Author Topic: 3 worst Presidents in History...  (Read 22903 times)

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #150 on: November 13, 2008, 03:32:26 PM »
But for the Bush ordered invasion, that kid is not hamburger.

Bush caused the injuries to that child.  Not Hussein.  It was Bush.

Bush has ruined the lives millions of people.  He's killed tens of thousands of innocents without justification.

He's a mass murderer who deserves retribution.

I'm sorry you are so misled.  Iraq may very well flourish in safety and freedom from such atrocity THANKS to Bush but to the ignorant you will only see what you want to. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #151 on: November 14, 2008, 05:40:30 AM »
Decker what is that childs name? How did that happen? did an american soldier do that? or did someone who was trying to kill our soldiers or Iraqis who are working with us?

How did he ruin their lives? What tens of thousands of innocents were killed by Bush and our troops? Last time I checked our soldiers were bieng shot and attacked via mines and IDE and suicide bombers.

When iraqis try to vote for their newly found goverment and are taken out and beaten or threatedned or when the new police for is abducted and killed for trying to work with us to protect thier homes is that Bushes fault as well?
The child's name is fuck you.  The child died as a result of the Bush ordered invasion.

Bush ruinded the Iraqis's lives by ordering their deaths in the illegal invasion and occupation of their sovereign nation.

Our soldiers should not be in Iraq in the first place.

I don't give a shit about voting in Iraq.  It's none of my business...and none of yours either.

How do you feel about the voting in Togo? 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #152 on: November 14, 2008, 05:42:08 AM »
So when decker does it it's ok but when I do it's immature.. ::)

Shut up moron.
It's caLLed '2 can play at that game'...

You brought up the bullshit talking point that Hussein is the same as HItler.  Bullshit.   So I threw it back in your face.

Are you the victim now?

Don't cry.

I apologize.

I just thought you needed some re-education.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #153 on: November 14, 2008, 05:45:19 AM »
I'm sorry you are so misled.  Iraq may very well flourish in safety and freedom from such atrocity THANKS to Bush but to the ignorant you will only see what you want to. 
Bush's illegal invasion killed tens of thousands of innocent people.  It displaced 4 million more.  It destabalized the area permitting a civil war to flourish and ethnic cleansing to thrive.

Now that the ethnic cleansing and displacement of the population are about complete, it's getting Soooooo much better in Iraq.

We only had to butcher them and kick them out of their country to get that peace.

With friends like Bush & Brixton, who needs a hitler like hussein?

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #154 on: November 14, 2008, 06:22:24 AM »
It's caLLed '2 can play at that game'...

You brought up the bullshit talking point that Hussein is the same as HItler.  Bullshit.   So I threw it back in your face.

Are you the victim now?

Don't cry.

I apologize.

I just thought you needed some re-education.

You must have gotten picked on a lot as a child.  You're terrible at trying to hurt someone's feelings.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #155 on: November 14, 2008, 06:25:13 AM »
Bush's illegal invasion killed tens of thousands of innocent people.  It displaced 4 million more.  It destabalized the area permitting a civil war to flourish and ethnic cleansing to thrive.

Now that the ethnic cleansing and displacement of the population are about complete, it's getting Soooooo much better in Iraq.

We only had to butcher them and kick them out of their country to get that peace.

With friends like Bush & Brixton, who needs a hitler like hussein?

Once again you are misled.  You are so obvious about you personal vendetta towards Bush it has clouded your understanding of who is responsible.  I'm done arguing with someone who refuses to see the truth through his own stupidity and hatred.  It is people like you who cause America to remain in ignorance.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #156 on: November 14, 2008, 11:51:24 AM »
You must have gotten picked on a lot as a child.  You're terrible at trying to hurt someone's feelings.
I think you tried that joke before.  It worked about as well then.

Picked on?  Not any more that anyone else.  You'd be surprised what I'm guilty of.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #157 on: November 14, 2008, 11:58:48 AM »
Once again you are misled.  You are so obvious about you personal vendetta towards Bush it has clouded your understanding of who is responsible.  I'm done arguing with someone who refuses to see the truth through his own stupidity and hatred.  It is people like you who cause America to remain in ignorance.
I provided fact-based statements with reasonable conclusions.

You cry like a pussy.  No facts.  No reason.  Just rightwing bullshit talking points and PLENTY OF SECRET INFO THAT REALLY MAKES YOU CORRECT.

Good.  Give up.  Run home.  You never addressed my arguments in a bona fide fashion anyways. 

You waste my time.

But I love you all on these boards equally and at times, I will go the extra mile to help the lost such as yourself.

We can start here:  Tell me why this is not a lie:

October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.”

The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq.  That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours.  Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US. 

Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002.  The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.

Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”

When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him.  Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #158 on: November 14, 2008, 05:24:22 PM »
I provided fact-based statements with reasonable conclusions.

You cry like a pussy.  No facts.  No reason.  Just rightwing bullshit talking points and PLENTY OF SECRET INFO THAT REALLY MAKES YOU CORRECT.

Good.  Give up.  Run home.  You never addressed my arguments in a bona fide fashion anyways. 

You waste my time.

But I love you all on these boards equally and at times, I will go the extra mile to help the lost such as yourself.

We can start here:  Tell me why this is not a lie:

October 7, 2002 Bush addressed the nation and said that Hussein was “a great danger to our nation”, either by using “unmanned aerial vehicles” with “chemical or biological” payloads “for missions targeting the US” or by providing these weapons to a “terrorist groups or individual terrorists to attack us.”

The day after the speech, George Tenet declassified a letter, signed by John McLaughlin, (deputy director of the CIA) which stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the country and would not be unless the US attacked Iraq.  That letter predated Bush’s speech by a matter of hours.  Since the CIA is an agency of the Executive Branch and the director reports only to the president, it is unthinkable that Bush did not know the contents of the letter stating Iraq was no imminent threat to the US. 

Also, the letter simply corroborated the same finding in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA to Bush on 10-1-2002.  The CIA did not consider Hussein an imminent threat.

Bush said, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”

When Bush told the nation on 10-7 that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the country, he was telling millions of Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him.  Bush had his minions repeat lies like these in Congressional Briefings.

I exposed you and you didn't like it.  Your "arguments" were reduced to "Bush is evil... Bush is the devil, etc." and it was pathetic.  It seems as if Bush was not willing to let a growing threat BECOME an imminent threat which even your own failing side agreed with at the time and later came to attack when it became unpopular, nothing more.

I have given facts and supported them.  You have given some facts showing one side but mostly nothing more than unwarranted condemnation and vitriol from someone who obviously is incapable of being within 40 miles of being objective.

The CIA is but one aspect of intel reporting.  This is the same Tenant who helped sell the war in the first place, unfortunately on the subject of WMD's which was only one of MANY reasons to invade.  In addition, you fail to consider the fact that Tenet and/or various members of the CIA might have had personal and less-than-honorable reasons for "declassifying" a letter like that and it's obvious that a lot more needs to come out before you can start saying he didn't support the invasion himself.  Take from someone who knows, the President's actions are not dictated by a singular intelligence agency but are a product of careful planning influenced by the information from many.  But I know you wouldn't know such things being from a school of thought that hates the military, national defense, preserving the safety and security of the US and our allies.

All typical of the wacko left of which you are a shining star of idiocy.

Buffgeek

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
  • I love white women!
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #159 on: November 14, 2008, 05:31:52 PM »
HAY GUYS!

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #160 on: November 14, 2008, 08:38:08 PM »
G

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #161 on: November 17, 2008, 07:31:40 AM »
I exposed you and you didn't like it.  Your "arguments" were reduced to "Bush is evil... Bush is the devil, etc." and it was pathetic.  It seems as if Bush was not willing to let a growing threat BECOME an imminent threat which even your own failing side agreed with at the time and later came to attack when it became unpopular, nothing more.
The only thing you've exposed is your world class inability to debate. 

I see now.  How stupid of me.  Bush was protecting us from Iraq BEFORE it could become an imminent threat.  Well, I do apologize, all the lies now make sense.  He was lying to us for our own goo....wait a moment...?


What's this mean:  It was Bush that first posited the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat: Iraq could “act on any given day”; that “before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed”; “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America.  The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.”;  Iraq constituted “a threat of unique urgency”;  “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes.”  Bush said no less than six times at a press conference on March 6, 2003 that “Saddam is a threat to our Nation” and “Saddam and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.”;  “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”

Wow, it sure looks like he's talking about a pressing and imminent threat, doesn't it?  Let's quantify.  The threat was a threat of WMDs, right?

The WMD inspectors were finding nothing....   So where was this threat?  ...in Hussein's mind?  ...he intended to have weapons someday?

The the two you share something:  you're both living in a fucking fantasy.


Quote
I have given facts and supported them.  You have given some facts showing one side but mostly nothing more than unwarranted condemnation and vitriol from someone who obviously is incapable of being within 40 miles of being objective.
What facts did you give?  Your double secret probation proof that only you are privied to?  That's not proof.  That's more fantasy.

Quote
The CIA is but one aspect of intel reporting.  This is the same Tenant who helped sell the war in the first place, unfortunately on the subject of WMD's which was only one of MANY reasons to invade.  In addition, you fail to consider the fact that Tenet and/or various members of the CIA might have had personal and less-than-honorable reasons for "declassifying" a letter like that and it's obvious that a lot more needs to come out before you can start saying he didn't support the invasion himself.  Take from someone who knows, the President's actions are not dictated by a singular intelligence agency but are a product of careful planning influenced by the information from many.  But I know you wouldn't know such things being from a school of thought that hates the military, national defense, preserving the safety and security of the US and our allies.
It's not Tenant...that's someone that rents an apartment...it's George Tenet.  I don't know what your point is with this paragraph. 

Take it from me, when Bush said that, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”, he meant that he'd be making up his mind whether to invade Iraq  based on the latest intelligence.

Why did Bush tell the nation the exact opposite conclusion (that IRaq was no threat to the US) of the latest intelligence report?

Quote
All typical of the wacko left of which you are a shining star of idiocy.
Do your baseless contortions of argumentation hurt?  You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the indefensible.

Join me on the side of truth, justice and the american way.  Give up your meandering rationalizations.

Alex23

  • Guest
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #162 on: November 17, 2008, 01:21:47 PM »
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm pretty sure lying to congress to get us into a war is pretty illegal.  and yes, he did.  Don't give me that intelligence failure crap either...

Adonis is right.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #163 on: November 17, 2008, 06:11:59 PM »
The only thing you've exposed is your world class inability to debate. 

I see now.  How stupid of me.  Bush was protecting us from Iraq BEFORE it could become an imminent threat.  Well, I do apologize, all the lies now make sense.  He was lying to us for our own goo....wait a moment...?


What's this mean:  It was Bush that first posited the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat: Iraq could “act on any given day”; that “before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed”; “Some ask how urgent this danger is to America.  The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.”;  Iraq constituted “a threat of unique urgency”;  “Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as forty-five minutes.”  Bush said no less than six times at a press conference on March 6, 2003 that “Saddam is a threat to our Nation” and “Saddam and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.”;  “The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”

Wow, it sure looks like he's talking about a pressing and imminent threat, doesn't it?  Let's quantify.  The threat was a threat of WMDs, right?

The WMD inspectors were finding nothing....   So where was this threat?  ...in Hussein's mind?  ...he intended to have weapons someday?

The the two you share something:  you're both living in a fucking fantasy.

What facts did you give?  Your double secret probation proof that only you are privied to?  That's not proof.  That's more fantasy.
It's not Tenant...that's someone that rents an apartment...it's George Tenet.  I don't know what your point is with this paragraph. 

Take it from me, when Bush said that, “I’ll be making up my mind (to invade Iraq) based on the latest intelligence.”, he meant that he'd be making up his mind whether to invade Iraq  based on the latest intelligence.

Why did Bush tell the nation the exact opposite conclusion (that IRaq was no threat to the US) of the latest intelligence report?
Do your baseless contortions of argumentation hurt?  You twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify the indefensible.

Join me on the side of truth, justice and the american way.  Give up your meandering rationalizations.

Bush lied about what, Jackass?!?!  Every other country believed he had stockpiles of WMD's.  Every other intel agency believed he had WMD's.  Democrats in Congress thought the threat was certainly important enough to support the war.  And no surprise that the intel failed after Clinton gutted the intel world meanwhile we have democrats making sure cross talk between our own intel agencies is stifled before it can be disseminated.  But no, in your backwards world it's Bush that is to blame.  That position is just as absurd as "Bush is a mass murderer."

Saddam was a threat to us, but more to our allies and the region in general.  How that problem escaped any "action" on the part of the UN doesn't surprise me. 

Every intelligence agency from US to Britain to Germany to France to .. I could go on forever.. thought Saddam had more WMDs than were found.  Saddam even admitted that after he destroyed or moved the bulk of what he had only a couple months before the invasion he aggressively played smoke and mirrors to make other countries think he did. 

Oh look.. a fact!

He's a politician and he's not going to just read intelligence reports aloud to the country.  The Iraq war wasn't a mistake even though the media has made it seem so for 5 years.

Ooh.. a historical fact!

Violated the UN cease-fire 17 times = NOT in check

Playing shadow games with weapons inspectors for years = NOT in check

Torturing and murdering civilians by the thousands = NOT in check

Sponsoring Terrorism = NOT in check

The point was to keep him from becoming a problem, which he was continually for over 20 years.

Even more facts!! Holy cow!!! ;D

Still counting the insurgents with the civilians I'm sure.  Illegal my foot.

Hmm.. yep, that's a fact too.

Our enemy was communism than radical Islam.  I don't condone human rights abuses but we fight bigger problems first and one at a time.
In fact, your loony side should be jumping for joy we went to Iraq.  American soldiers have died and been wounded (since you hate the military and soldiers are somewhere between dog food and toilet water to you) and a murderous, fascist, torturous, and woman-hating regime has been brought to it's knees (not to mention they were all religious nuts and we all know how you feel about those religious types). ;D

More facts for ya!

Isn't it interesting that, for years, inspectors were randomly denied access and upon returning to the same sites hours/days later were then ALLOWED access?  I think even Decker could figure that one out.

Saddam hides weapons programs:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031003-afps02.htm

See how many times Iraq fails to comply or cooperate:

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

Oh, look at all those facts!!!!

You're right.  It says nothing of "stockpiles." Of course that doesn't matter much since it was obvious weapons programs were being pursued and Saddam continually displayed a pattern of deception.  Saddam fought inspectors every step of the way until he was FORCED to comply.  Even then he attempted to undermine their efforts.  Maybe you never asked yourself what that probably means but the rest of us have. 

More facts..

Once again, the UN is an impotent organization.  Even with all their "efforts" Saddam still managed to destabilize the region and pursue weapons programs and torture and murder his own civilians etc, etc.
Iraqis dies because one element chose to attack US Soldiers in the form of insurgents, another element chose to use the war as a platform to launch civil violence and yet another were innocents in the crossfire.

And more..
It's been an unstable period for the last 5 years but that's to be expected with the transition.  Now that the violence is down 90% and we've pretty much won watch the levels of violence to go down even further.

This is getting repetitive..

Americans weren't going into houses shooting women and children yet Saddam proved to be fully willing to do that.

Bored..

BSaddam caused more of what you see in that picture and would have continued to do so if not for GWB. 

Good job, moron. ;D

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #164 on: November 18, 2008, 07:03:58 AM »
Bush lied about what, Jackass?!?!  Every other country believed he had stockpiles of WMD's.  Every other intel agency believed he had WMD's.  Democrats in Congress thought the threat was certainly important enough to support the war.  And no surprise that the intel failed after Clinton gutted the intel world meanwhile we have democrats making sure cross talk between our own intel agencies is stifled before it can be disseminated.  But no, in your backwards world it's Bush that is to blame.  That position is just as absurd as "Bush is a mass murderer."
The most recent intel—WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq and CIA analysis—both ‘conspired’ against the president’s lies. 

The US’s intel that you rely on was 10 years old.  Welcome to the party.

Are you joking that Bush didn’t lie?  Here’s a refresher course free of charge:

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the guy story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.  http://www.alternet.org/story/16274?page=entire

I got dozens more. 

Now what were you saying about Bush not lying?

Quote
Saddam was a threat to us, but more to our allies and the region in general.  How that problem escaped any "action" on the part of the UN doesn't surprise me. 
No, you pinhead.  The only relevant facts re WMDs were the ones supplied by the world class scientists on the ground in Iraq scouring the country for weapons….not 10 year old intel.
Try again.


Quote
...
Good job, moron. ;D
This is stupid even for you.  Let me get this straight, you claim that the president is not going to read intelligence reports on Iraq…on a country he claims has WMDs that will kill 100s of thousands of American…he’s too busy.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, come back here when you’re sober.


The rest of the crap you posted is just spin that's been debunked for years. 

You post the same debunked crap and expect different results.  I think you know what that means.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #165 on: November 18, 2008, 08:42:46 AM »
Most of those "lies" were simply incorrect information which turned out to be false AFTER THE FACT.  That means that the people telling these "lies" along with most other countries and intel agencies probably believed them until we were on the ground and proved otherwise.  Intel failures don't constitute lies but since Bush is evil I can tell you're incapable of distinguishing the two.  Bush didn't lie.

The problem is taking the word and work of weapons inspectors for granted.  If this set of intel says Iraq is developing or has weapons and is intent on hiding that fact what makes you think Saddam is going to be upfront about it with inspectors?  This is especially true considering his established pattern of deception.  Of course they are going to say they were doing a great job.  Do you really think they are going to say "Well, there really isn't much point in continuing this shadow game since he just denies us access when he wants to and/or moves/hides said weapons/materials so we don't get to them."

This is still only a witch hunt for those who hate Bush.  While the stockpiles and current programs have never developed the lie is that there were no bio/chem weapons Iraq.  And when more classified information is allowed to come out Bush will be completely exonerated.  I'm sure that won't matter to you since it doesn't support your extremist lefty fantasy-land.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html



 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #166 on: November 18, 2008, 10:56:21 AM »
Most of those "lies" were simply incorrect information which turned out to be false AFTER THE FACT.  That means that the people telling these "lies" along with most other countries and intel agencies probably believed them until we were on the ground and proved otherwise.  Intel failures don't constitute lies but since Bush is evil I can tell you're incapable of distinguishing the two.  Bush didn't lie.
Absolutely untrue.  Bush and his people rewrote the CIA intel in a white paper that removed modifying words or made modifiers more heinous to a portray a dangerous Iraq.

Both omissions and statements are lies.  In his national address in Oct. 2002, Bush directly contradicted the CIA's conclusion that Iraq would not attack the US.  He told the US people the direct opposite.

How on earth is that not a lie?

Do you want me to post 50 more utterances of Bush and company lying their asses off or will you admit the truth?

Quote
The problem is taking the word and work of weapons inspectors for granted.  If this set of intel says Iraq is developing or has weapons and is intent on hiding that fact what makes you think Saddam is going to be upfront about it with inspectors?  This is especially true considering his established pattern of deception.  Of course they are going to say they were doing a great job.  Do you really think they are going to say "Well, there really isn't much point in continuing this shadow game since he just denies us access when he wants to and/or moves/hides said weapons/materials so we don't get to them."
The intel you and Bush rely on was 10 years old at the time.  The inspectors were on the ground doing a good job.  Read some of Blix's testimony and statements.  Read about the access the WMD inspectors were ultimately given.

"Iraq has been helpful on process. We distinguish between cooperation on process and cooperation on substance. We have noted repeatedly that access has been given to all sites we've wanted to see and this has been prompt in all cases. Not only not just opening doors but also answering, a lot of explaining etc at sites. The general statement would be that cooperation on process has been good."  --Hans Blix



Quote
This is still only a witch hunt for those who hate Bush.  While the stockpiles and current programs have never developed the lie is that there were no bio/chem weapons Iraq.  And when more classified information is allowed to come out Bush will be completely exonerated.  I'm sure that won't matter to you since it doesn't support your extremist lefty fantasy-land.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Of course I hate Bush.  He needlessly ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Face it.  Hussein had no ability to harm the US.  Even if he had a multitude of chemical and biological weapons, he had no means of delivery.

The real question is why don't you hate Bush as well?

Do you think the killing of all those men, women and kids was necessary b/c of one man's political obstinancy (Hussein's)?

If you answer yes, then our discussion is over.



 

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #167 on: November 18, 2008, 06:38:03 PM »
Absolutely untrue.  Bush and his people rewrote the CIA intel in a white paper that removed modifying words or made modifiers more heinous to a portray a dangerous Iraq.

Both omissions and statements are lies.  In his national address in Oct. 2002, Bush directly contradicted the CIA's conclusion that Iraq would not attack the US.  He told the US people the direct opposite.

How on earth is that not a lie?

Do you want me to post 50 more utterances of Bush and company lying their asses off or will you admit the truth?
The intel you and Bush rely on was 10 years old at the time.  The inspectors were on the ground doing a good job.  Read some of Blix's testimony and statements.  Read about the access the WMD inspectors were ultimately given.

"Iraq has been helpful on process. We distinguish between cooperation on process and cooperation on substance. We have noted repeatedly that access has been given to all sites we've wanted to see and this has been prompt in all cases. Not only not just opening doors but also answering, a lot of explaining etc at sites. The general statement would be that cooperation on process has been good."  --Hans Blix


Of course I hate Bush.  He needlessly ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Face it.  Hussein had no ability to harm the US.  Even if he had a multitude of chemical and biological weapons, he had no means of delivery.

The real question is why don't you hate Bush as well?

Do you think the killing of all those men, women and kids was necessary b/c of one man's political obstinancy (Hussein's)?

If you answer yes, then our discussion is over.

Hussein was a brutal, murderous, torturous dictator.  How you have taken up HIS defense against our President who has done nothing illegal is the question.  All the murder and torture conducted by Saddam somehow makes him better in your eyes than Bush who has done neither?  Even if you argument held water (which it doesn't) they would be equal to you but your opinion goes to show how no level of reason or facts will influence your level of blind ignorance.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #168 on: November 19, 2008, 06:58:39 AM »
Hussein was a brutal, murderous, torturous dictator.  How you have taken up HIS defense against our President who has done nothing illegal is the question.  All the murder and torture conducted by Saddam somehow makes him better in your eyes than Bush who has done neither?  Even if you argument held water (which it doesn't) they would be equal to you but your opinion goes to show how no level of reason or facts will influence your level of blind ignorance.

What?  You're mischaracterizing the issue to score points.  Nobody is defending Hussein.  Discussing facts is not a defense.

Who cares what type of ruler Hussein was?  How does Hussein's style of rule change Bush's criminal cuplability?

He was a shitty tyrant.  Was he engaged in active genocide?  Did he attack us?  Did he attack an ally?  Did he attack our property?  No!  So what exactly gives Bush the authority for a legally justifiable use of force in self-defense?

What?  Bush didn't torture or kill?  Oh boy.  Check your facts again and restate that sentiment properly.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #169 on: November 19, 2008, 04:48:15 PM »
What?  You're mischaracterizing the issue to score points.  Nobody is defending Hussein.  Discussing facts is not a defense.

Who cares what type of ruler Hussein was?  How does Hussein's style of rule change Bush's criminal cuplability?

He was a shitty tyrant.  Was he engaged in active genocide?  Did he attack us?  Did he attack an ally?  Did he attack our property?  No!  So what exactly gives Bush the authority for a legally justifiable use of force in self-defense?

What?  Bush didn't torture or kill?  Oh boy.  Check your facts again and restate that sentiment properly.

No, you're accusing Bush of the very thing he prevented.. more torture and murder from a tyrants regime.  Being a sovereign nation isn't a license to commit atrocities and after the first gulf war failed to teach him a lesson and prevent him from becoming a threat to his neighbors and destabilize the region AGAIN we're supposed to depend on the UN to keep him in check?  Horrible idea. 

I think it's fascinating that you claim Bush is a criminal for violating UN resolutions (which he didn't do) and then completely ignore the repeated violations from Saddam himself.  Furthermore, you can't explain why the UN failed to effectively act and follow through with force when Saddam committed the violations and then why you expect the most powerful nation on earth (and one not committing war crimes or genocide) to recognize the authority of an impotent and corrupt organization?  Dear lord.. not to mention that WE are the bulk of the UN's might to begin with. 

Arnold jr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7247
  • fleshandiron.com
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #170 on: November 20, 2008, 12:35:43 AM »
What cracks me up more then anything is some of you here who say with such authority that Bush lied about this or that, that he had the CIA do this or that, etc. Give me a break, you people speak as if you work in the Bush White House and have security clearance.

On the topic of this thread, Warren G. Harding, he was not one of America's shining moments. The most humorous statistical rumor about Harding, was that there was more alcohol in the White House while he was president then any other time in U.S. history. Why that's funny is because this was during prohibition.

On a more interesting Warren G. Harding note some of you will get a kick out of...Warren G. Harding is my Great, Great, Grandfather.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #171 on: November 20, 2008, 06:55:58 AM »
No, you're accusing Bush of the very thing he prevented.. more torture and murder from a tyrants regime.  Being a sovereign nation isn't a license to commit atrocities and after the first gulf war failed to teach him a lesson and prevent him from becoming a threat to his neighbors and destabilize the region AGAIN we're supposed to depend on the UN to keep him in check?  Horrible idea. 
Bush's crimes and Hussein's crimes are two different things.  It seems every country tortures people--even the USA (under Bush).

There is no legal justification for regime change for its own sake (i.e., just b/c we think it's the right thing to do).  None. 

There is no legal justification for attacking Iraq b/c Bush thought that Hussein had an intent to develop WMDS or attack the US and Israel.

It was Bush, not Hussein, who destabalized the middle east.  It was Bush, not Hussein, that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis these past 5 years.

Quote
I think it's fascinating that you claim Bush is a criminal for violating UN resolutions (which he didn't do) and then completely ignore the repeated violations from Saddam himself.  Furthermore, you can't explain why the UN failed to effectively act and follow through with force when Saddam committed the violations and then why you expect the most powerful nation on earth (and one not committing war crimes or genocide) to recognize the authority of an impotent and corrupt organization?  Dear lord.. not to mention that WE are the bulk of the UN's might to begin with. 
Bush violated 1441 and the US Constitution with the invasion of Iraq:

* United Nations Resolution 1441 (2002), an agreement that the Bush administration helped create, gave the Security Council sole power to punish Iraq for any "material breaches" of the resolution's provisions. Ignoring the Security Council's role, however, President Bush invaded Iraq contrary to the wishes of most of the council's members in clear disregard for the resolution's intent and chapters one, six and seven of the U.N. Charter as well. This means the president failed to abide by several international agreements that were binding upon the U.S. government and its officials.

* Domestically, Mr. Bush violated the U.S. Constitution's Article VI provisions that require its governmental officials, whether elected or appointed, to recognize international agreements the U.S. has ratified as the "supreme law of the land."  http://www.spectacle.org/0804/tripp.html

Bush ignored the UN Security Council.  Bush was bound by international law (1441) to follow the directives of the UN Security Council.  It was Bush that went to the UN and asked it if the US could take the initiative on making Hussein comply with inspections.  Then he violated the same resolution he was supposed to be enforcing.

The US is the bulk of the UN's power.  That's why when Bush broke the law, he undercut the UN.  The US is a founding member state of the UN and Bush damaged the institution.

If the UN is impotent, then that is largely due to the US (Bush's efforts).


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #172 on: November 20, 2008, 06:58:31 AM »
What cracks me up more then anything is some of you here who say with such authority that Bush lied about this or that, that he had the CIA do this or that, etc. Give me a break, you people speak as if you work in the Bush White House and have security clearance.
We have Bush's public statements.  We have the doctored white paper put out by the Bush people.  We have the testimony of dozens of people showing Bush to be a liar.  We have the facts of the WMD inspections.  We have resolution 1441.  We have the Downing Street memo.

What the hell else do you need?

Quote
...
On a more interesting Warren G. Harding note some of you will get a kick out of...Warren G. Harding is my Great, Great, Grandfather.
That figures.

Brixtonbulldog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • TAKE YO FUCKING JACKET WIT YA
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #173 on: November 21, 2008, 06:46:36 AM »
Bush's crimes and Hussein's crimes are two different things.  It seems every country tortures people--even the USA (under Bush).

There is no legal justification for regime change for its own sake (i.e., just b/c we think it's the right thing to do).  None. 

There is no legal justification for attacking Iraq b/c Bush thought that Hussein had an intent to develop WMDS or attack the US and Israel.

It was Bush, not Hussein, who destabalized the middle east.  It was Bush, not Hussein, that killed tens of thousands of Iraqis these past 5 years.
Bush violated 1441 and the US Constitution with the invasion of Iraq:

* United Nations Resolution 1441 (2002), an agreement that the Bush administration helped create, gave the Security Council sole power to punish Iraq for any "material breaches" of the resolution's provisions. Ignoring the Security Council's role, however, President Bush invaded Iraq contrary to the wishes of most of the council's members in clear disregard for the resolution's intent and chapters one, six and seven of the U.N. Charter as well. This means the president failed to abide by several international agreements that were binding upon the U.S. government and its officials.

* Domestically, Mr. Bush violated the U.S. Constitution's Article VI provisions that require its governmental officials, whether elected or appointed, to recognize international agreements the U.S. has ratified as the "supreme law of the land."  http://www.spectacle.org/0804/tripp.html

Bush ignored the UN Security Council.  Bush was bound by international law (1441) to follow the directives of the UN Security Council.  It was Bush that went to the UN and asked it if the US could take the initiative on making Hussein comply with inspections.  Then he violated the same resolution he was supposed to be enforcing.

The US is the bulk of the UN's power.  That's why when Bush broke the law, he undercut the UN.  The US is a founding member state of the UN and Bush damaged the institution.

If the UN is impotent, then that is largely due to the US (Bush's efforts).



Please, our version of "torture" isn't even comparable to Saddams.  And there's plenty of justification.  If dong the "right" thing isn't than you could make the argument that no other US war in the 20th century was justified except that with Japan.  It's nonsense and you only think that way to find as much ammunition against a prez you hate.. nothing more.  You keep blaming Bush because you hate him, not because he is actually responsible for Saddams getting what he had coming.

Like I said, even if you make the argument that Bush did something illegal you can't explain why you didn't support action against some one who did far worse.  Bush made an attempt to go through the UN but I certainly don't blame the man for not recognizing them as having any real authority when they (as usual) refused to back up words with actions.  The UN is corrupt, Bush and the US mil are not.  The UN is impotent, Bush and the US mil are not.  If the US were in charge of the UN that might change but it's leadership has done nothing to show that it has any real power other than what countries "agree" to.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: 3 worst Presidents in History...
« Reply #174 on: November 21, 2008, 07:07:30 AM »
Please, our version of "torture" isn't even comparable to Saddams.  And there's plenty of justification.  If dong the "right" thing isn't than you could make the argument that no other US war in the 20th century was justified except that with Japan.  It's nonsense and you only think that way to find as much ammunition against a prez you hate.. nothing more.  You keep blaming Bush because you hate him, not because he is actually responsible for Saddams getting what he had coming.
I'm not comparing the degree of torture done by Bush or Hussein.  Why are you doing that?  It's evident from WWII that waterboarding is torture and a crime against humanity.  Now you are pretty much saying that that was incorrect b/c the things Hussein did were worse.

I don't see it that way. 

The Germans declared war on the US.  That use of force was valid b/c we had war declared on us.

I blame Bush for the crimes in Iraq b/c, but for his order to invade the country, 100,000 people would be alive today.

That's not a reason of hate.  It's a reason of cold, hard fact.

Quote
Like I said, even if you make the argument that Bush did something illegal you can't explain why you didn't support action against some one who did far worse.  Bush made an attempt to go through the UN but I certainly don't blame the man for not recognizing them as having any real authority when they (as usual) refused to back up words with actions.  The UN is corrupt, Bush and the US mil are not.  The UN is impotent, Bush and the US mil are not.  If the US were in charge of the UN that might change but it's leadership has done nothing to show that it has any real power other than what countries "agree" to.
Hussein was dictator of a sovereign country.  You show me the legal authority for taking down a country's leader just b/c he was brutal.  Why Iraq?  Why not Egypt or Pakistan or any country that has a track record of human rights violations?

What do you mean "refused to back up words with actions?"

1441 was all about WMD inspections.

Were the inspectors in Iraq doing inspections and getting Iraqi cooperation to that end?

Absolutely.

So why did Bush order the attack in spite of Iraq's compliance with 1441?

Wasn't Bush enforcing 1441?  That's why it was drafted.  Bush went to the UN and asked enforce the inspections.