Ok let me first start off by stating I am a middle-grounder and I still have no clue who I am going to vote for. And my friends keep sending stuff like this so I thought I would take it to this forum to be picked apart or proven. I mean obviously some stuff is true but what about the rest? If it is true/false can you help point me in the right direction, with say.....a link or two?

thanks and have at it!

*I attacked and took over 2 countries.

*I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.

*I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).

*I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

*I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
stock market.

*In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I
did).

*After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history.

*I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any
president in US history.

*In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
jobs.

*I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
other president in US history.

*I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a
12-month period.

*I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president,
since the advent of TV.

*I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to intervene when corruption was revealed.

*I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

*I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

*I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history.

*I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
www.contracostatimes.com/...238758.htm (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/6238758.htm)


*Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron
oil tanker named after her for a while.)

*I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
www.aflcio.org/issuespoli...242003.cfm (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/ns01242003.cfm)

*I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any
market in any country in the history of the world.

*I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND
military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the
will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international
community.

*I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security

*I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough
to beat, but I did it!!).

*I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations
remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/...ves-US.htm (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/UN-Removes-US.htm)

*I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

*I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US
history.

*I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World
Court of Law. hnn.us/articles/1465.html (http://hnn.us/articles/1465.html)

*I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default
no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

*I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

*I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations.

*The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of
my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

*I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history.

*I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

*I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a
year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the
biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

*I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the
people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to
world peace and stability.

*I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

*I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than
any other president in US history.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

*All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away
to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

*All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

*All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served
on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

*Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.

* Has mispronounced, misused and has made up more new words than any other president in history.

i.e.:

"This is historic times."—New York, N.Y., April 20, 2004
www.bushcartoon.com/bushisms.html (http://www.bushcartoon.com/bushisms.html)
politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm)

This directly correlates to the above statement:

*I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.

GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, Washington, DC

I think a large number of those statements are undeniably true. Others I would take issue with...for example the taking away of freedoms (I think the incarceration of Japanese Americans by FDR and the suspension of the Habeus Corpus by Lincoln far surpass anything Bush has done so far). Also, I would be suspicious of the statement about dissolving treaties since to my knowledge Bush has only scrapped the one limiting defensive missile systems. Maybe there are more but I sure can't think of them. Certainly the presidents of the 19th century scrapped far more that had been negotiated with the Native Americans than any modern president. As far as being the first US president to order the invasion and occupation of a sovereign country, that is blatantly false since the US has invaded and occupied a number of countries (Japan, Germany, Mexico to name a few) prior to Bush. A few other statements are arguably exaggerations as well (biggest energy energy crisis still goes to Carter in the 70's I think...it affected all 50 states, not just California as an example).

Anyway, a large number of those statements are certainly accurate. The question remains is whether Kerry would do any better or what list you could make up for him if he is elected. the whole thing just underscores my belief that our options this election just plain suck.

*I attacked and took over 2 countries. ~ False, he only took over 1 country but certainly did attack 2

*I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury. ~ I dunno about bankrupted the treasury, but the surplus is gone

*I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!). ~True

*I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period. ~ Not sure on this one

*I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. ~ True, but questionable. This happened during September 11th, so not sure if we can contribute that to Bush. We can however agree that he did ignore that oh-so-controversial memo "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States"

*In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I
did). ~True

*After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history. ~True, see above.

*I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any
president in US history. ~Disputable, he did set the record for the most campaign fund raising trips RECORDED, but that only covers recent history

*In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.~True, but we can also perhaps contribue this to September 11th

*I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
other president in US history. ~True

*I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a
12-month period. ~True, Anthony Carr, Director of "Weichert University" Real Estate training of Weichert Reality was in my office and said it was true ... I'll trust him

*I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president,
since the advent of TV. ~Not sure on this one, probably false if you concider the lack of mainstream television being available the few months after it was developed

*I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to intervene when corruption was revealed. ~True, California

*I cut health care benefits for war veterans. ~Dunno, would be surprising if he did

*I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the
record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. ~True

*I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US
history. ~Not sure, didn't think he disolved too many treaties ...

*I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
www.contracostatimes.com/...238758.htm (http://www.contracostatimes.com/...238758.htm) ~this is pretty relative, not exactly something you can really come to an afirmative answer over

*Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US
history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, had a Chevron
oil tanker named after her for a while.) ~True, but this isn't to say they got rich through working in the government. This can easily be taken out of context

*I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the
Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
www.aflcio.org/issuespoli...242003.cfm (http://www.aflcio.org/issuespoli...242003.cfm) Dunno, but I think this was covered above

*I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any
market in any country in the history of the world. Not sure what stock market fraud they are talking about here, unless this is Enron?

*I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND
military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the
will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international
community. Obviously True

*I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"~True, to a point. He created it, but it should also be noted that before singing its praises (and prior to Sept 11th) he was very much against the creation of the Bureau of Homeland Security"

*I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough
to beat, but I did it!!). ~True

*I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations
remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
www.mindfully.org/Reform/...ves-US.htm (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/...ves-US.htm) ~True

*I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

*I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US
history. ~This is a very interpretive question, calling for Marshall Law is a larger break in checks and balances too I'd imagine

*I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World
Court of Law. hnn.us/articles/1465.html ~True, but the UN isn't necessarily irrelevant

*I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default
no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. ~True

*I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections. ~True

*I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate
campaign donations. ~True

*The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of
my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation). ~True

*I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history. ~Dunno about this

*I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government. ~What the hell does that mean?

*I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a
year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the
biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history). ~Totally a matter of oppinion if it was a failure or not, but the world sure is pissed off

*I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the
people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to
world peace and stability. ~True

*I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts. ~Dunno

*I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than
any other president in US history. ~True, disregarding the whole WW2 thing

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

*All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away
to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

*All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.

*All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served
on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

*Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.

* Has mispronounced, misused and has made up more new words than any other president in history. ~Pretty subjective, but I'd bet its true.

i.e.:

"This is historic times."—New York, N.Y., April 20, 2004
www.bushcartoon.com/bushisms.html (http://www.bushcartoon.com/bushisms.html)
politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

This directly correlates to the above statement:

*I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.

GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House, Washington, DC

Keep in mind that I got a majority of this from friends and colleagues, I'm not exactly a stellar political mind but living where I do and spending 90% of your time with people directly involved with the upcoming campaign you get to hear quite a bit. Of course my roomates are employeed by two of our governments investigative agencies (FBI, DoD) they'd know a bit one would hope.

A lot of these seem completely pointless...

Why do we care if he has the richest cabinet?


So what if he got the most donations, it just means more people want him to win over Kerry.

It really isnt fair to attribute some of the after effects of 9/11 to Bush, sure, he didnt stop it, but he was in office for a few months, and 9/11 was in planning for longer than that, some blame has to land on the shoulders of Clinton.

"So what if he got the most donations, it just means more people want him to win over Kerry." Thats not exactly true. People like you or I may donate $20, $50, $100, $1000 to a campaign ... yes. But the bulk of campaign donations aren't nickle and dime (except for Nader's campaigns) but rather large individuals or corporations that make conciderable donations. The ammount is not related to the number of people that want one to succeed.

Looked up a few of the treaties, Kelraz:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/july01/2001-07-27-bush-treaties-usat.htm
* Abandoned a United Nations draft accord that sets out ways to enforce the 1995 Biological Weapons Convention.
* Became the lone holdout as 178 other nations agreed to implement the 1997 Kyoto treaty to combat global warming.
* Forced changes in a U.N. pact to stem the illegal flow of small arms, from handguns to shoulder-launched rockets. U.S. officials signed on only after blocking two key provisions that would have restricted arms owned by civilians and sold to rebels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1707812.stm
US President George W Bush has officially announced that the US will withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia.

http://www.cfr.org/pub6385/james_m_lindsay_ivo_h_daalder/bush_policies_are_isolating_america.php
The claim that these treaties are not perfect has merit. The Kyoto protocol is badly designed and expensive to implement. The ABM Treaty prevents the United States from protecting itself against the emerging missile threat from countries such as North Korea. The draft inspection protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention will not catch determined cheaters. America's adversaries may try to use the International Criminal Court to harass U.S. citizens. And the nuclear test ban cannot prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But, if these agreements are not the best way to address problems the administration acknowledges are real, what are the alternatives? Here the administration has been strangely silent. On global warming, it has proposed only to conduct more studies. It has failed to say what even the basic elements of a "new security framework" with Russia would look like. It has offered no strategy for catching countries trying to build germ weapons. It has proposed no plan to punish war criminals. And, rather than strengthening the prohibition against nuclear testing, some in the administration actually want to resume testing.

http://www.ciel.org/Announce/FCTC_Bush_12May03.html
We are writing to urge you to instruct your administration not to derail the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)-the first global public health treaty. By demanding to re-open negotiations on its final text, which more than 170 countries agreed to on March 1st, your administration is seriously threatening the adoption of this groundbreaking treaty. A watered-down or delayed FCTC may mean millions more kids addicted to tobacco, tens of millions of additional deaths, and billions more dollars in health care costs.

http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#rogue
1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program),

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

22. Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).

Those were all off the front page of google, I didn't even bother looking at page 2.
Please remember that this is not meant as Bush propagand, nor an endorsement of the web pages political or apolitical messages. It is simply an attempt at compiling an at-a-glance list of which treaties the US has exited during the Bush precidency.

Nice signature :)

"So what if he got the most donations, it just means more people want him to win over Kerry." Thats not exactly true. People like you or I may donate $20, $50, $100, $1000 to a campaign ... yes. But the bulk of campaign donations aren't nickle and dime (except for Nader's campaigns) but rather large individuals or corporations that make conciderable donations. The ammount is not related to the number of people that want one to succeed.


Read up on our fundraising laws.

Ok let me first start off by stating I am a middle-grounder and I still have no clue who I am going to vote for. And my friends keep sending stuff like this so I thought I would take it to this forum to be picked apart or proven. I mean obviously some stuff is true but what about the rest? If it is true/false can you help point me in the right direction, with say.....a link or two?



Troll much??

Kelraz covered most of it very well. A few comments:

*I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market. ~ True, but questionable. This happened during September 11th, so not sure if we can contribute that to Bush. We can however agree that he did ignore that oh-so-controversial memo "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States"

True in raw numbers, almost certainly false with respect to percentage drop.

*After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history. ~True, see above.

Then again, there was Pearl Harbor. This point's pretty debatable.

*I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending
increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough
to beat, but I did it!!). ~True

Again, true in raw numbers. Percentagewise, probably not even close to FDR.

*I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World
Court of Law. hnn.us/articles/1465.html ~True, but the UN isn't necessarily irrelevant

Or maybe it was irrelevant beforehand ;)

*I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than
any other president in US history. ~True, disregarding the whole WW2 thing

I'd say the drafts for Korea and especially Vietnam were greater detriments to freedom than anything Bush has put forth. YMMV.

-Will

Yup, this post nails all or most of Bush's resume. Too bad he will most likely get re-elected. We deserve him as president...because we were stupid enough to allow him to take office in the first place but what were the choices then? Any better than now?

*I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

I am sure many would be very surprised if they were to take the time to research just how poorly Bush has treated veterans and currently serving military personnel via his hand in legislation affecting Defense budgets and military spending. Bush talks a lot about a certain piece of legislation that included body armor for the troops, but he does not tell you everything that was in that legislation.

We may have been spit on and rejected when we came home from Nam, but we did have some decent health care available and resources to utilize; Bush is making sure the troops are welcomed home with parades and open arms, as they should be, and then turns his back on them once the confetti is swept away.



VOTE McCAIN:D

As did Bush senior when many troops came home from desert storm afflicted with various problems from the chemical weapon depot bombings.

Phelonius

conS*ider :( :( and "attribute" not "contribute" sir :(

- Sorry!

I am not from the states, but voting Bush certainly means an agreement on the politics above. For me, outsider, the 2 biggest problem with Bush governement is:
- Iraq
- Kyoto (for not signing the agreement on this environmental issue)

I am not sure the other choice is better. But I really hope that americans wil lvote "No" to what they have seen for 4 years.

You could probably compile as a big a 'shitlist' about pretty much any politician this day and age. Hating Bush is one thing, but if you actually think Kerry is some kind of shining beacon of hope for the future of America then you're so out of touch with reality you really need to be put away before you hurt someone.

Hating Bush is one thing, but if you actually think Kerry is some kind of shining beacon of hope for the future of America then you're so out of touch with reality you really need to be put away before you hurt someone.
But thinking that someone could "imagine" this, isn't it as well being out of touch with reality?

Of two evils, blah blah blah.

As for hating, *shrugs* I guess not liking someone and hating him must be the same. Not with us = against us, once again.

Kick Bush out, shove Kerry to the side and get McCain in there as President and get Colin Powell there as Vice President.

Get some people in there that know the consequences of war first hand and know how to react appropriately.

Hating Bush is one thing, but if you actually think Kerry is some kind of shining beacon of hope for the future of America then you're so out of touch with reality you really need to be put away before you hurt someone.
I'm not confident Kerry will be a great president, I can't even say he will be a good president....but at least he has a shot at not sucking, can't say that for Bush. ;)

...and by the way vice versa on your statement there.:p

McCain/Guiliani '08! :D

There were some inherent problems with the Kyoto accords as I recall. Without having time to research it comes to me that it had US paying huge fines for smaller infractions then some other nations.

Pretty weighted imho..

Fandros

Got a few other answers on the topic, these are not my answers btw, here we go:

Quote:
*I attacked and took over 2 countries.


Is it better to attack countries that deserve to be attacked, or to not ever attack countries?

Quote:
*I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.


The President is not responsible for spending money. The US Treasure is not bankrupt. The surplus would have vanished under Gore’s tax and spending plan also..If the US Treasury went bankrupt, the entire world economy would have already plunged into ruin. A 5 year reading a Dr. Suess book on the economy could tell you that.

Quote:
I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).


Only when you don’t adjust for inflation, which of course invalidates historical comparison.

Quote:
*I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.


President doesn’t control personal bankruptcies. More population + recession = more personal bankruptcies than the last one. How about bankruptcies as a percentage of population, which would be a much more honest statistic?

Quote:
*I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
stock market.


This one is hilarious. When Bush took office, the S&P 500 was around 1,300 (already down from about 1,500), today it’s around 1,100. It got as low as about 800 during the Bush administration. That’s a 15% drop from when he took office with a maximum drop of 39%. During 1929 the market fell 47.9% in two months, during 1906-1907 the market fell 48.5% over 22 months, during 1937-1938 the market fell 49.1% over 12 months, and during 1930-1932 the market fell 86% over 27 months. Hell, in the 70’s we had a 45% drop over 22 moths. On Black Monday back in 1987 the market lost over 20% in one day.

Unless, of course, you’d argue that a 100-point drop in the DOW at 10,000 is comparable to a 100-point drop in the DOW at 400, which would be utterly moronic…

Quote:
*In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I
did).


This statement is simply false.

Madison took 4 consecutive months off 1816. Adams was away from the capital for 7 consecutive months. Jefferson was at Monticello for 3 consecutive months in 1805.

Now, there is an argument out there that he has more days of over the entirety of his presidency and that one holds more water. That is also misleading, however, unless you argue that he isn’t working much of the time he’s away from the White House.

Quote:
*After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided
over the worst security failure in US history.


By what measure was 9/11 the worse security failure in US history? By what timeline did the security failure that lead to 9/11 take place in September?

Quote:
*I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any
president in US history.


Newp, sorry. This one isn’t true either. If you think Bush has taken more in 4 years than Clinton took in 8 you’re just kidding yourself. In any case: Source please.

Quote:
*In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their
jobs.


You forgot the: Due to the recession Clinton handed to him.

Quote:
*I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any
other president in US history.


You mean after he extended them, more than once, for more out of work Americans than any other president in US history?

Quote:
*I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a
12-month period.


As has, according to what limited data I can find, every president since Carter. The rate of home ownership is also at a admirably high level.

Quote:
*I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president,
since the advent of TV.


I can’t find a source here but even if you allow that it may be true, why has Kerry answered press questions even fewer times during the campaign than Bush, if he is to be a preferable alternative?

Quote:
*I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused
to intervene when corruption was revealed.


False. The oil crisis in the 70’s dwarfed anything that happened on Bush’s watch and his administration has certainly prosecuted where possible.

Do you work for the Bush campaign Toggan? That is some of the best spin doctoring I have ever seen.

Phelonius

Sigh, Like I said, those arent my answers.

Phel and Toggan are right...it's all about spin. Make a statement loosley based on fact then spin it for your own political purposes. It's a mire of bad info, false claims, and ridiculous assertions out there...from both sides.

Good Luck wading through the shit!! :)

This board's maturity level of discussion has plummeted dangerously low.

So anyway - Phelonius, in case you missed it, the spin started the second someone decided to author that list. Get a clue.

And for you Kyoto Protocol weenies out there, crying yourself to sleep because we won't sign the fucking thing - Mt. Saint Helens just puffed out a few more tons of toxic gases.

Is that Bush's fault too? Maybe Kerry could hold a summit with other volcanos and sanction it until she stops.

Actually, hate to admit it, but Bush is responsible for a number of things, namely:

a) not signing the Kyoto accord. Honestly, this needs to be done. I LIKE the idea of my kids and their kids being able to breath clean air.
b) violating the Geneva convention (ability to arrest people without providing access to a lawyer or a swift trial?) Nobody, I mean NOBODY is above basic human rights, not even Bush.
c) not partaking in the world court. Can't criticize whats' going on globally if you don't take part. It's like those that bitch about their elected officials but are too cynical to vote. ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
d) removal of the USA from numerous UN committees. Again, USA's choice, but it doesn't look good to the international front.

Again, I'm a conservative politically, regardless of nation. But I think it's only now that GWB realizes the diplomatic errors he's made. If elected again he's got some work to do.

Hopefully when he gets re-elected he will say to himself...

"whoah, I f*cked up..."

Hopefully he won't get the chance to fuck it up worse.

You crack me up Akipt!!

Re-electing Bush is giving him a referendum on his policies, and as someone who can't be re-elected again, what possible incentive would there be for him to rethink what he has done? So far, this president has shown zero evidence so far of being willing to compromise or rethink his positions on the issues listed above, and giving him *positive* reinforcement, even if he is reelected by the narrowest of margins (and you don't get much narrower than the margin he was elected by in 2000) is hardly likely to change that. The man is also a zealot with regards to his positions and *doesn't* think "I've screwed up", but thinks that the above treaty unsignings, the gutting of regulatory agencies, and all the rest, is a good start...

If you like the direction he's taking the country, by all means, vote for him. But don't vote for him expecting him to recant or reverse any of what has been done...

Regards,
Nydia

Ok, I'll bite. But first ...

Again, I'm a conservative politically, regardless of nation.
Bullshiat.

But anyway...

a) not signing the Kyoto accord. Honestly, this needs to be done. I LIKE the idea of my kids and their kids being able to breath clean air.
And this would be solved with the Kyoto Protocol how exactly? Sorry, I was distracted by that puff of smoke coming from Mt. Saint Helens again.

b) violating the Geneva convention (ability to arrest people without providing access to a lawyer or a swift trial?) Nobody, I mean NOBODY is above basic human rights, not even Bush.
Can't violate the Geneva Convention if it doesn't apply. Perhaps if the terrorists gathered themselves into a large convention center somewhere and proclaimed themselves a sovereign nation.... err hell, that would be one hell of a delicious target though. Problem solved!

c) not partaking in the world court. Can't criticize whats' going on globally if you don't take part. It's like those that bitch about their elected officials but are too cynical to vote.
Sovereignty means absolutely nothing to you. Fuck the Constitution and all those who died to give the freedoms granted therein? Fuck the UN and its corruption, and fuck the EU for no other reason than France and Germany are prominent members with no other agenda than to take power away from the U.S. You get that? The US is too powerful in the world. They want it. Do you honestly think that power is going to handled better by your own citizens in this country, or by some corrupt politicians in some far off land raised under Communision or Socialism with no fucking love for you or your God given rights. Some Kyoto Protocol weenie will swoon in orgasmic lust at the thought of this world government you're wanting to start, but I say no way.

d) removal of the USA from numerous UN committees. Again, USA's choice, but it doesn't look good to the international front.
In more detail than my previous rant's point allowed - the UN has the problem, we do not. When Syria, or some other fuck off terrorist supporting-genocide committing country is HEAD OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, you need to wake the fuck up and stop being an embarrassment to the human race. The UN at times is a fucking joke, and it's only use is as a tool to take more power away from the US and put it into the hands of fuck ups like Chirac and Annan who milk the beast for all its worth.

And you people rant "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!" while bowing before the belly of the beast as it sits idly by as millions have their skulls crushed and tyrants suck off the tit of their buy offs.

No fucking thanks.

But don't vote for him expecting him to recant or reverse any of what has been done...You confused Bush for another flip-flopper we all know so well?

Akipt

Ok, from this point on, anything you have to say has 0 value. Your willingness to completely and utterly ignore anything that is going on in the world around you simply proves that you are either:

a) 5 years old

or

b) Retarded

You are an insult to intelligent conservatives EVERYWHERE! Do us all a favor and go back to your hole. I will however leave you with this.....

When you get there, take out a book, yes I said a B-O-O-K (a good magazine will suffice, Hustler doesn't count, nor does Nintendo Power) and read it........on second thought, have your Mommy read it to you. What book? ANY book! It's a start.

Eventually you'll discover that there is an entire world out there. What happens in one part of the world affects us all. Your willingness to completely ignore anything that goes on outside of your backyard will haunt you one of these days.

The USA is a wonderful country, and it's had a great legacy of helping the entire world experience true freedom through the expression of the democratic process. It's helped places like Russia and the other eastern bloc countries (and many, many others) to experience what it is to be true masters of their own fate. It is through organizations like the UN that some of these things are achieved (notice I said SOME, not all).

But in recent years there have been mistakes, BIG mistakes. This is not to say that mistakes haven't been made in the past, but these are just outright blatant. Regardless who made them, the responsibility for these mistakes rests on the Commander in Chief's head, the President. Why? Because that's what he's elected to do.

I'm about as right as you can go without becoming a bloody despot. Unfortunately GWB has crossed that line the moment he took the American CONSTITUTION and threw it out the window. I sincerely hope that the FBI show up on your door step without a word, arrests you without reading you your rights, fly you off to Cuba without seeing a lawyer and keep you there for two years without any contact with family, friends or legal council. Then, maybe THEN you will see how bad these mistakes have been. Ya, I'm calling you a terrorist because I can. Enjoy!

The Kyoto accord, yes that needs to be signed. What happens with Mt St Helen is something I have no control over, but ensuring that MY kids have fresh air in 20 years is something I DO have control over. GWB can't stop a Volcano, but he can help clean up the planet a bit.

But hey, no sweat off my bag. I can still drink my water untreated, breath fresh crisp air with no smog and enjoy nature unmolested where I live. What I worry about is if my family must go elsewhere in the world, will they be able to enjoy the same standard of living. I'm actually more concerned about your air than you are.

Lets see.....

World Court. Funny how the US went from being a strong advocate of the World Court to completely backing out (thanks GWB). This NEEDS to happen and it will happen, with or without you. But I find it hippocritical that a President who talks about wanting justice refuses to recognize a body that was formed to help enforce it. Nobody asking you to disband the USA, just looking to handle things in this court that demand international attention.

The UN. I'd rather have an international body discuss things and work them out then have people like you, akipt (aka Retard), dictate what happens in the world. ALL countries have a right to be heard, whether you agree with their point of view or not. That's what true diplomacy is about.

Are we right? I like to think we are, but I refuse to ram my thoughts down the throats of others without following due course first. I was over there when it all happened, so don't try to fucking tell me any different. I was there when the Arab nations has voted almost 100% (only ones against were Kuwait and Iraq) to support a US led attack on Iraq with a UN charter. I was there when the international community tried to comprimise. I was there when the attacks started and I was there when there was no WMD to be found. I'm glad Saddam is no more, but it stands to fact that GWB fucked up. If he'd only listened to the international community, he could have gotten Saddam without needing the WMD excuse and you'd all be eating french fries instead of freedom fries. NATO would still be all warm and fuzzy and the free world could rest in peace.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE that goes about dictating to other countries what they should and should not do at the end of a rifle barrell and does so without practicing due dilligence is nothing more than a dictator themselves. I don't know about you, but DEMOCRACY to me is about protecting the rights of ALL mankind, regardless of country. Republican or Democrat, that should be what it is about for you too. Obviously you'd just rather point a gun at someones head and tell them what they should think whether they deserve it or not. Kill em first and ask questions later I guess, eh akipt?

Kick GWB out, put him in a uniform and get some decent service out of him. In the meantime, get McCain and Powell in there, or even Bush Sr for that matter and show the world how it's properly done. Bloody Bi Partisan politics, ye guys need more political parties damn it!

/Applaud Binuven


I appreciate seeing your post contained thought-out ideas rather than the same old tired emotional knee-jerk reactions so often given to folks like akipt. While I really doubt it will be read in it's entirety before he mashes the reply button for some more vitriolic platitudes with all the substance of a bomb shelter constructed of legos, it was a nice change to see someone sharing some ideas other than what the local talk radio DJ had to say this morning.

Now to check how many neg reps I get for this one.:p

Proving akipt wrong isn't exactly difficulty,(ok, it's as easy as hitting the ground with a rock), but I must admit, that was a very good job Binuven.

I'm not confident Kerry will be a great president, I can't even say he will be a good president....but at least he has a shot at not sucking, can't say that for Bush. ;)

Just had to repeat that due to how true it is.

Too bad Binuven was almost completely wrong in everything he posted. Just like Kerry -- well spoken (written) but wrong.

Just look at his stance on the Kyoto accord. He doesn't realize that the accord would arguably create more pollution by exempting China and India than the alternatives that have been proposed and supported by the U.S. (which would include China and India). Here's one of many articles describing the flaws in the Kyoto treat: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm Binuven obviously doesn't realize that the Senate unanimously voted to pass a resolution against Kyoto (I don't believe Edwards was a Senator at the time but Kerry was).

His other assertions are equally flawed. Clinton in describing the "World Court" stated "I will not, and do not recommend that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our jurisdictional fundamental concerns are satisfied." Those fundamental concerns (flaws) have still not been satisfied so we continue the same stance. Not quite so funny when you know the truth rather than Binuven's misstatements.

I always thought Binuven was Canadian..is this not true?

I am, and obviously more educated on world matters and how they pertain to the US then some of the persons that post here (looks at akipt).

For shame!

And Furtivus, when you can post a link to a non-bias, international website (hard to find these days), I'll bite. Untill then, go back to sniffing your toes. The Kyoto accord is far from perfect, but it's a start. Every journey starts with not a step, but the will to go in a new direction. Your unwillingness to even try is disheartening. The world court is something that should have been stood up 50 years ago. I find it disturbing how Justice means so many different things for so many different people just because they were born in a different geographical region. Again, this is part of being part of a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y! Try it sometime, you might like it.

It's ignorance like this that REALLY pisses me off. What even pisses me off even more is how people can look at the blatant mistakes that Bush has made and then pick up for him! If anyone else, and I mean ANYONE had done what Bush has done in the last four years, we'd be looking at someone going to jail. It amazes me how you can sit there and type this stuff out. If I fuck up, I at least have the balls to admit it, nobody is perfect and I EXPECT to be raked over the coals for it, it's how you learn. But to actually defend Bush's mistakes is just plain ignorant and weak. If this stuff is acceptable, what's next? Suspension of elections? Hey, what if he wants to stay President forever? I mean, not like the Constitution can't be changed right? Just one example. I dunno, am I the only one that's freaked out by this? I liken Bush Jr to a 3 year old with a loaded M-60 in the middle of a train full of people. If Bush had any testicular fortitude (read NUTS), he'd admit his mistakes, move on and start to repair the damage that he's done to the republican party.

Some of you say Fuck Europe eh? Hehe, the EU grows by the day. There is only so much you can say to someone before they start shutting you out. I won't even get into Asia. Just remember this when you vote, you reap what you sow.

Ah good then your opionion of what the US should do doesnt mean SQUAT (to me).

Lets keep hammering Bush yaya and saying he should be in jail? Ha so tell me then why wasn't Saddam put in jail 10 years ago. What happen man? Oh only people like Bush and Blair can go to jail because some idiot thinks what they did was wrong? But Saddam who killed his own people, attacked his neighbors, was defeated came back to Iraq and killed his own people again wasn't punished "personally"...Fuck your world court.

There is only so much you can say to someone before they start shutting you out. I won't even get into Asia.

Indians, Chinese, and Germans show up montly to do buisness just with in my own work. They want our money. I don't ever suspect they will cut that link. Wishful thinking.

Ibudin

So what I've taken from your post is this.....

Saddam commits attrocities against his fellow countrymen, and eventually it's gotten around to taking him out (believe me, I've had a hard on for killing him for a LONG time). So we can say lock him up and throw away the key, or even better death penalty (least he deserves).

At the same time Bush has committed attrocities against his fellow countrymen (suspension of basic human rights) as well as those of the world community. Again, I sincerely hope that you are taken out of your bed in the middle of the night by "those that shall not be mentioned lest they shall be summoned", and after two years of being denied any contact with your family, friends and legal council on the whim that you MIGHT be a terrorist, that you might, just MIGHT have an idea of what's going on and maybe you will appreciate my argument. Pretty easy to say fuck the world when it's not you who's being injustly incarcerated.

Do something with yourself and see the world outside the US borders. Realize how ineffective saying fuck the World Court is. What happens in the US, in Canada, in Europe, in the Middle East, etc, etc, is felt EVERYWHERE!

I'm not anti American, not even anti Republican, I'm anti Bush. That idiot can only hide under it's umbrella for so long before even his greatest supporters begin to second guess why they supported him in the first place. Unfortunately the Democrats haven't done much better by putting Kerry up as his competition. But at least Kerry can be put on display for the world community and not look like a bored school kid who would rather be back at the oval office picking his nose. Of course, Kerry can also eat snack food without fear of choking too (sorry, couldn't resist). If we could get Kerry's ability to speak with the administration Bush has behind him, I think you'd have one hell of an effective government, more so than what's there now.

There are so many great leaders within the Republican party that could and should do a better job then Bush.

You say you don't give a shit about my opinion, fair enough, that's your opinion. Great being in a Democracy isn't it? Just better hope that Bush doesn't decide that by saying you don't want to listen to Canadians means you're a terrorist or you might find your basic human rights being left on the cutting room floor. Am I crazy for having a problem with this?!?!!!?!?! I dunno, sounds a little fucked to me. I always thought the idea of Democracy was the protect freedom, not destroy it. Is this what they teach you guys in schools these days?

Post deleted due to malicious and racist content. --Thormir

How about this. Saddam invaded Kuwait (a soveriegn nation), citing national security concerns. The US decided his national security concerns were wrong, so we attacked him. Now, the US invaded Iraq (a soveriegn nation) citing nation security concerns. Our own government has determined that our national security concerns were wrong. So now what? Do we attack ourselves? Does some other country have the right to attack us now? The bush administration is the biggest double standard, "do as I say, not as I do" sham group ever.


Phelonius

At the same time Bush has committed attrocities against his fellow countrymen (suspension of basic human rights) as well as those of the world community. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Yes, you are crazy. You compare Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the citizens of Iraq to some imaginery wrong Bush committed against U.S. citizens.

Also, nice of you to conveniently ignore all of the evidence about how the Kyoto treaty is a step in the complete wrong direction and ignore that 100% of the Senate was against it as well.

Saddam invaded Kuwait to take over the country much like Hitler invaded Poland. The U.S. invaded Iraq because, as John Edwards stated, Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Those threats have not been disproven although it's been shown that Bush's view of the threat "gathering" was much more correct than Edwards "imminent" viewpoint.

Iraq was anything but an imminent threat to the US, as the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, has concluded. Members of Congress who've recanted their initial support for the war effort may feel like President Aleksander Kwasniewski (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1069242.htm) of Poland: "They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."

blah blah blah ... Akipt is a retardo. blah blah blah ...

You are an insult to intelligent conservatives EVERYWHERE! Do us all a favor and go back to your hole. I will however leave you with this.....

blah blah blah .. Akipt reads Hustler ... blah blah blah ...

Eventually you'll discover that there is an entire world out there. What happens in one part of the world affects us all. Your willingness to completely ignore anything that goes on outside of your backyard will haunt you one of these days.
You're what, 10 years old? And you have the audacity to say shit like...

I always thought Binuven was Canadian..is this not true?

I am, and obviously more educated on world matters and how they pertain to the US then some of the persons that post here (looks at akipt).
If you ain't a prima donna dumbass in real life, you've made a world class effort at trying to be one here.

You can compare yourself to a despot all you want, but try not to confuse your conservative values with mine from now on, ok blowfish?

Seems people are quick to say that they are conservatives becauses its the cool trend, yet perhaps not understanding completely what its all about. Its possible no one really knows anymore. What seems to be going on here now on this thread is a big " I'm more conservative than you are" penis measuring contest. How lame.

You don't need to be a member of any political party to smell that something is rotten with an administration. But, thats ok. Bush has alot of "conservative" bandwagoneers who will blindly follow anything he does or says and will cover his ass to boot without reservation because he is the cool dude in charge of the popular political cult.

Seroiously, I love some of you people.

Bush has alot of "conservative" bandwagoneers who will blindly follow anything he does or says and will cover his ass to boot without reservation...
I don't know a single person who "blindly" follows what Bush does and says. Just because you don't agree with what Bush has done, doesn't suddenly make him wrong.

"He's wrong, I'm right and everyone else in the world that doesn't agree with me is insane!" haha, funny as hell.

Binuven and others have made this mistake so much it's pathetic really. Just because you think Bush is mentally handicapped because he doesn't AGREE with you, EVERYTHING that you don't agree with him on HAS TO BE HIS MISTAKE.

"That bumbling idiot, look him at him do it again..."

You show your true colors though, when someone points you to an opossing view point's essay or argument and you refuse to even consider it.

Sorry to burst your bubble of unrealistic disconnect, but Bush didn't "throw the Constitution out the door" for the Patriot Act. Passing both houses of Congress with virtually unanimous approval and signed into law for all of our citizens to see was just one more example of our miraculous government in action, as it continues to adapt to events since it was originally ratified. If it's broken, it will be fixed just as it's always been done.

LMAO, akipt the hits just keep on rolling.

Just curious though, what DO you do for a living akipt? Please enlighten us. What makes you the "expert" on US and Foreign Affairs? Before you asked, I was in the area when it all happened (before and during the invasion on Iraq), so I speak from first hand experience.

Oh and by the way, when you quote someone, it's usually a good idea to actually quote what was said. I don't give you enough credit to know how to read nor for that matter to know what the female anatomy even looks like. You? READ Hustler? Man, I'd be surprised if you even knew how to open the damn thing up.

Prima donna. Hmmmm, if actually having been to school and been to the Middle East and actually having a grain of common sense means I'm a Prima Donna, then bring it on. But I'd hate to see what that makes you.....

Just curious though, what DO you do for a living akipt? Please enlighten us. What makes you the "expert" on US and Foreign Affairs?
What the fuck does it matter to you what I've done with my life? I'm not running for any political office, and neither are you - so I won't hold it too much against you for being the complete tool.

What makes you the "expert" on US and Foreign Affairs? Before you asked, I was in the area when it all happened (before and during the invasion on Iraq), so I speak from first hand experience.
I couldn't care less if you are Tariq Aziz.

Kerry went to Vietnam and various other countries, but it sure as hell doesn't mean he's done anything right in the foreign or domestic policy arenas of his career. No, being some place special might mean you have a cool post card, but it sure as hell doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about. Try again chump.

Prima donna. Hmmmm, if actually having been to school and been to the Middle East and actually having a grain of common sense means I'm a Prima Donna, then bring it on. But I'd hate to see what that makes you.....
So now I don't have any common sense. Hell, it's a miracle I make it to work everyday huh? Seriously dude, do the boards a favor and grow up.

Kerry went to Vietnam and various other countries, but it sure as hell doesn't mean he's done anything right in the foreign or domestic policy arenas of his career
And Bush has? Go back to the first post of this thread.

Binuven, please discuss the topic at hand, arguments for and against, and all that. You can flame akipt in the Sandbox or in PMs if you want; you're going astray here. I expect akipt to follow suit. Thank you.

wow, this has turned into one hell of a flame war :(

Fair enough Thormir, my apologies. Sometimes the blood can boil, ye know? I'm of Maltese descent hehe, our being argumentative is genetic. :p

Anyhow, akipt my apologies for straying from the topic at at hand. Ye baited me, and I took it.

Yer still wrong though :devil

Yer still wrong though :devilReally? I'm waiting patiently to hear from you how. So far all I see from you is "Bush is a tyrannically aspiring dumbass" drivel. - and since I agree with Bush, I'm a sexually ignorant Hustler fiend that hasn't been to Iraq, so how could I possibly know anything about foreign policy.

So that Thormir can stop wringing his hands because this thread was diverted away from the other juvenile topic that he apparently has a hard-on for, enlighten me on your reasons for a World Court, or even the Kyoto Protocol. Please do better than your previous "just because" responses.

I've already presented my arguments. You're not worth anymore of my time.

You lose, good day :D

Doubtful that Binny has every gotten this mad. Its just is not his style.

Akipt, I challenge you to make a reflective list as a companion to the one that started this thread, that lists all the POSITIVE things that the Bush administration has done for the country and the world community. No one wants to feel that they are backing a complete asshole, so by all means, prove that you are not. I had to sit down and think on what Bush has done that is a positive thing, but I just can't come up with anything. Maybe you have more facts than I do.

Positive point:

He's a poster child for teaching kids to eat pretzels SLOWLY. :devil

I can copy and paste too! Isn't this fun?

Abortion & Traditional Values

Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.

Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.

By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.

By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.

Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.

Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.
Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.
Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).
Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.
Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.



Budget, Taxes & Economy
Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.
Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.

Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.
In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.

Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.

Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.

Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.

Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.

Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Signed trade promotion authority.

Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.
Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.
Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.
Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.
Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.
Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child.
Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.
Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.
Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.


Character & Conduct as President
Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency.
Has reintroduced the mention of God and faith into public discourse.
Handled himself with enormous courage, dignity, grace, determination, and leadership in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 hijackings and anthrax attacks.
Education & Employment Training


Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.

Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.
Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)
Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.
Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.
Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.
Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.
Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to to become teachers.



Environment & Energy
Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.
Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.
Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.

Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.

Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.

Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.

Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.



Defense & Foreign Policy
Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured.
Leader by leader and member by member, al Qaida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaida leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed.

Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.

Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.

Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.

Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.

Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.

Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.

Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.

Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.

Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.
Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.
Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.
Ordered a review of overseas deployments.
Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.
Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.
Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.


Globalization & Internationalism
Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).

Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.

Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).*
The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.
Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."



Government Reform
Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises.

Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.

Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.*
Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers.
Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.



Health
Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.
Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.
Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:


A 10-year privatization option.
Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.

More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.

New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.



Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration
*See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security.
Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004.

Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield).
Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders.
The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.

Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.
Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones.

Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.

The US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.
Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization.
Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.
Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications.
Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.


Judiciary & Tort Reform
Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.

Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.

Is nominating strong, non-activist judges to the judiciary.

Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.


Politics

His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes.



Second Amendment
Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right.
Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit.

Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.

*See Globalization & Internationalism.



Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism
Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself."

Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.

Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.

The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved.
Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible.
Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them.
Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.
Committed hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa.

Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:


Equal Justice

Freedom of Speech

Limited Government Power

Private Property Rights

Religious Tolerance

Respect for Women

Rule of Law
</FONT>

Hooooo boy, there's so much fun to be had there, but know what? I'm gonna leave this for the others to rip apart.

This post alone tells me the type of person you are and what you deem to be good and decent. My only hope is that you do NOT get into politics. Having one person who doesn't know what the meaning of democracy is, is bad enough.

Everyone, feel free to pick this thing apart. It's late here and I'm really tired. If there's any leftovers I might have a pick.

I'm not sure on the purpose of that document, but if it's trying to unbiasedly show what Bush has done in office, I think it's falling short (the terms "undeserved pay raises" and "death tax" are pretty clear-cut examples of editorializing). What was your source for that information, Akipt?

OMG, I have not had such a good laugh in quite some time.

That was a real nice list but I am still waiting for a list of the positive things Bush has done while President. Much of the stuff posted in the list involve things "in progress", and issues that are supported by the poster, rather than items that would be accepted by anyone walking down the street as being a plus for the country.

It is almost a guaranteed bet that those who back Bush will continue to argue even when others have given up on the matter, just as those who are fervent Kerry supporters will. No one is going to "win" this pissing contest.......

Personally, I think they both suck.

Bush is going to win the election, which is going to be very bad for the country as a whole. Cheney will suffer a massive fatal heart attack, and Bush will appoint McCain to take over as VP, thus guaranteeing a better than even shot at the Republicans holding the White House another 4-8 years following his 8 years of foreign and domestic catastrophes.... the history books will be full of examples of how he systematically took the country from the most powerful and revered country on the planet to the most reviled and economically struggling nuclear power, reduced to seeking assistance from those we considered enemies only a decade or two earlier.

Of course, I could be wrong. I have had a few Leinies tonight:p

Placating his conservative Christian right constituency does nothing to better America. Funding programs that are known failures (e.g., abstinence only) certainly does nothing but waste money.

No Child Left Behind is a dismal anti-education failure.

To refer to Iraq (and, to a lesser degree, Afghanistan) as successes is to simply ignore the reality of the situations in those countries (particularly the former). We may be hunting down al-Qaeda by the dozens, but they're recruiting by the thousands.

The "Globalization and Internationalization" section would be better retitled "Isolationism and Ostracism."

For all his jibber-jabber about "loving thy neighbor as thyself," Bush's administration has deeply divided the nation, and his views on gays and gay marriage put the lie to such statements.
Equal Justice, Freedom of Speech, Limited Government Power, Private Property Rights, Religious Tolerance, Respect for Women, Rule of Law
Heh, this would better be listed: "If you're not with us you're against us," Freedom to be ignored if you disagree, Private Property rights for the wealthy," Religious tolerance of extreme right wing Christian ideology and degradation the Establishment Clause, erosion of womens' rights to control their bodies, and, well, the Patriot Act.

Plenty I agree with that transpired during the administration, but Bush's failures, his isolation from facts, inability to confess his egregious errors in handling Iraq, and promulgation of a worldview I am at odds with costs him my vote (which, in NC, doesn't mean much, but so it goes).
So that Thormir can stop wringing his hands because this thread was diverted away from the other juvenile topic that he apparently has a hard-on for
Heh, given your typical style of argument, you're the last person who should be referring to others as "juvenile." It's like Inks used spell check, with you.

It surprises me that Republicans would support no child left behind. It is educational socialism. My wife is a second grade teacher. This program forces her to neglect the highest achieving students in order to give remedial attention to the horribly underachieving, illiterate minority. There are so many mandates that the program places, that are not attached to any increased funding. Teachers are forced to do more, with less under that program. Its not surprising that nearly all teachers are against it. Of course, Republicans don't use public schools, so why should they care if their "token moderate" program sucks ass.

Again, Iraq invaded Kuwait (a soveriegn nation) because Saddam felt there was a real national security threat. Iraq was a soveriegn nation under Saddam. The US decided that this wasn't right so we attacked Saddam. So what do we do? We invade a soveriegn nation, citing bogus national security concerns. Where is the justice in this? We did the same exact thing that we condemned him for. Bush is a warmonger. He did it to rejuvenate the military, rotate the ordinance stocks and destroy the Iraqi infrastructure so that he could funnel billions of no-bid, tax payer dollars to his vice presidents former company.

There is a simple reason why Bush wont join the international court. It's because the UN declared his invasion of Iraq to be illegal. Bush is a war criminal and needs to be tried as one.

Phelonius

What everyone is forgetting is you asked Akipt for a list of the Bush Presidencies achievements, those items are what he considers achievements. Just like how the original posters list is considered by him to be Bush's failures. Its called point of view and they differ in every person. Case in point, a friend teaches Biology, she thinks the No child left behind act would have been great had the senate fully funded it. I disagree with her, I think more madatory testing is a load of crap that takes away from the teachers actually teaching the material the students need to know. You did not ask for a list of things this presidency has done that anyone would consider a good thing, you asked for a list of what one persons considers this administrations successes. BTW there is no list that would satisfy everyone on every detail, or in most cases on any detail.

Take for example the Assualt Weapons Ban, passed by President Clinton( if memory serves), I would wager that members of this board think it was good, I would also wager there are members of this board that think it was pointless. Perspective, from Akipt's list I found items I both agree and disagree with as being positives for this administration and negatives.

Rev

Just like how the original posters list is considered by him to be Bush's failures. Rev
Actually I don't have an opinion one way or another. I was asking if they are true or false as people on various boards kept posting the list. But you're absolutely it's all about opinions and view points. I have certainly come to understand this given how both parties claim victory after the debates. I think what would help me to decide how to cast my vote would be like a chart showing each of their views. Does such a thing exist?

Bush really had potential to be a decent, if not good president. At this point though, it seems that he either didn't think or had too many people do the thinking for him, or he just did a reactionary, impulsive measure to appease. He probably is now the darling of big business since he champions most everything the GOP stands for to a "T", but for the average Joe Barstool raising a family in Middle America along with an income generated by the wife, its a good chance they are having doubts. Members of the Military are having doubts. Those who work in public service, such as educators and those who administer programs to the less fortunate are having doubts. Bush does not connect with the common people, but he most certainly does with their bosses.

His tax cuts did wonders to boost the bottom lines and quarterly reports for major companies, which helped those at the top of the food chain. The fat cats, who were of course on their honor as to whether or not the worker should see any benifits of this good fortune. Reaganesque thrickle down theory economic policys would work much more effectively if we had a strong manufacturing base which in turn would see a big increase in demand for labor and create jobs that pay at least decently, but we are mostly a service economy where we all make a living doing each others laundry. Most consumer grade products that the average person might buy with a little extra tax cut coin in their pocket are now made in places like China. One would like to say that it would encourage home purchases and car purchases, but for most the tax cut is hardly the equal of one monthly mortgage payment. Ultimately Bush may discourage large purchases by plundering the treasury and creating such a large deficit. If the government tries to borrow, they will have to pay a higher interest rate, which in turn may drive up the Prime Rate and make loans for large purchases more expensive.

He could have avoided that by not offering so many tax cuts when the government is by all rights, broke. Giving away your income when you are dangerously in the red already thanks to 2 ongoing wars with the associated reconstruction efforts and the burdens of the Patriot Act is beyond stupid. How the other 2 branches of governement allowed this is just amazing, but it must be because they also have Republican doctrine (or dogma perhaps) blinders on in which they do whats best for the GOP first and the nation second.

Thats just decisions made at home on one issue. There is no need to get into all the stupid impulsive decisions made concerning Iraq, the UN and the middle finger he flipped to the rest of the world.

Again, Iraq invaded Kuwait (a soveriegn nation) because Saddam felt there was a real national security threat. Wrong. Saddam invaded Kuwait much like Hitler invaded Poland. He wanted to seize Kuwait as a territory of Iraq and eventually seize the entire ME (much like Hitler was after all of Europe). We moved in once Saddam began amassing his armies on the border of Saudi Arabia (likely his next target).

We did not do the "exact same thing" in Iraq no matter how much you want it to be so. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a statement of fact. We are not asserting a territorial claim to Iraq like Saddam did with Kuwait. We do not want to "annex" Iraq like Saddam did with Kuwait.

You can spin it whatever way you want Furtivus. The fact is that Iraq was Soveriegn. Know what that means? Saddam claimed national security concerns. It is none of our business to legislate based on our speculation of what he really is doing there. Everyone in the US is "speculating" about what the real reason is for us to be in Iraq. Our leader says "national security". See the correlation? We are really in Iraq to plunder their oil and give handouts to our own firms (halliburton). Is that any more right or wrong than Saddam occupying Kuwait? It really is none of our business to speculate and be the world police. If Saddam had WoMD or terrorist links and they were planning to attack us, then yes, that is a real national security concern. That was proven false many times over. Bush deserves to be on trial right next to Saddam.

Phelonius

. Bush deserves to be on trial right next to Saddam.

Phelonius
Hmmmm maybe the Senate and Congress also seeing as they voted to give Bush the RIGHT to the war in Iraq?

Keep in mind that Congress (of which the Senate is a part, along with the House of Representatives) voted based on faulty information provided them by the Bush administration.

Congress makes their own determinations. They are a separate branch apart from the Executive branch. They can look at the same information supplied to the Executive branch and reach a different conclusion. In this case they reached the same conclusion made by the Executive branch.

And Phelonius it is not spin to state facts. Iraq invaded Kuwait to annex Kuwait not because of any national security threat. They were preparing to invade Saudi Arabia. We did not invade Iraq to annex them; there is no move nor any intention to make Iraq the 51st state. You were wrong. Deal with it.

I have to agree with Furtivus. Congress has the ability to make it's own investigations and determinations. The problem was the intelligence community (which both branches had trusted) was completely fooled by Saddam into believing he had WMDs. It was not that Bush told them to make shit up to fool Congress into support for his desire to invade Iraq.

I also have to agree that Iraq invading Kuwait was *never* claimed by Saddam to be for national security (the very idea is laughable). He openly declared it was to reclaim Kuwait as a rightful part of Iraq, in other words a land grab.

IMO, Congress put too much faith into Bush's interpretation of the intelligence. Whether Bush made an honest mistake or willfully misinterpreted the evidence due to oil-related desires or revenge on his father ("He tried to kill my daddy") is impossible to say. At the very least, I think such considerations must have been on their mind, greasing the wheels in their decision making.

Gulor's 2nd point (from Furtivus) is certainly correct. One wonders how history might look had the US and its coalition not intervened until Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia, and how our relationship with the Middle East would fare compared to the present.

Don't forget 1 simple fact, the gulf war was still in effect until Saddam was taken out of power, no cestation of hostilities was signed by the US, our conditions for signing them were never meet by the Iraqi government. if war was still declared then?????? insert your conclusions here on the legality of the current action, I am not an expert on international law as it pertains to wars and foreign entities, but if memory serves without a cestation of hostilities we could have invaded at anytime. some international lawyers out there might be able to shed some light on this.

And since it seems to be the trend, wifes a Dem voting for Bush, I am a Rep voting for at this point Mickey fucking mouse, hes got a great write in campaign going.

Rev

My understanding of Saddam's official reason for invading Kuwait was something to the effect of, Kuwait has more oilfields in their tiny country than Iraq does and they are pumping more oil out of the continental pool then they are entitled to, which threatens the economy of Iraq for the long term. Maybe someone can find some links.

I'll backtrack slightly here. Regardless if Saddam invaded for a land grab or not, we still invaded Iraq with no more legit reason than he had to invade Kuwait. I don't care if we didn't attack for the EXACT same reason. That's not my point. The point is that neither had a legit reason to invade and one is being tried as a war criminal and the other is not. How many innocent civilian lives is Bush's invasion resonsible for? How many died in the Kuwait invasion?

Regardless of what anyone says, it is not only wrong that Bush invaded Iraq, It is illegal and Bush is not above the law. Our law or human law. Period.

Phelonius

On another note, there's been a lot of speculation as to why Saddam remained so cryptic about his weapons programs even as he swore up and down that he didn't have them (which turned out to be true). The LA Times provides a reasonable answer:
Hussein often denied U.S. assertions that he possessed banned weapons in defiance of U.N. resolutions, but for years he also persisted in making cryptic public statements to perpetuate the myth that he actually did have them. The Iraq Survey Group believes that he continued making those statements long after he had secretly ordered the destruction of his stockpiles.

Based on the interrogations, it appears that Hussein underestimated how seriously the United States took the weapons issue, and he believed it was vital to his own survival that the outside world — especially Iran — think he still had them.

It was a strategy, Hussein has told his FBI interrogators during the last 10 months, that was aimed primarily at bluffing Iraq's neighbor to the east. "The Iranian threat was very, very, palpable to him, and he didn't want to be second to Iran, and he felt he had to deter them. So he wanted to create the impression that he had more than he did," Duelfer, the Iraq Survey Group head, told members of the Senate on Wednesday. I can sympathize with Saddam's view of Iran as a "very, very, palpable" threat. The question lingers...will a 2nd Bush administration invade them as well?

I can sympathize with Saddam's view of Iran as a "very, very, palpable" threat. The question lingers...will a 2nd Bush administration invade them as well?Sympathize................................... priceless.

Perhaps if he wasn't such a fucking insane unbalanced lying dictator with goals and aspirations of being the next Nebuchadnezzar, people wouldn't consider him a threat?

The legality (or illegality) can be disputed either way. *Against* Bush, he did not have specific authorization from the UN to attack Iraq at the time he did. *For* Bush, the agreement reached that enabled the cease fire at the end of the first Gulf War was clearly violated by Saddam several times and technically it could be argued the attack was therefore a continuation of the first conflict which *was* authorized.

Either way, I am not inclined to shed any tears over the invasion. If it had not taken place when it did, I think it would have been necessary as soon as sanctions were lifted and he resumed his prior course of building WMDs and threatening his neighbors. With China, Russia and France pressing for it, sanctions *would* have been lifted. Was it "legal"? Possibly not. But barring an internal removal of Saddam (which seems to have been very unlikely), we would be right back where we were in 1989 with a fully armed Iraq under Saddam's control. I think we are better off with him gone.

Sympathize...................................price less. Lack of understanding...............................typica l.

Iran is a real and palpable threat to the US, now as then, just as it was to Iraq. That is the point I sympathize with. For the rest, aspirations =! capability. Saddam's militaristic dreams were shut down by sanctions and US/British presence. Gulor may be right in that we'd have had to deal with him again eventually, but better to do so with valid evidence of a threat in hand and the exhaustion of other options. The mess in Iraq leaves us incapable of pursuing more egregious threats and, I think, compromises the deterrent effect of our military (though not in Libya's case, thankfully).

Iraq invaded Kuwait (a soveriegn nation) because Saddam felt there was a real national security threat. Iraq was a soveriegn nation under Saddam. The US decided that this wasn't right so we attacked Saddam. So what do we do? We invade a soveriegn nation, citing bogus national security concerns. Where is the justice in this? We did the same exact thing that we condemned him for.
Phelonius is in a continuous spin and disconnect take-off mode. You're flying into space to join with your mother ship, the Moonbat Express. Better hurry along before she leaves you behind.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council... ~Senator Kerry voted for the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq

Thousands of occasions huh? Phbbbt, must've been all those wedding celebrations.

There may still be hope for solving the Iran problem diplomatically. They seem to be a little more predictable, rational and at least have a population not as much under the thumb as was the case in Iraq. Sure they hate our guts, but the time is not ripe for a military solution there even if we were not tied up with Iraq. It is already too late for doing anything overt about N. Korea. They are our bigger problem IMO.

If Iran develops the bomb after lying about their program to the UN and IAEA, then we clearly need to put the thumbscrews to them via sanctions at the UN and stop allowing countries (*cough -Russia- cough*) to build up their nuclear facilities. Frankly, my bigger worry is Israel will attack them in an effort to destroy their reactors and stir up the hornets nest all across the middle east. I have no doubt the Iranians are expecting such a move and have taken precautions to preserve their program even if the reactors are attacked.

Have to agree, Gulor. I suspect they'll pull a North Korea and defy whatever agreements are made, making your hornet's nest scenario likely, but perhaps diplomacy will have a lasting effect. It depends in part on how the strife between hardliner and reformist plays out.

Iran and N. Korea and firmly aware that the US does not have the manpower to engage in a third conflict. The US is nowhere near pulling troops from either Afghanistan or Iraq, and we would have to implement a draft to get enough people to start a third front. Iran and N. Korea are taking a very courageous leap of faith in calling our bluff. Iran would really like to get a nuke before we have the capability to attack them. Regardless of all our bantir about Saddam and the invasion, the real problem now is that we are almost powerless at this point in time to stop any other countries from doing bad things they were afraid to do before we spread ourselves so thin across the globe.

Phelonius

Lack of understanding...............................typica l.Don't be so hard on yourself. You might understand his view, but I doubt you sympthize with anything of Saddam's (past or present) :p

Gulor may be right in that we'd have had to deal with him again eventually, but better to do so with valid evidence of a threat in hand and the exhaustion of other options.
Gulor couldn't have been more dead on right.

Are we only to wage war when we will certainly lose no more than a few hundred soldiers? Is 1000 just too high of a cost? I don't think it was. Obviously someone else will have a different opinion. It just baffles my mind to read history and see that the Allied casualties in Ww2 were more than that every few days. How did they stay the course?

Would you have thought this country's first WW2 adventure a failure after you learned we invaded Tunisia instead of taking on Japan first thing? Without understanding the global scope of the situation, you would have probably thought we were out of the damned minds.

At what point did you come to think the Iraqi invasion was a failure? When John Kerry said it was?

Is it a failure because France, Germany, and Russia aren't there next to us? Would it change your opinion if you learned that their militaries are now ghosts, mere shadows of what they once were. So even if they wanted to be there (which they don't) they couldn't.

Perhaps France and Germany and Russia should send money, to help pay for the cost. I suspect, though, that they were much more happier with the situation before we messed it all up for them. Dare not to underestimate the power of bribery.

Is the invasion and liberation of Iraq part of the war on terror? Kerry would now have us think no, but he's stated so many other times that it was. Imagine that, he changed his mind.

The mess in Iraq leaves us incapable of pursuing more egregious threats...
Do you really think this is the case?

Think back to Turkey's decision to keep us out of the country before we invaded Iraq. They held us by the nuts, now they don't. That single event that closed our northern invasion into Iraq has arguably been the most consequential event of the liberation of Iraq.

Think Tunisia. We are in so much better position now, with foot holds in Afghanistan and Iraq than we have ever had in the past. The Middle East is no longer a locked box to our military, we're there and I don't want to leave until every one of those piss ant dictators and terrorists are removed and replaced with a democracy.

People will get nukes. People who we don't want having them will get them, so perhaps more communication and venues for doing so should be respected. Technology and science advances and becomes much more simplified. Chances are the computing power that sent the Apollo missions to the moon (all the developmental enginnering, ground control, guidance, systems monitoring. ALL of it!) could be done by a few $1000 laptop computers from Dell. Considering the nuclear weapon was developed in the 1940s, its a good bet that its quite a bit easier and more inexpensive to construct one now as long as you can obtain the fissionable material.

So, it is better to accept that other nations, as long as they can use the atom to make electric power, will get these devices and that they do not keep it a secret. Even if you have the Bomb, you don't want it used against you if you are a sane and rational person in a leadership position. If you use a nuke, chances are if your target also has them they will retaliate in kind. Bad juju. Gotta love MAD.

Are we only to wage war when we will certainly lose no more than a few hundred soldiers? Is 1000 just too high of a cost? I don't think it was. 1000 and counting. But many more have died as a result of this conflict. We should wage war against clear and imminent threats or in the manner of the 1st Gulf War (defending the invaded country) or to intervene against genocide.
Would you have thought this country's first WW2 adventure a failure after you learned we invaded Tunisia instead of taking on Japan first thing? Entirely different war with an entirely different scope. Let's look at the here and now. The administration's own intelligence agencies project at best long term instability in Iraq and likely worse. Lack of troops, expectations divorced from reality, and a terrible prognosis suggest to me that this is a failed mission.
At what point did you come to think the Iraqi invasion was a failure? When John Kerry said it was? There was no epiphanic moment in this respect, but it was long before Kerry earned my attention as a potential Presidential candidate. The early failed searches for WMD stockpiles pretty much sealed it, though.
Is it a failure because France, Germany, and Russia aren't there next to us? No, it's a failure on its own merits, or lack thereof. Were they with us (instead of or in addition to what coalition exists), it would simply be a shared military failure.
Perhaps France and Germany and Russia should send money, to help pay for the cost. I suspect, though, that they were much more happier with the situation before we messed it all up for them. Dare not to underestimate the power of bribery. I agree, and I supported Bush's plan to exclude their companies from Iraqi reconstruction contracts. Ironically, they were right that there was lack of justification to invade Iraq, but (if allegations prove true) their reasons for not joining the coalition were undeniably foul.
Is the invasion and liberation of Iraq part of the war on terror? Kerry would now have us think no, but he's stated so many other times that it was. No idea why you keep mentioning a bit player in the Iraqi war; this is entirely about the Bush administration's handling of the situation. No, the only effect the Iraq war had on terrorism was to provide grist for the Islamic extremist recruiting mill.
Do you really think this is the case? I'd have to say yes, it's the case. We have great positioning, true, but diverting forces from Iraqistan to other parts of the world (even neighboring countries) spreads us awfully thin, limiting our ability to keep the Iraqi insurgency in check.
The Middle East is no longer a locked box to our military, we're there and I don't want to leave until every one of those piss ant dictators and terrorists are removed and replaced with a democracy. Given the prevaling culture, this strikes me as unrealistic. Removing "every one" of those terrorists...it's more likely they'll be gone only because all of us are gone. Piss ant dictators? Sure, we could pull a Saddam on them, but I personally dislike the thought of the US invading every country on your list in order to "provide freedom through force." In removing dictators, we become dictators ourselves.

I wonder what else could be a threat out there in the sand?


Say hello to a Mig-25 Foxbat.

What gives Akipt, Bush or anyone else on this planet the right to force democracy on any other soveriegn nation in the world? Nothing. We are not the world police. I don't agree with attempting to be. We need to clean up our own yard before we point a gun at our neighbor and tell him to clean his up. If we don't like what everyone else in the world is doing, fine. The solution is easy. Close the borders. Put up really big fences. Become self sufficient. Invest heavily in missile defense systems. Going all over the world and trying to change political structures and whatnot is not our business or our right. It reminds me of colonialism. Kill all the indians and build new houses. Might makes right? If you Bushites are so self righteous, why don't you go attack your neighbor because he is beating his wife and kids.

Phelonius

why don't you go attack your neighbor because he is beating his wife and kids.

What makes you think I have not taken care of a "neighbor" beating on a woman?

The 1000 dead doesn't count everyone who wasn't killed but has been wounded to the point they have to change their lives. The cost is always higher than just those listed as Killed.

The reasons for going to Iraq no longer mean diddly or squat, except in the context of history and the election. We're there, and we will be there for a long time.

before we have the capability to attack them.
If you really believe that about Iran you are solely mistaken. We have an Airforce chomping at the bit to unleash holly hell. With a couple weeks worth of bombing ..thats all it would take to totally imcompacitate them to ..no nukes being made. Dont understimate our firepower..we dont always "need" ground troops. Iraq being a different situation for we need to get some stability there where is Iran makes threats to us about nukes..its all she wrote.

We have great positioning, true, but diverting forces from Iraqistan to other parts of the world (even neighboring countries) spreads us awfully thin, limiting our ability to keep the Iraqi insurgency in check.

Considering 75% or more of our casualties have resulted from attacks by insurgents AFTER Bush made his silly grandstand play on the aircraft carrier saying mission accomplished, I don't think we can claim to have the insurgency in check.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13680-2004Oct7.html?sub=new) is an interesting followup to the oil-for-food story. Note that these lists of receivers of bribes and kickbacks have never been independently verified:
The lists, parts of which had been published previously, were compiled from 13 secret files maintained by former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan and the former oil minister, Amir Rashid.

But there was no independent verification. "We name those individuals and entities here in the interest of candor, clarity and thoroughness," the report said, adding that it did not "investigate or judge those non-Iraqi individuals." These files were apparently in the possession of Ahmed Chalabi, a fellow who could look up to CBS as a paragon of integrity. Two investigations into the files never reached a conclusion: the first -- conducted by a friend of Chalabi himself -- ended after "hackers" destroyed the computer files and their backups on the same day Chalabi's HQ was raided, the second ended when the lead investigator was killed by a bomb placed under his car.


From what I understand, the Volcker Commission has only received a compilation of the lists, not the documents themselves. No idea why, but the next quote from the Post's article makes them worth reviewing:
Several U.S. firms were on the list but their names were not released because of privacy laws.

I just have one question ... for all of you people who think Bush lied, or Saddam never really was a threat to our country:

Why is Saddam still in prison?

We should turn him lose, maybe he could run for president of Iraq next year. Wouldn't that be cool? Everything Bush did WRONG could be fixed so easily, Kerry would be in office and Saddam back in power. Ah the peace and harmony that would be for the world.

Now you are being irrational. Saddam has always been a threat, but how much of a threat he was at the time we decided to invade was never clearly established. We could have perhaps taken him out with something alot less grand than invading the whole entire country, as long as there was a solid plan for transition of power. We could have taken out the head of the snake and then left the UN to find the weapons if there were any since they had the experience of hunting for them to begin with. If we had just removed Saddam's government, and not killed alot of Iraqi civilians and destroyed alot of Iraqi infrastructure, perhaps the Iraqi people and the rest of the planet might have been alot more willing to contribute to the goal that is a better Iraq. Iraqis would not have a rallying cry due to lost love ones killed by Americans as they join what they might feel are "freedom fighters", but we call terrorists, insurgents and guerillas. The people killing our troops don't give a shit about Saddam and a good bet most of them do NOT want him back. What they don't want is a foriegn occupying force in their country. That might not have been so much of a problem if there had been a little more intelligent, strategic planning on our part, instead of just what tactics to employ to take the country.Saddam is gone. Its our turn now. Its time for people to use their brains in order to do what it takes to get us the fuck out of there and back home to our families.

Why is Saddam still in prison? Because we've imprisoned him.

Why are captives at Guantanamo still in prison? Why were those captives who have been released still in prison a week before being let go? Why is anyone awaiting trial in prison when they've yet to be convicted? Your question is absurd in every respect.

It's not absurd Thormir. Many of the Democrats are calling for the release of Saddam. Saddam hasn't been released yet because Bush has been in charge.

What Democrats are calling for Saddam's release? This is the first I have heard of it. And if they are they are complete and utter dumbasses.

Which Democrats are calling for Saddam's release? I'd be interested in seeing the links. Saddan has been charged with innumerable serious crimes and is a flight risk; that's reason enough to keep him imprisoned. The question is absurd.

Now you are being irrational. Saddam has always been a threat...If you think Saddam is/was a threat, then the question wasn't directed to you was it?

...but how much of a threat he was at the time we decided to invade was never clearly established.
Then you never listened to any of Bush's speeches, or you are using selective memory to make your arguments.

Over and over and over and over and over and over again for three years, Bush told the world (to paraphrase) "we can't wait for threats to become imminent after 9/11, especially those from a psychopathetic lying dictator with a history of aggression and terrorism."

You can disagree with that doctrine, but trying to say the lead up to the war and reasoning was all about "no WMD stockpiles, no threat" is bullshit, and you know it. There was a helluva lot more to it than that.

We could have perhaps taken him out with something alot less grand than invading the whole entire country, as long as there was a solid plan for transition of power.
Impossible.

We could have taken out the head of the snake and then left the UN to find the weapons if there were any since they had the experience of hunting for them to begin with.
Which snake are you talking about, the UN or Saddam? Fox in the hen house...

The Duelfer report clearly found that this was indeed Saddam's goal. Pay the UN off, wait for inspections to find nothing, and then resume WMD programs. The longer we waited, the more emboldened Saddam got.

Is that seriously what you wanted?

If we had just removed Saddam's government, and not killed alot of Iraqi civilians and destroyed alot of Iraqi infrastructure, perhaps the Iraqi people and the rest of the planet might have been alot more willing to contribute to the goal that is a better Iraq.
Which crater in Baghdad did you miss? We tried that remember? I think you've set your bar for expections impossibly high.

That might not have been so much of a problem if there had been a little more intelligent, strategic planning on our part, instead of just what tactics to employ to take the country.Saddam is gone. Its our turn now. Its time for people to use their brains in order to do what it takes to get us the fuck out of there and back home to our families.
Little more planning, little preparation, little more intelligence.... Again, your bar for success is set impossibly high.

"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."

I think Afghanistan was an overwhelming success for our military, and Iraq is getting there. They've done what people said were impossible, Bin Laden is a grease spot in some cave somewhere (at least we haven't seen his mug on some VHS video in the past 3 years) and Saddam is in jail tending to his garden.

Two main goals accomplished, with the followup goals coming right along.

I put alot more weight and thought into what our men and women wearing our military's uniforms have to say, than some smucks arguing on an internet board in their underwear. If they're voting for Bush as heavily as I've read (70%+) that ought to tell you something too.

It tells me you need to log off the internet, put on some clothes, and go for a walk, ya poor smuck. http://69.50.212.152/images/smilies/cool.gif

"We could have perhaps taken him out with something alot less grand than invading the whole entire country, as long as there was a solid plan for transition of power."

"Impossible." ~ Akipt

DELTA ...

Taking him out would have violated a long standing EO that basic says we do not kill heads of state, I think it was Kennedy that signed that one, but not positive. Can someone do so research on this, I busy trying to salvage my dev environement, damn we programmers wrote a nice 15 million row update that has created havoc with my replication schemes.

Rev

Executive Order 11905, was the first of three EO restricting the Assasination of political folks. First was by Ford, carter renewed it and Regan Expanded it. The house had some bill to repeal it, not sure if it passed.

There is no need to assassinate. Does that matter though? Bush has not exactly been paying much attention to the rules, rather he makes them up as he goes. We didn't got that route anyway. Better we murder ALOT of nobodys rather than one or two government leaders.

Akipt, sorry I missed Bush's speaches. Chances are I was at work or that there was a rerun of "Full House" or something lamer than that on TV at the time that I felt would be just as exciting and mentally stimulating. Bush is not exactly Mr. Charisma when he actually bothers to do press conferences and speaches.

Long story short. I am not voting for him again. I am not voting for Kerry either. You have found a political party that works for you, so hey, more power to you.

That Executive Order could have been discarded by Bush just as easily as it was enacted by a previous president.

But that's not the point. What exactly of this...

The Duelfer report clearly found that this was indeed Saddam's goal. Pay the UN off, wait for inspections to find nothing, and then resume WMD programs. The longer we waited, the more emboldened Saddam got.

.. do you not believe to be true?

After all the teeth nashing, accusations, and finger pointing at Bush for not doing enough before 9/11, it's just astonishing to me that people can now say Bush should have waited just a little longer, just a little more diplomatically for other countries, and everything would have worked out rosey.

The capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein "lacks legitimacy because it was a unilateral effort by American forces...we did it all wrong and he should be released immediately," said Mr. Dean.

There's one Democrat. Since Kerry seems to always want to out-Dean Howard Dean, I assume Kerry's stance will be similar.

Lets use our current legal system to judge Saddam's case. The indictment would be "possesion of weapons of mass destruction and links to alqaida". Neither of those were proven true. Along the way the prosecutor (Bush) claims that he "had the intent to pursue womd". Does this make him guilty of the indictments? Bush supporters are so blind that they cannot see past the rhetoric to understand how unbelieably irresponsible Bush is.

I am sure the people in the Egypt Hilton, Indonesia, and the Paris embassy will all agree that the world is a safer place without Saddam and that Osama is a grease spot in a cave in Afghanistan.

Bush is the worst president in modern times. He is truly a clown. He chokes on pretzels, falls off bikes, throws his dog on the ground, holds books upside down. The list goes on and on.

I found this site today. Its very entertaining.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics.htm

Phelonius

It's not absurd Thormir. Many of the Democrats are calling for the release of Saddam. Saddam hasn't been released yet because Bush has been in charge.
Links please.

I am unaware of any Democrats calling for his release; I am not being flippant.
He is being held and is to be tried by his own countrymen for crimes against them, from everything I have read; we are merely providing a secure jail cell until such trial takes place. The evidence of his crimes is so overwhelming, both in personal eye-witness testimony and in printed documents, that it would bring little more than ridicule on anyone calling for his release and I believe from all political sides.


Save the country, VOTE McCAIN:D

wait, he actually said that?

Lets use our current legal system to judge Saddam's case. The indictment would be "possesion of weapons of mass destruction and links to alqaida". Neither of those were proven true. Apparently you were watching reruns of Full House with Lummul.

Here's the indictment against Saddam passed by both houses of Congress and signed by Bush:

Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)


Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.