Bush is a great President - Page 9 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Jimbo · #**121** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

Yes, Bush is a great president. If you're a comedian with a late night talk show who does a nightly joke monologue.

hairballxavier · #**122** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Could you explain the reasoning you used to come to the conclusion that GWB "fabricated evidence"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gideon

Sure.

All the talk from the administration about ties between Iraq and the terrorists of september 11th (al-Qaida), how Iraq would supply terrorists with WMDs. Terrorist, Iraq, al-qaida. Over and over again. There weren't any ties, it was all bullshit, meant to scare his own countrys citizens to support him in a crusade they would never support if he would have told them the truth. Or take the lies about Iraqs nuclear weapons program, yellow cake from Niger, mushroom cloud and all that.

He made Iraq look like an aggressive and potent enemy to the US, when in reality it was the other way around, Iraq wasn't aggressive and it was impotent.

You should prosecute him for treason.

Are you sure you understand the concept of "evidence"?

I must give you some leeway here because I see now that English is probably not your first language.
But you must realize that George Bush never presented any of that stuff you just spoke of as "evidence" of anything.

And you never did explain your reasoning. You just made a bunch more accusations. You dodged the question.

I kinda figured you would.

Gideon · #**123** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

My reasoning?

He suggested over and over and over again there were ties between Saddam Husseins Iraq and Usama bin Ladens al-Qaida. This was false, as in completely lacking evidence. There where no such ties at all. I don't know if he was ever asked if he had evidence of such ties, but I'm pretty sure he would have said he had. If asked. So my reasoning is that he lied, as in knowingly telling the opposite of the truth.

Is that explanation enough, or do you want to avoid the question with further semantic discussions?

usmc7011 · #**124** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gideon

My reasoning?

He suggested over and over and over again there were ties between Saddam Husseins Iraq and Usama bin Ladens al-Qaida.

This is not true, try again

Quote:

This was false, as in completely lacking evidence. There where no such ties at all. I don't know if he was ever asked if he had evidence of such ties, but I'm pretty sure he would have said he had. If asked. So my reasoning is that he lied, as in knowingly telling the opposite of the truth.

If what you say is true then provide a quote with a link that back up your claims.

Gideon · #**125** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

What is not true about it? Can you be more specifik about what is false.

Gideon · #**126** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

I think you're the one playing games here. You want to discuss the meaning of words instead of the intent of those words. What kind of evidence is it that you want? A written confession from Bush and/or his administration that they lied, or links showing that what they said wasn't the truth? The former doesn't exist, but the latter does.

hairballxavier · #**127** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gideon

My reasoning?

He suggested over and over and over again there were ties between Saddam Husseins Iraq and Usama bin Ladens al-Qaida.

Who told you that crap?

And how would that be relevant in the first place?

Bush never fucking said we were going to invade Iraq simply because there might have been ties between UBL and AQ in the first place. He indicated that it was because Iraq would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

Granted, there may have been some significant ties, the Iraqis say there was, but that is besides the point.

Gideon · #**128** (**permalink**) 02-04-2008

I believe a more interesting question would be who is saying Bush never (not even a few hundred times) suggested there where any ties. Do you have any sources denying he suggested this?

CYDdharta · #**129** (**permalink**) 02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gideon

I believe a more interesting question would be who is saying Bush never (not even a few hundred times) suggested there where any ties. Do you have any sources denying he suggested this?

That’s a pretty stupid question, considering the fact that there were, indeed, ties between Saddam and OBL. Throughout the 90’s they both sought each other out for aid and support, they just never came to an operational understanding. Al Qaeda’s loss of their command and control center in Afghanistan along with the international resolve for the sanctions on Iraq waning, especially amid threats of a new invasion, would have helped them come to an accommodation. Don’t forget, Zarqawi was already in Iraq setting up al Qaeda operations before Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off.

CowboyTed · #**130** (**permalink**) 02-05-2008

Quote:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

This is pretty high tie in of 911 and Iraq... This is propoganda.. This is the state of the union address..

hairballxavier · #**131** (**permalink**) 02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

This is pretty high tie in of 911 and Iraq... This is propoganda..

No it isn't.

Actually that statment insinuates that Iraq was not behind the 911 attacks.

It in no way implies that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks.

Drifter · #**132** (**permalink**) 02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Who told you that crap?

And how would that be relevant in the first place?

Bush never fucking said we were going to invade Iraq simply because there might have been ties between UBL and AQ in the first place. He indicated that it was because Iraq would not comply with the UNSC resolutions.

Why should we go to war to enforce UN resolutions? It seems to me that's the job of the UN.

CYDdharta · #**133** (**permalink**) 02-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

This is pretty high tie in of 911 and Iraq... This is propoganda.. This is the state of the union address..

…this is, misunderstood. The Administration wasn’t talking about an operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda; they said such a relationship was a potential scenario with dire consequences. With Saddam’s increasing belligerence, and realizing he had no way of inflicting significant damage thru conventional warfare; and with thousands of al Qaeda fighters, experts at unconventional warfare, having been forced to flee Afghanistan, that concern certainly had merit.

Jason Marcel · #**134** (**permalink**) 02-06-2008

If you're an oil man, yeah, Bush is a great president.

Steerpike · #**135** (**permalink**) 03-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

Why should we go to war to enforce UN resolutions? It seems to me that's the job of the UN.

This is logically valid.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/white-house/39262-bush-great-president.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
The White House - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum	This thread	Refback	07-12-2007 04:23 PM