, not only fought for independent rule, but also for free trade with other nations of their RESOURCES. 

So, my point is, look at what history tells us and don‘t just criticize oil as the cause of war but the DEPENDENCY on such a resource as the cause. It‘s not hard to imagine a scenario in the near future that war is fought over fresh water supplies. I can hear the anti-war protesters now - "No Blood for Water!"

Some even say there is a conspiracy by oil companies that they buy up the patents, or threaten the inventors of alternative sources of fuel because it will make oil dependency obsolete. Although I haven‘t seen direct evidence for this I tend to agree with this. Afterall, oil conglomerates and their executives don‘t want to lose their cheese do they? 

Padraig, one murder of an innocent is enough of a rampage for me. I‘d say the whole secessionist movement is somberly sleeping now according to polls but that doesn‘t mean old passions are dead. In fact, in my book all it takes is a charasmatic leader to galvanize an entire population into a ultranationalistic frenzy and you can have the movement reawaken. But hey, my book is only fiction, right?


----------



## tmbluesbflat (11 Feb 2004)

You ask me for references of these things, well one would be http:www.granma.cu/ingles, another would be any Bilderberger site and there are dozens. Some of these sites get ridiculed as conspiracy etc. but think for a second,(no need to take a lot of time here)if there was not a lot of truth to them they would be shut down by the courts. The business of the Russians and the Afgans began in the 70‘s with cross border incursions by raiding paries destroying pipelines/refineries etc. thie information was in the newspapers of the day and is still there, as a matter of fact the Washington post ran several indepth articles at that time.


----------



## Enzo (11 Feb 2004)

I just read this entire thread, it‘s exhausting.

To my mind, there are questions about the motivations for invading Iraq. The President is resposible to his people to account for those actions, the reasons provided to date are insufficient. It‘s a matter of evidence, there is a lack of crucial evidence. It continues to be promised as forthcoming. That should be a priority for his administration, but if it doesn‘t surface, then take responsibility and the people will most likely accept that.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/4179618/ 

Not enough information, too much rhetoric. This was a poor attempt at placating the people. As for why he should have to, it is his job.

It‘s all quite simple really.

You may resume the jousting.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (13 Feb 2004)

What most people have trouble with is making for themselves a decision based on fact and truth in situations such as Iraq. Given the degree of veracity emerging from the President and his henchmen, who can blame them?
 This last couple of years is a classic example of "WAG THE DOG" mostly fantasy and bull. By the way, try to rent the movie " WAG THE DOG" if you can get it you will recognize the script, however it is very hard to come by, or was I‘m not certain at this point, but for the last year I have been told that it was "UNAVAILABLE". I wonder why?


----------

