George W. Bush: Resume

You guys are REALLY going to hate him next November.

Attitudes like this go along way to perpetuating the stereotype of the " Ugly American ". Not to mention explaining how someone as ignorant as Bush could get elected in the first place.

Your hypocrisy is enough to gag a maggot.

Edited as a result of a cooler head.

[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by Pauillac]

no, no, no! you've got it all wrong, you are mistaking Bush and his 'evil family' knocking people off with this guy

Oh fer crying out loud

Yeah, I'm sure Bush sits up nights feverishly plotting how to shut down nudie sites.

You Bush haters are really something to behold. The hysteria, irrationality, the hate and anger.........on one hand it's immensely entertaining to watch. On the other, it's a little disturbing.


[Edited on Nov 13, 2003 by stockula]

What was so hypocritical in his post?

- Blaming Clinton for allowing OBL to exist. The Bush admin was well briefed on Osama upon entering office.
- Justifying the killing of innocents by suggesting that it is saving lives in the long run, ( as Saddam would have killed more if he was left to his own devices).
- Accusing European countries ( who opposed the invasion) of doing so ' because they want to do business with butchers.' Aside from not being true, I wouldn't have thought that the record of US support for repressive regimes would have allowed for this judgement.
- Failing to recognize the role the tax cuts ( to the wealthiest ) have played in creating the current deficit.

For example.

Fortunate Son is in print and for sale http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1887128840/qid=1068846607/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-2878725-6852631?v=glance&n=507846
and its authors are very much alive. The original publisher decided to axe the book since the principal author, Hatfield, was CONVICTED for complicity in a case of murder.





[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by stockula]

Who told you that? Oh right, Bill Clinton. Mr. Credibility. The Clintons and Al Gore love lying in public about stuff they did in the past, in order to make themselves look good, wise, intelligent in the present. They tell these self-serving lies constantly, automatically, it's like BREATHING to them.

I'm less interested about what Bill Clinton says to the press in 2003 about how he told Bush that Bin Laden was a threat in 2001. I'm more interested in what Clinton actually did while he served as the President and it was his responsibility to deal with psychos like Bin Laden who were at war with America. The truth was Clinton was fairly indifferent to this threat he claims he warned Bush about. The Sudanese government offered to capture Bin Laden and hand him over to the US. Clinton wasn't interested, and repaid Sudan in 1998 for their offer by cruise-missiling one of their chemical plants.

After each terrorist attack, we always heard from Clinton that "We're gonna get these guys!" and almost NOTHING was done. He'd send some FBI agents over and they'd treat it like any other criminal act, not the coordinated war it was/is.

It's so typical of Clinton to make these bullshit claims when his past actions make him look bad in the present. And then he turns around and blames someone else (who's actually addressing the threat seriously and has death squads huinting Bin Laden). Classic Clinton.


[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by stockula]

YAAAAYY!!! A record breaker, It's the 1,000,001st Bush bashing topic on this site.

i can't beLieve how many right wing nutjobs there are around here.
aLL this hypocrisy under the guise of patriotism makes me fucking sick.
at Least they're supporting the suicide girLs...

i can't wait 'tiL the rude awakening...


[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by YonicSoothe]

I like the little angry woman in his armpit.

[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by Jeff_Fries]

Regardless of the excesses of the Iraqi or Afghani regimes, the U.S. does not have the right to invade a foreign, sovreign nation to effect a change in the government. When it was politically convenient for the U.S. to support Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, we did so. The U.S. knew exactly what kind of an individual Saddam was. He came to power backed by U.S. funds, and his army was equipped with U.S. and European weapons systems. After the '79 revolution in Iran, he was seen as preferable to the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was installed after a popular revolution in Iran toppled the corrupt U.S.-backed Shah's regime.
Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaieda organization was trained by U.S. counter-intelligence assets. Americans had never heard of Afghanistan prior to Sept 11, but the U.S. had spent years training Afghani soldiers to fight Soviet troops. The U.S. saw an oppressive religious regime as being preferable to an oppressive communist regime. He was provided weaponry, training, and financial backing by the U.S. in an attempt to stop Soviet hegemony in the region. Whether you'd like to believe it or not, the Bin Laden and the Bush families are very close. Micheal Moore elaborated on this connection in a recent article in Rolling Stone.
Since you mentioned the brutality of the Iraqi regime... doesn't it bother you that the foreign press isn't reporting the fall of Saddam in the same glowing terms that it used for the collapse of Nazi Germany or the Berlin Wall? It seems to me that it's only the U.S. press that has taken that particular view of things. Regardless, the U.S. did not go to Iraq to end a brutal dictatorship. America sent it's boys overseas to find biological and chemical weapons, which we claimed were there but we weren't being allowed to see. Well, it's been quite a while now, and we have access to the whole country, but we still haven't turned up any non-conventional weapons. Perhaps the Bush regime is attempting to find a justification for the American lives lost in a foreign desert that posed no threat to America's security?
As to the attempt to invoke the specter of September 11, it seems that you forgot that over half of the hijackers were Saudi, and most of the rest were Egyptian. Both of these countries are close allies of the U.S. The Saudi Arabian government is a brutally oppressive regime that, among other things, encourages the practice of female genital mutilation (removal of the clitoris at puberty), and employs a religious police that enforces, among other things, attendance at the mosque on Friday. Being a foreign national and a non-Muslim is not an excuse for non-attendance.
Women in Saudi Arabia cannot go out of their homes uncovered, and are not allowed to drive vehicles or work in most job fields (sound like the Taliban to anyone?). The official position of the Saudi government on American servicewomen driving military vehicles in Saudi Arabia is that "while an American woman is in a military uniform, she is not truly a woman, and may drive a vehicle." Amnesty International considers Saudi Arabia to be home to one of the most brutal regimes on earth. Yet the house of Saud remains one of our closest allies, all thanks to political expediency. Saudi sponsored charitable organizations are the leading contributors to various Islamic terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaieda.
So whydid we go to war with Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? The Saudi regime is willing to provide us with cheap oil. Iraq is not. Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate George Bush Sr. The Saudis eat dinner with the Bushes at the Crawford, TX ranch. Bush needed to bring someone, anyone to justice for Sept 11, and the campaign in Afghanistan had not netted him Bin Laden. The economy was suffering, and war always brings a quick boost (Robert Caro in his book "Means of Ascent" looks at another Texan President, Lyndon B. Johnson, who embroiled our country in a war to help his political benefactor, Brown & Root, which is now one of the largest defense contractors in the nation). There was no cause to go to war with Iraq. Attacking sovreign nations without provocation is the action of an empire, not a democracy or a republic. We violated numerous international treaties that we had signed during this conflict, and it will take years to repair the damage. Deposing a foreign government, no matter how deplorable, to set up a puppet regime is colonialism, "the manslaughter of the West".
Would Gore have been any better? Perhaps, perhaps not. The differences between the two men, and the two major parties in general, are so slight as to be negligible. The goals of the two parties are identical, and only their methods differ. What would have been preferable is an objective press, critics who were willing to endure the administration's attempts to silence them, and a public that was willing to rise up against the injustice perpetrated by their President.
Clinton was impeached, ostensibly, for lying to the American public. Perhaps its time to do the same to Junior?

Clinton knew about OBL.
Had a chance to get OBL

Number of people killed by Saddam

France does business with Iraq

Hey, I don't know about you, but I got a good size tax return this year. I am much more happy to spend it myself than give to someone else, or let the government spend it. I am the best spender of my money.




[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by Mullen]

I like your style. You are somewhat new, so you probably never saw my favorite smart ass thread.

http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/12736/

great, thanks to you I just brought back life to what was dead. I know some left-winger is gonna give me shit for that

If you don't understand that Afghistan was giving Al-Queda aid by hosting them, then there is no argument I can give that will convence we should have invaded Afghistan. You will always be blind to a sovreign county, is a sovreign county, is a sovereign country and no can invade anyone no matter what they do to you.
Saddam did not come to power with US finds. I have heard that one a couple of times, but it is not true. He came to power when the Baath party took over Iraq and Saddam took over when the first Baath party president died (He was vice president when the Baath party took over).
The Iraqi army is primary made up of Soviet stuff, which was using him as a counter weight to the US backed Shah. We did not sell him much arms until the Iran-Iraq war.
Another thing to take into account. The Saddam of the '70's and '80's was not the really the same Saddam of the '90's. In the '90's after the first Gulf War, he turned really nasty. When we dealt with him in the '70's, which was not much, we viewed him as a typical oil rich country; stable, with a heavy hand, no more better than the Saudi's.
And, you can't use hindsight to judge US actions in the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, in hindsight, it was dumb to do anything with either side, but at that time it was fairly scary since it was looking like Iran might win the war. Which scared the crap out of everyone. Iraq in the '80's was bad, but Iran in the '80's was worse. The US has fresh memories of the oil shock of the '70's, and we were not about to let one of "great enemies" take the Iraqi oil fields.

Just not true, I never read anything about the US government training Afghani soldiers. I saw couple of PBS "Frontline" shows on this and no one has ever to prove, show or even tell a story of OBL getting money directly from the US. This is the Big Lie that Liberals like to believe in. It's up there with Iraq having something to do with 9/11, which even I will tell you is not true and show not be on the list of reasons that we should have invaded Iraq.
The Taliban came after the Soviets long left Afganistan, so I don't see how that has anything to with the argument. Although, we blew it not getting into Afganistan after the war and helping with rebuilding to country. We helped the Freedom Fighters (Remember, they were still the good guys back then!) but after the peace we left, which was bad.
Micheal Moore is a professional liar. His work usually falls apart with the slightest of research and thus I _never_ believe anything he says. My parents retarded dog holds more credibility than Micheal Moore.

The book is still open on Iraq. You maybe right, Iraq may have been a bad move, but I am betting it was not. The worse case for Iraq is pretty bad (Iraq splits into three defacto countries and it's neighboors move in for some free land and oil fields. Middle East hates us forever), but the best case or middle case for Iraq is pretty good (Stable Democracy in a land of thungs and tyrants or Democracy with little infighting and some problems). The middle and best case are a whole lot better than what it was before. People in peace, and no one disappears in the night to be shot. We are taking some pain now, but the pay out is going to be great.

See above.

See above

I don't know about Gore. I think he would have done all of the samethings except for invading Iraq. He would have gone into Afganistan, but not Iraq.
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. Big difference.
Lying to the America people is not illegal, although it should be.

This is one of those uncomfortable to read replies. It makes me want to marry you, and though I am for gay marriage I am not gay

I love San Diego and hope to move back there someday. If I manage that, let me buy you a drink. Maybe at Foggy's Notion. God how I loved that place. and then we can go to Pure Platinum and have lap dances. Thanks to some guy people hate that put a little more money in our pocket

Yet you say nothing of the left wing nutjobs that believe all this to be true? Do you believe all of that to be true? granted you posted this just shy of proof to the contrary, so I'm gonna be cool and let you take reality into consideration before I contend that you're a left wing nutter

I posted this to a fire, police and ems group.

(hehe)

either way you look at it, is the country better off now than it was 4 years ago?
i personally cant say yes

These are difficult times. Did Bush create them? I dont think so.

Lincoln was re-elected despite the greatest crisis in American history. FDR served an unprecedented 4 terms during the SECOND greatest tumult of American history, the Depression and WWII. So just because the world goes to shit doesnt mean 1. the president of the US caused it or 2. Changing the president will make things better.

Truth is, no matter who was president, Gore, Bush, or whoever, 9/11 would have happened and the economic dump would have happened. Maybe 25,000,000 humans in Iraq would not have been liberated, that much I am sure of.

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by stockula]

It is getting rather tiresome to hear the same repeated mantra of "Bush is the reason for the economic downturn" "Bush is the reason the stock market is in the dumps".

It is , well,... BULLSHIT to make such erroneous and unfounded claims. Claims based on what data?..sorry friend but the seeds for an economic downturn were in place well before Bush took office. ie ; a wildly optimistic Fed,a arrogant and omnipotent Greenspan, a lackadaisical SEC, a worry free Clinton White House,and a largely ignorant and gullible public and private sector. Basically ,the lunatics were given the keys to the asylum and no one noticed during the hype of the Go-Go late 90's...sooner or later the hangover had to happen and whether or not there is a Dem or a Rep in charge makes not a whit of difference, and to be frank if Gore was in the White House he would have had the same shit pile of damage control Bush was faced with when he took oath..Then to add insult to injury we get to see ol' Billy on the speech circuit speaking absolute LIES about what he could or couldn't have done about the whole terrorism thing..remember the USS COLE? remember the first attack on the Trade Center?..remember Saddam Hussein openly flaunting UN imposed sanctions and weapons inspections? I may not like everything Bush does and god knows i can't stand his attorney general, but in all fairness let's take a long hard look at which President has chosen to meet some of the threats that face our country in a direct and forward manner rather than pay such threats lip service
..in the future please do a bit more due diligence before spouting off such dreck, it does nothing to further your stance and frankly just makes you look silly.