Bush Was Right

[cameron_highlander]

For all my fellow President Bush supporters....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o762HKxYMeA

I thought this should go in Radio Chatter, but it seemed kind of political. Mods please move this if it's in the wrong spot.

 

[COBRA-6]

Good find, thanks!

 

[spr. mackinnon]

;DThat made my day! Thanks for posting.

 

[Fry]

THAT IS SO AWESOME! Seriously! I was a Bush supporter from the start.

 

[Blue Max]

Bush was right, too bad they couldn't execute better after they kicked in the door to Iraq.

It opened to door to any detractor pundent, if you pardon the pun.

 

[Britney Spears]

What was he right about? Other than "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

He was right in that we have passed a mile stone in the world where wishing upon a star is not going to cut it in the terrorism/security game.  Somebody had to do something.  Granted, the "git 'er done" style of diplomacy tends to honk some people off, but when you see how self serving many of major countries were in opposing an action in Iraq, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that "they should not have gone".  It's taking too long, if it was worth it will be up for debate for decades and it has crushed him in the polls.  But none the less, Iraq had to be sorted out. 
Yes, there are worse terrorism targets, but look at what a big player in regional instability has been taken out.  I still feel that the end will justify the means in the long run.

 

[couchcommander]

*must... resist.... urge... to... get... involved in.... topic... damn*

For those with short memories (a selection from various Bush speeches circa 2002-2003):

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Wrong

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Wrong

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Wrong

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

Wrong

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Wrong

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Wrong

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power

Wrong

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons

Wrong

We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

Wrong

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Wrong

If you review Bush's speeches leading up to the War in Iraq his main points center on four things. Firstly, and primarily, WMD. These occupy the vast majority of his reasons. He was just plain wrong about this.

Secondly, that Iraq was a threat, and is (in 2003) a threat to middle east stability. Well, he was half right. Iraq was a threat, before sanctions and massive allied bombings.

Third, Iraq sponsors terrorism, including Al-Qaida. Once again, half right. Iraq has not been shown to have any meaningful links to Al-Qaida, but they did sponsor terrorists in Palestine and provide safe haven for others.

Fourth, Saddam Hussein was a bad dude and deserved to be taken down. Well he got this right. Too bad it usually only got 4 sentances out of a 10 minute speech. I find it interesting how this has become "the causes" rallying cry when it occupied such a marginal aspect of the pre-war justification. Don't even get me started on his 2004-2005 attempt to to link 9/11 and Iraq...

/rant on

I don't have a problem with "git 'er done" diplomacy.... however that doesn't make Bush correct in anything that he said (in fact, he was wrong a lot more than he was right). I know the argument that is going to come at me, "Well it doesn't matter, Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical rights abuser. Removing him has bettered the Iraqi people, and brought democracy to the middle east."... yea sure ok fine.... once again... doesn't make Bush right....it doesn't make the Bush administration's pre-war justificatios any better or any more moral... Bush was still wrong... Bush still lied.... Bush still attacked a nation without provocation. If iraq does pull itself together, and the middle east does become utopian democratic society..... Bush was still wrong... Bush still lied...he would just be the luckiest mother fucker in the world IMO.

It's like some guy murdering someone in cold blood on the street, who just happened to be another murderer.... doesn't change the fact that this guy murdered someone in cold blood on the street.

/rant off (ie not meant to offend you zipperhead... unfortunately I can't think of a witty running metaphor right now...)

 

[Britney Spears]

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]He was right in that we have passed a mile stone in the world where wishing upon a star is not going to cut it in the terrorism/security game. [/quote]

Ah, of course. Before Bush, Nobody did ANYTHING about terrorism. But of course before 9/11 no one had ever experienced terrorism either.

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]Granted, the "git 'er done" style of diplomacy tends to honk some people off, [/quote]

Honk some people off? You mean, like triggering <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_global_anti-war_protest>The Largest Protest in Human History?</a> The whole world hates Bush and the US! Osama Bin Laden is a small-time people honking off-er by this standard.

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]but when you see how self serving many of major countries were in opposing an action in Iraq, I don't think you can make the blanket statement that "they should not have gone". [/quote]

What?  ???

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]It's taking too long, if it was worth it will be up for debate for decades and it has crushed him in the polls.  But none the less, Iraq had to be sorted out. [/quote]

Not that it particularly <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/22/bush_says_iraq_pullout_up_to_future_presidents/>concerns Bush</a>.

[quote author=The Boston Globe]President Bush suggested yesterday that US troops might stay in Iraq beyond his presidency, which ends in 2009, saying at a press conference that the issue of removing troops from the country ''will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."[/quote]

[quote author=zipperhead_cop]Yes, there are worse terrorism targets, but look at what a big player in regional instability has been taken out.[/quote]

Yes, the region is SOOOOO much more stable today than it was in 2002.


[quote author=zipperhead_cop] I still feel that the end will justify the means in the long run.[/quote]

How long is this "long run"? The question is entirely academic to me, but it seems to be a rather nagging concern to many Americans who are footing the bill in blood and treasure, and of course, they are the ones who will decide how long the run will be.


[quote author=couchcommander]Well it doesn't matter, Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical rights abuser. Removing him has bettered the Iraqi people, and brought democracy to the middle east.".[/quote]

What democracy?

<a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050624.html>President Welcomes Iraqi Prime Minister Jaafari to the White House.</a>

[quote author=George W. Bush] Thank you very much. Mr. Prime Minister, I am honored to welcome you to the White House. As the leader of Iraq's first democratically elected government in more than 50 years, you are helping to lift your country from decades of fear and oppression.

The Prime Minister is a great Iraqi patriot, he's a friend of liberty, he's a strong partner for peace and freedom. For more than two decades, he served the cause of Iraqi freedom in exile as a fierce opponent of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Today this medical doctor now serves his people as he works to build a new Iraq. [/quote]

But then, <a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-27T191932Z_01_L27605414_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml>Iraq parties demand U.S. cede control.</a>

"The Alliance calls for a rapid restoration of (control of) security matters to the Iraqi government," Jawad al-Maliki, a senior spokesman of the Shi'ite Islamist Alliance and ally of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, told a news conference.

So of course, <a href=http://www.neworleansvfp.org/node/1887>Shiites Say US Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside.</a>

Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

And that was all last week.

I'm having a delightful discussion on a liberal board about whether GW Bush or Andrew Jackson was the worst president of the USA, ever, but I won't burden you good folks with the details. I am interested to know how Bush was "right", and how anyone could still believe this. Of course, I could be wrong.

So go ahead, enlighten me.



Man, I am having a crap day today and by god someone's going to get it

 

[couchcommander]

Man, I am having a crap day today and by god someone's going to get it

Yea same here. Poor zipperhead... I think he picked the wrong day.

 

[a_majoor]

Just so you guys have a memory check, most of what George W Bush said about Iraq pre OIF was also said by Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Tony Blair, Gerhardt Schoeder.....

Oh yeah, those guys are Liberal Democrats, Labour and Social Democratic pols. I guess it really does matter who the messenger is.

 

[Rory]

Britney Spears, did you recently take a world wide vote on how many nations do in fact hate the U.S.? Did you also exact a poll to make sure that everyone on God's green earth despises Americans? Really now think things through a little more before you go onto blanket the world in your statements. I happen to enjoy the company of America on this continent as well as the Bush administration. Apparently so do a few people on Army.ca.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I guess since we don't go screaming and jumping in the streets,....we don't count.

 

[GAP]

It always amazes me how the very same people who live in the comfort and security of the umbrella of the west, seem to think that it's was someone else who created that security blanket.  Criticize the method, the rhetoric, but the end result...not yet

 

[Britney Spears]

Just so you guys have a memory check, most of what George W Bush said about Iraq pre OIF was also said by Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Tony Blair, Gerhardt Schoeder.....

Like what? And why does it matter? I know I would have opposed OIF if Chirac was POTUS.

Britney Spears, did you recently take a world wide vote on how many nations do in fact hate the U.S.? Did you also exact a poll to make sure that everyone on God's green earth despises Americans? Really now think things through a little more before you go onto blanket the world in your statements. I happen to enjoy the company of America on this continent as well as the Bush administration. Apparently so do a few people on Army.ca.

Well good for you sunshine, but you see, YES, people actually DO polls like you said, and guess what, a single google search will turn up:

<a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml>Most Americans hate Bush</a>

<a href=http://www1.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=77491DF3-8EDF-40C8-93E90BAE590BD840> Most people in the world hate Bush, America after 2003</a>

<a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm>Two thirds of world hate Bush, believe he was wrong about Iraq</a>

<a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/28/opinion/polls/main1168408.shtml> American hates Bush in 2005</a>

<a href=http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/opinion/2006/abril/04-04-06.htm> Latin America hates Bush</a>

<a href=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0616-06.htm> 8 out of 11 people in 2003 thought US more dangerous than Syria</a>

<a href=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9193BAAF-1B83-4DE6-A38B-3C9A667BB189.htm> Wolrld REALLY hates Bush</a>

<a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6705821/</a> Europe hates Bush, America.</a>

It beggars the imagination that you could somehow be ignorant of this, with the wealth of information resources at your disposal.So it is not suprising that you enjoy Bush's company. Maybe you can apply for a job at the White House?

It always amazes me how the very same people who live in the comfort and security of the umbrella of the west, seem to think that it's was someone else who created that security blanket.  Criticize the method, the rhetoric, but the end result...not yet

Wha?  ???

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Google search..."hates Clinton".........2 260 000 hits........
                      "hates ice cream"......1 770 000 hits....
                        "hates Britney Spears"...4 000 000  hits....

...next stupid google point?

 

[GAP]

didn't figure you would get it... :

 

[Britney Spears]

I suppose actually doing a search, trying to find a few facts and coming up with an honest answer makes me the "intellectual" around here.

What about my FEELINGS? why doesn't anyone care about MY feelings?

Google search..."hates Clinton".........2 260 000 hits........
                      "hates ice cream"......1 770 000 hits....
                        "hates Britney Spears"...4 000 000  hits....

...next stupid google point?

How do I put this...... Bruce, read the topic title, and try to stay on topic? What exactly are you trying to prove with this? that most of the world hates Clinton? Ice Cream? Would you like to start another thread where we can discuss the results of your search in detail? I'm more than willing to do so with mine.

Thought I'd hone on this comment before I run off to class. The regional instability is the fault of Iraqis, mostly Sunni's, who are incapable of adapting to the new environment of 'freedom' as it were (I know, sounds like good ol' political rhetoric, but thats the best I could describe it), or are afraid of losing power over the majority Kurds and Shia's. The US has handed them freedom and a heck of alot of money on a silver platter, what Iraq does with it is their own fault.

But that's life. Although I guess the US should not have gone in to Iraq, heck, why bother with Afghanistan? Gulf War One was probably a mistake to eh? Phh, and what was with that 'going over' in World War Two? Why does the US just not bugger off and stay on it's own.

What the devil are you talking about? I mean, Bush/Co obviously had a pretty good handle on all of this (socio-economic conditions in Iraq, world support, etc) and were making sound, knowledgable decisions, right?  Were the Germans and Japanese "incapable of adapting to the new enviroment?"

Because they, being the most powerful free nation on earth, has an obligation to do what it can to help oppressed people around the world. As we, and every other western nation, does as well. Britney, your attitude reeks of my school's students who don't mind sitting under the protection offered by the local police department and don't mind letting them to the dirty work...but will attack what they do with a vengence whenever they PERCIEVE something to be slightly wrong. My student union is hiring, would you be interested?

So of course the next time you get your ass kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"

How about you try extending the Xbox attention span a little bit and answer my question? What was Bush RIGHT ABOUT? Give me an example and let's discuss it with facts and concrete evidence, shall we?

didn't figure you would get it... Roll Eyes

Yeah, sorry. I guess the rest of the world isn't quite up on the same existentialist level. Too bad Bush got elected on the platform of being a clueless but lovable dolt. You wouldn't get very far with him. Did you like the band?

 

[Kal]

Britney, your attitude reeks of my school's students who don't mind sitting under the protection offered by the local police department and don't mind letting them to the dirty work...but will attack what they do with a vengence whenever they PERCIEVE something to be slightly wrong.

To those to which the protection is provided have every right and a responsibility to question where that protection comes from and how it is attained.  To not, would be derelict in ones responsibility as a citizen and a voter.  Does the end justify the means if the methods were proven to be unjust?  Is it right to overlook unethical or even questionable behaviour and actions of an individual or group because they also do some good? 

So of course the next time you get your *** kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"

I would really like to see this question answered...

 

[Fry]

Hey B.S.
see even us transplanted 'Mericans have a sense of humor.  I always find it interesting the level of harshness of "intellectuals" like you.  Are you so filled by hate and anger that you cannot see anything good about the world?  Everyone in the World hates the President and the U.S?, I suppose the same could be said about Harp Seal lovers and how all of them hate Canada and Canadians. 

My advice to you is that you expand your horizons, get out more often, relax and read a good book, hope and pray that freedom and love for fellow man reigns because if it doesn't the world is in serious trouble. 

I'm backing S_Baker on this one. B.S, where are you getting this rubbish? We've never experienced terrorism prior to 2003?

Seems you just have it out for President Bush. Also seems to me that you're just another one to buy the bullshyte that Michael Moore dished out in Farenheit 9/11.

Get a grip.