Bush - "War President"

[GALVATRON]

someone as ignorant to the facts of this situation as you are should have their right to vote taken away.

Well then you might want to explain them to me,so I don't vote for the wrong guy,I've noticed most posts trashing Bush contain no fact at all,he wants to cut social programs to cut taxes,he wants to rid the world of terrorism so we can have world peace,I like the guy.

[Guest Guest]

The problem with Bush is that some people absouletly love him and others hate him. There seems to be no middle ground. Bush is POLARIZING. Like he said you are either with me or against me. Bush and Rove visiously attacked McCain both in the 2000 & 2004 primary elections. Bush is an expert at SMASH MOUTH POLITICS but incompetent at everything else.

[Guest Henry K]

Judge Bush on results;

 

9/11 attack

 

doesn't get bin Ladden

 

200,000 troops in middle east

 

a trillion dollars on middle east war

 

has not ended terrorism

 

bungled response to Katrina

 

9 trillion dollar national debt

 

economy tanking

 

$3.00 gas

 

Communist China holds millions of dollars of US debt

 

Smirk

 

What isn't there to love

[Guest Guest]

Your only response to legitimate criticisms of GWB's bungling of Iraq continues to be "Hillary".

 

That is so weak, it's laughable.

 

The only thing laughable is your lame response.

Now......Let's see......

 

Previous Iraqi government toppled and disbanded? Check.

Saddam Hussein, leader of the enemy forces, captured, tried and executed? Check.

Iraqi Army completely crushed and scattered? Check.

New government installed? Check.

Local insurgencies suppressed and co-opted? Check.

Foreign jihadis almost entirely wiped out and on the run? Check.

No serious challenges to existing new government? Check.

Iraqi police and government forces working in cooperation with US forces? Check.

Casualties and deaths of US forces at extremely low levels? Check.

Violence and lawlessness within Iraq not any worse than the violence and lawlessness in many other third-world countries not deemed to be at war? Check.

The rate of killings in Iraq actually lower than the rate in many major cities around the world? Check.

 

The only thing "bungled" is your brain. Your war on Bush has become a quagmire. Time to cut and run, junior.

 

[Guest Guest]

1) hillary did not start this war - bush did

 

2) I have listed the main six lies on here around 25 times so far and yu have seen them.

 

3) look at the list of 935 lies posted recently

 

stop being a fool

 

 

You and your absurd claim to list Bush lies?????????????

Look, last week I listed 4,932 reasons why you are a complete moron and - not to mention -a liar. Perhaps you missed them?

[Guest Guest]

I am not crazy about Clinton's war support, but those people who harp on it do not understand government.

 

Most Democrats were playing the role of "loyal opposition" in the time of crisis. Congress always defers to the president then especially in regards to foreign policy. You also have to remember that the information that Congress acted on was filtered, spun, by the White House. Until they know different, they have to trust the president, of course we now know different.

 

I am worried that Clinton also seems ambivalent about opposition to the administration in terms of Iran. Unfortunately, she has to play "tough guy" as a female and democrat running for President or people will get all over her for being weak.

 

 

 

Here's someone else who "spun":

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

I can't wait to see you call this guy a "liar".

 

[Guest Guest]

Once again you guys continue to make some vague connection with 9/11 and Saddam. There isn't any. That's it. Plain and simple. Saddam fervently disliked Osama and al qaeda and saw them as a bigger threat to his rule than the USA.....obviously.

 

Let me make this very simple as well: no one blames GWB for the actual hurricane. It was the Fed. Gov't response overall that Mike Brown and GWB mishandled.

 

We were of better and faster assistance to the victims of the Christmas Tsunami on the other side of the globe than we were to our own citizens in N.O.

 

 

Your claim that Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as more of a threat than Bush is idiotic. But you already knew that.

Your criticism of Bush's response to Katrina also smacks of Democrat talking points. Why has Mississippi recovered so dramatically when compared to Louisiana? Could it be a competent and non-corrupt Republican state government? And why do you suppose the voters of Louisiana recently elected a Republican governor? Apparently, THEY don't blame Bush.

 

[Guest Guest]

The Bush worshipers want to join with McCain... "We may have to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years".

[Guest Guest]

The Bush worshipers want to join with McCain... "We may have to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years".

 

 

How long have we been in Korea? Germany? KOSOVO??????????????

 

 

No retreat from the War on Terror.

[Guest Guest]

How long have we been in Korea? Germany? KOSOVO??????????????

 

 

No retreat from the War on Terror.

 

 

Again with the analogy of Iraq and Germany.

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Guest Guest]

Again with the analogy of Iraq and Germany.

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

 

Again with a non-response.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Guest Guest]

The only thing laughable is your lame response.

Now......Let's see......

 

Previous Iraqi government toppled and disbanded? Check.

Saddam Hussein, leader of the enemy forces, captured, tried and executed? Check.

Iraqi Army completely crushed and scattered? Check.

New government installed? Check.

Local insurgencies suppressed and co-opted? Check.

Foreign jihadis almost entirely wiped out and on the run? Check.

No serious challenges to existing new government? Check.

Iraqi police and government forces working in cooperation with US forces? Check.

Casualties and deaths of US forces at extremely low levels? Check.

Violence and lawlessness within Iraq not any worse than the violence and lawlessness in many other third-world countries not deemed to be at war? Check.

The rate of killings in Iraq actually lower than the rate in many major cities around the world? Check.

 

The only thing "bungled" is your brain. Your war on Bush has become a quagmire. Time to cut and run, junior.

 

I see you had no defense to my claim that your defense to criticism of GWB is usually "Hillary".

Iraq sounds like ShangriLa the way you describe it. I tend to doubt that it's enough of a paradise that you'll be going there anytime soon.

It sounds to me like we've "won". If that's the case, and it's "Mission Accomplished" why isn't GWB claiming we've won, and why aren't the troops on ships heading back home?

 

So the violence is "not any worse than the violence and lawlessness in many other third-world countries" and "actually lower than the rate in many major cities around the world"? That must mean most major cities around the world are dangerous third world cities.

 

Iraqi police and government forces working in cooperation with US forces? Hmmmmm....I noticed you didn't say that Iraqi Security is able to stand on it's own and keep the peace without US troops. Hell, I can "work in cooperation" with a serial killer. That doesn't make him any safer to be around.

[Guest Henry K]

George Bush is my hero

 

US troops heading home from Iraq - check

 

Close cooperation between Kurds, Sunnis and Shia - check

 

Iraq security forces leading missions - check

 

Iraq water and electricity functioning - check

 

Mosul secured - check

 

Iraq oil paying for rebuilding - check

 

US off budget funding of Iraq ending - check

 

right? we won? right?

[Guest Guest]

I see you had no defense to my claim that your defense to criticism of GWB is usually "Hillary".

Iraq sounds like ShangriLa the way you describe it. I tend to doubt that it's enough of a paradise that you'll be going there anytime soon.

It sounds to me like we've "won". If that's the case, and it's "Mission Accomplished" why isn't GWB claiming we've won, and why aren't the troops on ships heading back home?

 

So the violence is "not any worse than the violence and lawlessness in many other third-world countries" and "actually lower than the rate in many major cities around the world"? That must mean most major cities around the world are dangerous third world cities.

 

Iraqi police and government forces working in cooperation with US forces? Hmmmmm....I noticed you didn't say that Iraqi Security is able to stand on it's own and keep the peace without US troops. Hell, I can "work in cooperation" with a serial killer. That doesn't make him any safer to be around.

 

I see you have your usual load of nothing. I could care less about Hillary......other than quoting her Senate floor speech concerning her YES vote for war. (I love it and re-read it every day!)

Gee, did someone say something about an Iraqi "ShangriLa"????? I have to admit that you are spectatcular at knocking down strawman arguments. Too bad you are deficient in everything else.

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Here's someone else who "spun":

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

I can't wait to see you call this guy a "liar".

 

Well, Clinton did use force, and did diminish the threat. He did not, however, start a war that cost the lives of over 150,000 people and cost 2 trillion dollars.

[Guest Guest]

Well, Clinton did use force, and did diminish the threat. He did not, however, start a war that cost the lives of over 150,000 people and cost 2 trillion dollars.

 

 

Force? You must be kidding! What planet are you living on? Bush did not start this war, Saddam did and the deaths of these so-called 150,000 people are on his head.

 

[Guest Guest]

Force? You must be kidding! What planet are you living on? Bush did not start this war, Saddam did and the deaths of these so-called 150,000 people are on his head.

 

 

Yes, Clinton used force. And how exactly did saddam start this war? even bush says he started it, that is documented so many times it is beyond belief, yet you do not believe Bush himself?

[Guest Karl]

It's crazy to say that Bush started the war.

 

Saddam was an immediate and direct to the United States

 

He had millions of al Qaeda fighters loaded on ships that would land on the shores of the US in a matter of hours.

 

He had multiple reentry warheads on top of ICBM pointed at the US, especially the triple cities.

 

He had gas and germs ready to enter the US water supply.

 

The attack began with the twin towers in NYC which Saddam personally ordered and would have continued without the direct intervention of the best president in our history, after Ronald Reagan.

 

 

[Guest Guest]

I see you had no defense to my claim that your defense to criticism of GWB is usually "Hillary".

Iraq sounds like ShangriLa the way you describe it. I tend to doubt that it's enough of a paradise that you'll be going there anytime soon.

It sounds to me like we've "won". If that's the case, and it's "Mission Accomplished" why isn't GWB claiming we've won, and why aren't the troops on ships heading back home?

 

So the violence is "not any worse than the violence and lawlessness in many other third-world countries" and "actually lower than the rate in many major cities around the world"? That must mean most major cities around the world are dangerous third world cities.

 

Iraqi police and government forces working in cooperation with US forces? Hmmmmm....I noticed you didn't say that Iraqi Security is able to stand on it's own and keep the peace without US troops. Hell, I can "work in cooperation" with a serial killer. That doesn't make him any safer to be around.

 

 

Iraqi Security is not yet able to stand on its own in all areas of Iraq, although the situation has improved immensely.

 

Iraqi National Police Force Continues To Expand

 

Top Iraqi Police officials and Coalition military police gathered at the Camp Fiji training facility Feb. 2 to witness 493 new Iraqi Police officers graduate and perform a demonstration.

"This increase in police force will better the peace for the citizens," said Capt. Mohammad, training commander, Iraqi Police's Forward Unit. "I see only good things in our future."

 

Story by Sgt. Daniel D. Blottenberger, 18th MP Brigade Public Affairs Office.

 

The war is over in the sense that the Korean War is over. It will never actually be over. Although I'd love to see a big announcement from the U.S. government. If Bush said something like "Mission Accomplished" again, he'd be skewered by the traitorous media, and a terrorist would blow up something.

It's better to keep our successes quiet and move on to the next problems.

BTW: why are you hoping for defeat?

 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

It's crazy to say that Bush started the war.

 

Saddam was an immediate and direct to the United States

 

He had millions of al Qaeda fighters loaded on ships that would land on the shores of the US in a matter of hours.

 

He had multiple reentry warheads on top of ICBM pointed at the US, especially the triple cities.

 

He had gas and germs ready to enter the US water supply.

 

The attack began with the twin towers in NYC which Saddam personally ordered and would have continued without the direct intervention of the best president in our history, after Ronald Reagan.

 

 

Again, transparent strawman arguments. You evidently need to draw on fantasy since reality doesn't fit your worldview. Pity.

[Guest Guest]

It's crazy to say that Bush started the war.

 

Saddam was an immediate and direct to the United States

 

He had millions of al Qaeda fighters loaded on ships that would land on the shores of the US in a matter of hours.

 

He had multiple reentry warheads on top of ICBM pointed at the US, especially the triple cities.

 

He had gas and germs ready to enter the US water supply.

 

The attack began with the twin towers in NYC which Saddam personally ordered and would have continued without the direct intervention of the best president in our history, after Ronald Reagan.

 

 

 

You may not remember this, since history for all Libs started yesterday, but after the victory of the 1991 Gulf War, a bipartisan consensus had emerged that Saddam Hussein had to be contained — by both arms and sanctions. Our government wanted to prevent him from using oil revenues to obtain more dangerous weapons, destroying more of his own people, and from attacking or invading yet a fifth nearby country. Few, if any, disagreed.

But after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed. So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President. You see, reality can be much more enlightening than fevered fantasy worlds. You should try it sometime.

 

[Guest Guest]

Yes, Clinton used force. And how exactly did saddam start this war? even bush says he started it, that is documented so many times it is beyond belief, yet you do not believe Bush himself?

 

 

The Iraq war started in 1991 by Saddam invading Kuwait and has never ended. Nothing preventive about picking up where we left off on a just and legal war.

[Guest Guest]

You may not remember this, since history for all Libs started yesterday, but after the victory of the 1991 Gulf War, a bipartisan consensus had emerged that Saddam Hussein had to be contained — by both arms and sanctions. Our government wanted to prevent him from using oil revenues to obtain more dangerous weapons, destroying more of his own people, and from attacking or invading yet a fifth nearby country. Few, if any, disagreed.

But after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed. So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President. You see, reality can be much more enlightening than fevered fantasy worlds. You should try it sometime.

 

 

there are only two realities that are not stated in your post. 1) Iraq was not on the list of state sponsored terrorism - Iran was - syrai was - N Korea was - Sudan was and Afdghanistan was - as well as others. All of them were more of a danger and more of a sponsor of terrorism aand all of them had more connection with alquida. 2) Bush got stong support for this war (even from me) when he lied about saddam attmpting to get yellowcake from niger and that he had a nuke program. When he told us that in the State of the Union Address, he knew it was a lie, and it did push public opinion from not in favor of the war - to very in favor of the war. Fooled me too. I supported it based on this lie (and many other lies) one of the few "liberals" who did. I still support the war in Afghanistan and believe strongly we should increase our troop strength there. I also believe that something (and I do not know exactly what) has to be done in western Pakistan where our true enemy lies, planning against us evry day.

[Guest Guest]

The Iraq war started in 1991 by Saddam invading Kuwait and has never ended. Nothing preventive about picking up where we left off on a just and legal war.

 

so when bush 2 says he started this war, he is wrong? or lying?

[GALVATRON]

I just think it's sad that these so called Americans would use the deaths of innocent civilians just to trash a guy because he is a Republican,because that is what it boils down to,Demos hate Republicans,some smart guy is talking about 150,000 dead,these terrorists want us all dead,and if Bush didn't have the balls to do something about it we might all be dead,but at least we would have 2 trillion dollars to put into social programs,we could help stop AIDS in Africa,or give it to the kids of lazy drunk lowlifes so they can have better health care and go to college,I'd like to know who is going to put my kids through college because I can't seem to save up money for their college funds,meanwhile I see people buying drinks and snacks with a benefit card,getting big tax returns but don't work,because they get to claim a few kids,and you people are complaining about the cost of your freedom,whomever said Bush let 9-11 happen on his watch for the millionth time is the dumbest Demo ever.