Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 102

Thread: Bush Bashing

  1. #31
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
    Watch it! It'll open your eyes to that beloved administration. Mark my words: one day if there is any justice in the world they will all be sitting in jail or be dead from execution.
    Dead for what? Being a scum bag? (Sorry, I could only watch 20 minutes, time for bed.) All politicians are, BFD. Your hatred of Bush and Cheney springs from the war? The fact that they are wealthy? The fact they could use their positions to increase their wealth?

    And I am getting really tired of hearing about Halliburton (I stopped right after that portion). They are the best in the world at what they do. They were contracted to do something no one else could. So be it. Cheney was smart enough to get himself rich by manipulating events when he was out of the White House? Good for him. Where do you think money comes from?

    But also, this guy is the Canadian (I'm assuming that is what the CBC.ca is) equivalent of our National Enquirer. You're a fool to believe he and what he shows is the whole truth. But I needn't say any more on that.

    I am looking forward to the third movie down, the one about Right vs Left here. But tomorrow. I'll try and stomach the rest of this, but I don't know if I can. Maybe he is right about everything. Maybe he is the most honest man since Jesus (or if you don't believe in him, Clinton), but because of what he does, I cannot believe him as much as you seem to.

    Thank you for your source though.

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  2. #32

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    LoL BP, the CBC told you Bush made 200 million dollars off the iraq war and you believed it!?

    Do you really think if the CBC had any credible evidence of any of the corruption they scream about the US media would pick it up and run with it? Do you know how hostile most of the MSM is toward republicans?

    Im not even going to go into the bias of the CBC.. Id just like you to offer any evidence of your claims besides "I saw it on the TV".

    Ps. After having a look at that CBC site, its no wonder so many Canadians are so anti-conservative.. Moyers would die to be able to show such bs on PBS.

  3. #33
    Member Member KafirChobee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Local Yokel, USA
    Posts
    1,020

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Hmmmm, think something got lost in the mail here.

    Bush makes himself an easy target for bashing, playing emperor and ignoring the rules of our democracy (or bending them a tad - 'til they are shaped into what he wants; or using measures originally put inplace for a president to fill a vacancy in an emergency versus fulfilling a political promise) allows the bashing to be that much easier. Admit, he's not the brightest bulb on the tree. He is our president, however (stolen or not), and that makes him fair game for anyone to evaluate the motives behind the actions he perpetrates or sponsors (for his sponsors).

    Taking a $200billion (yearly) surplus and turning it into a +350billion deficit (a year - not including the cost for Iraq over the next century) is quite a remarkable feat. That Cheney's (and his) old cronies are making a killing financially - well, that is true. After all, Haliburton has been guaranteed a contracts to build 14 permanent military bases in Iraq (that btw is known knowledge and if you don't know it, then you have ignored the news - USN&WR, reported on CBS, and ABC ... not sure about NBC - NoBodyCares).

    We are talking about a spoiled child (BushII), someone who has everything in his favor, and when someone disagrees with one of his "policies" - he throws a hissy fit and sends his goon squad out to attack them. In a personal and christian manner of course.

    Look at his record. What has he actually done for the USA? Other than weaken us. BTW, I gotta bunch of references, will go correlate and post'em tomorrow. Still, anyone with his eyes open must see the "slippery slopes" he has put us on (rendition, the approval of torture, classification of "all" documents in "all" agencies, the defence of criminals that support him [Rove, Rush, DeLay, etc.] ... must be nice to be king.

    To forgive bad deeds is Christian; to reward them is Republican. 'MC' Rove
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    ]Clowns to the right of me, Jokers to the left ... here I am - stuck in the middle with you.

    Save the Whales. Collect the whole set of them.

    Better to have your enemys in the tent pissin' out, than have them outside the tent pissin' in. LBJ

    He who laughs last thinks slowest.

  4. #34
    Jillian & Allison's Daddy Senior Member Don Corleone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    7,588

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Sorry, I really didn't mean anything by that. He said 'well if being bad at public speaking makes somebody a moron, sign me up as a moron'. I couldn't resist. Azi, please, take no offense, and if I had any idea how to get the little vignettes off of the Vice City CD's, I'd post it so we could all get a chuckle at Lance Vance coming unglued.
    "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."
    Don Vito Corleone: The Godfather, Part 1.

    "Then wait for them and swear to God in heaven that if they spew that bull to you or your family again you will cave there heads in with a sledgehammer"
    Strike for the South

  5. #35
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Going to trial is being impeached. Being impeached is not the actual act of being kicked out, it's the act of being brought to trial.
    Yes, your are right I am off on the defination of impeachment - but then I was going off of the basis of how the impeachment process and its conviction are defined.

    Impeachment by the United States Constitution consists of two phases the levying of an impeachment process by the house and the trail by the Senate.

    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...hment_Role.htm

    Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

    The article above lists the details in easy to read format for what the United States House of Representives charged the President for in the Impeachment document - and why the Senate failed to convict the President of an Impeachable offense.

    Your comment of Presidents have been impeached for less than this, and I have no doubt that if there wasn't so much corruption in the white house right now, he'd be out on his ass.

    Was primarily what I was responding to - since you claimed Presidents have been impeached for less. For the impeachment to be complete the process must end in a conviction by the Senate. That was the historical fact was what I was responding to - not just the leving of an impeachment by the House. If we want to be completely accurate - only two presidents have been impeached by the house and no presidents have been convicted of impeachment by the Senate. Edit: By the way it does not matter how much corruption is in the white house - since its the House that must pass the articles of impeachment. So part of your statement should be directed at the House of Representives - not the white house.

    Johnson was impeached by the House because he challenged the constitutionality of a lawed by by Congress when he attempted to fire the Seceratary of War without the approval of the Senate. That latter in time by about 50 years the law that was passed by Congress was ruled unconstitutional and repealed makes for an interesting discussion about the constitutionality of Johnson's impeachment and trail. But his impeachment was the result of a direct conflict of interests between Congress and the office of the President. Not as you alledged Presidents have been impeached for less than this

    Clinton was impeached because he committed perjury on the stand along with a few other charges. Notice how the history of impeachment proceding is written for his trail.

    The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.
    Once again Clinton was impeached by the House because he committed perjury in a court of law - an act of intentional lying in fact. Which again is not as you alledged Presidents have been impeached for less than this

    Now if your arguing about the impact of his actions - then we can discuss that direction. However making bad decisions is not an impeachable offense by the defination of the Constitution. Making decisions off of information that latter shows to be inaccurate or incorrect is not an impeachable offense by the constitution.

    However if you want to discuss the history of impeachment - by all means start a new thread - about why President Bush should be impeached because of the impact of his decisions - however to claim Presidents have been impeached for less is slightly disengenous [SP?) of you is it not?

    From the United States Constitution.


    The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
    .......

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law
    Last edited by Redleg; 08-02-2005 at 15:09.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  6. #36
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Bush lied in front of congress, and brought a nation to war as a result. I fail to see how Clinton's charge could be anywhere close to that.
    First you have to prove that President Bush lied - making statements that he knew were false intentionally. That has not been shown.

    President Clinton has been shown to make statements in the court of law that were intentionally false - ie a lie.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  7. #37
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Once again, the judicial process is pretty straightforward. Congress can look at the available evidence and decide whether or not it is conclusive.
    Sure it is - and why hasn't Congress done this exact thing - prove that he lied?

    Its not because of corruption in the White House as you alledged - its either because it does not exist in enough evidence to support an impeachment vote in the house - or its because the House of Representives - like the Senate - have failed in their responsiblities.

    Which ever one it is - once again - the to be impeached one must first prove that President Bush lied - something that has yet to be proven.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  8. #38
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    It's because the Senate has to be led around by the nose these days. They don't take their own initiative, and this is in large part due to corruption. A competent senate would have looked at the evidence thus far and come to a conclusion, for good or ill.
    The senate does not bring charges of impeachment - that is the house's responsiblity.

    The Senate and the House allow themselves to be lead around by the nose - and its been done - as stated in another thread - long before the current administration.

    Thats why I am disappointed that Congress could not impose term limits on themselves when it came to a vote several years back. And those who ran on self-imposed term limits have been proven to be lairs - and they still get voted in by thier constitutes.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  9. #39
    Chief Sniffer Senior Member ichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,132

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    The article has no credibility, it is based on the premise that Dems are out to get W, but it neglects two important facts.

    First, W has made no attempt to work in a bi-partisan manner. His legacy will be that of power politicals, one side beats all. The Dems have no interest in supporting a President who has clearly demonized them, worked to undermine Dem successes, worked to ensure that Dems have little to no say in our future.

    Second, the Republicans spent all 8 years of the Clinton Admin bashing him. The cacophony was so loud that he was sometimes unable to focus national attention on important issues, always getting dragged back into whitewater or the blue dress.

    This is politics. Unfortunately American politics has become an exercise in power not cooperation. Special interests now dominate our decision-making process, which has become ridden with waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption.

    But this guy won't report on that. He'll write a stroy that makes it look like the Dems are the only ones who have ever criticized a sitting President, and that they are wrong to disagree with such a noble man as W.

    This is another propaganda piece, with little credibility.

    ichi
    Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively

    CoH

  10. #40
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by ichi
    The article has no credibility, it is based on the premise that Dems are out to get W, but it neglects two important facts.
    Yes the article has no credibility - except in one point. Which admittly the author went above the actual reality of it to make a point.

    we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media--the New York Times, etc., etc.--to delegitimize yet another Republican administration.
    Yes indeed both parties are out to demonize the other side.


    First, W has made no attempt to work in a bi-partisan manner. His legacy will be that of power politicals, one side beats all. The Dems have no interest in supporting a President who has clearly demonized them, worked to undermine Dem successes, worked to ensure that Dems have little to no say in our future.
    I would however state that the democratic party has done this to themselves just as much or more so then anything the President and the adminstration has done to them.

    Second, the Republicans spent all 8 years of the Clinton Admin bashing him. The cacophony was so loud that he was sometimes unable to focus national attention on important issues, always getting dragged back into whitewater or the blue dress.
    Yep - and like you have alreadly notice that the Republicians are doing the same thing that the Democrates were doing during Clinton's adminstration. Dirty demonizing politics from both sides. Look at the first election where everyone was saying President Bush stole the election. Both sides are being hypocrits on this. Pointing out the Republician hypocrisy while ignoring the Democratic hypocrisy is just as bad as the author of this article in my opinion.

    This is politics. Unfortunately American politics has become an exercise in power not cooperation. Special interests now dominate our decision-making process, which has become ridden with waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption.
    Yes indeed we need to fire all the politicians and start over.

    But this guy won't report on that. He'll write a stroy that makes it look like the Dems are the only ones who have ever criticized a sitting President, and that they are wrong to disagree with such a noble man as W.

    This is another propaganda piece, with little credibility.

    ichi
    Yep it sure is - that is way I focused on the arguements used in the thread and not the hyrocrisy in the article.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  11. #41
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    A competent senate would have looked at the evidence thus far and come to a conclusion, for good or ill.
    A competent senate would have thrown Clinton out of office.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  12. #42
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Why's that? The man was a good president. Many of his failings can be blamed on the Republicans who wouldn't let him do his job.
    Using another one of your arguements in this thread to prove a point.

    How many people died because Bush lied about WMDs? Over 1200 americans, and alot more Iraqis and Afghans. How many people died because Clinton lied about boning Lewinski? None, that I know of.
    and

    A competent senate would have looked at the evidence thus far and come to a conclusion, for good or ill.
    Well take a look about what was happening in Europe at the same time the scandel about Lewinski was going on. There were some Americans killed in preparing to go to Kosovo, and then there were some bombings done on the China Embassy - among others.

    So let me see if I have this right. Lets Impeach and convict Bush for doing something that has not been proven as a lie, but give Clinton a pass and say its the Congress fault for his problems in office, for basically doing the same thing (if the lie part is proven) because the matter of degree is different?
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  13. #43
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Yes. You don't run a country on principle; degree is everything. Circumstance is everything.
    A lie is a lie - no matter what the circumstances. An abuse of power is an abuse of power - no matter what the circumstances. If you find Presidnet Bush at fault for a lie (which is not proven - but only an allegation by some) and give President Clinton a pass for telling a proven lie - then your arguement is hypocritical.

    Don't do as I do, do as I say. The oldest hypocritical arguement in the world.

    Edit: The variance in degree equates to how much the individual is punished for his actions - but the actual activity is still the actual activity. Extenuating and midigating(SP on both words) is what you are talking about. The principle is exactly what laws are based upon - and yes indeed the principles of law is what runs the country.
    Last edited by Redleg; 08-02-2005 at 17:31.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  14. #44
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    The man was a good president.
    One of the worst in US history.


    Many of his failings can be blamed on the Republicans who wouldn't let him do his job.
    The only things he did right and gets credit for were those bills that he was forced to sign kicking and screaming by congress. If not for congress he would have no accomplishments to speak of at all.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  15. #45
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Sorry, maybe I'm just missing something here but.. how can you argue that circumstances don't matter? Bush's lies aren't just a wee bit worse than Clinton's, their of such more severity that it is like comparing ants and elephants.
    Edit: Again Bush has not been shown to be a lair - that is only opinion as of right now. So yes indeed we are comparing ants and elephants. Bush supposed lies (ant) CLinton proven lies (elephant).

    Circumstances matter only in how the punishment will be dealt out for the actions of the President once he is impeached and convicted . So no circumstances do not matter for imposing the impeachment or the conviction. Because the principle of the activity - ie the crime that warrants an impeachment is based upon set conditions being meet. Clinton meet those conditions in the eyes of the Congress at the time as was impeached - the Senate did not convict him.

    Circumstances, the situations, and how to midigate the punishment comes into being after the trail and conviction take place. Circumstances can be used to state an aquital of a crime. For instance the individual under prosecution shows that in order to defend their life they had to kill in self defense. Clinton can not show that type of circumstance now can he?

    However you seem to be wanting to give Clinton a complete pass on his behavior - while saying Bush is wrong for (in your opinion) for doing the exact same thing Clinton was proven to have done. That is a hypocritical arguement - or in this case do what I say to do, not as I do.
    Last edited by Redleg; 08-02-2005 at 18:11.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  16. #46
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    I don't think Clinton's "crime" was worth an impeachment, no. A predident's sexual habits have no bearing on his ability to hold office.
    Clinton's impeachable offense was lying on the stand in a civil trail and to a grand jury. Those are impeachable offensives under the the Constitution. And Clinton did the the exact same thing that you are accusing President Bush of - and Clinton was proven to have lied.

    Your basing your arguement purely on relativity - not the actual principle of the law. If you believe Bush should be impeached for telling what you believe is a lie - but give Clinton a pass for actually lying - then your arguement is hypocritical and based upon partisan politics.

    Clinton lied and was impeached. Prove Bush lied beyond any reasonable doubt and I will call for his impeachment. The Downing Memo might be a good start - but its hearsay evidence which must be investigated by going to the parties involved and then going to the sources which were at the actualy State Department meeting which the memo is refering to. Without that type of investigation - the Downing Street memo is nothing but hearsay. And any attorney could get it dismissed from a hearing or a trail.

    Edit: I by no way think he is a great president - neither Bush or Clinton - but an impeachable offense must be something that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt before it gets pass the House and into the Senate for a Trail. Your accusations of Bush Lied and should be impeached is just that an accusation that has not been proven.
    Last edited by Redleg; 08-02-2005 at 18:26.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  17. #47
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    I don't think Clinton's "crime" was worth an impeachment, no. A predident's sexual habits have no bearing on his ability to hold office.
    Perjury however is a crime. Also if a presidents sexual habits include rape I would suggest that is a crime worthy of impeachment. You guys are always trying to pass this off as we think sex is why he should be impeached. He could have taken the 5th but he chose to look the american people and congress straight in the eye and LIE.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  18. #48
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Perhaps I'm just a believer in relativity then. The law should not be followed to the letter when it becomes obstructive to it's own purpose.
    The law should be followed to the intent of the law - the punishment for breaking the law should be based upon the relativity of the situation, circumstances, and the reasoning behind the individuals breaking of the law.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  19. #49
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone
    Sorry, I really didn't mean anything by that. He said 'well if being bad at public speaking makes somebody a moron, sign me up as a moron'. I couldn't resist. Azi, please, take no offense, and if I had any idea how to get the little vignettes off of the Vice City CD's, I'd post it so we could all get a chuckle at Lance Vance coming unglued.
    No, you're quite alright with me. I rather liked my little tirade. But I know I'm not the easiest person in the world to understand when I speak, so claiming someone is an idiot when they cannot speak in public really pisses me off.

    But I must admit, I almost feel bad breaking up that lovely little menage-a-trois with GC, RedLeg and Gawain... but then... methinks that part is over for now.

    Anyway, it is nice to hold up person X as the exemplar of great politics... but lets be honest, politics has always been about power. Why else play? You want to make lives better? Great. Good luck getting into office. Sad but true.

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  20. #50
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Can't say that I really see the point of the original article. Dubya is amazing, his whole life he has gotten a pass on everything he has done. It gets brought up, but is ignored. Dubya is a poster child for the excesses of children of extreme privilige, connections and money keeping them out of real trouble that he's gotten himself into. Makes for a lousy president though...

    More important than the bashing is Dubya's record. I can't see any major initiative he has had that wouldn't have been done far better by someone else--especially when looking at numbers like the deficit, and in Iraq. He has polarized the nation and his administration has the credibility level of Nixon, perhaps less internationally. He is downright neanderthal on energy policy and climate change and has not done anything I can identify to stimulate direct investment in areas that will help this country move forward. It's an administration being run by looking in the rear view mirror.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  21. #51
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Well if your looking for a Bush basher you cant beat Red Harvest. All you spout is opinions not backed up by facts. Bye the way Im still waiting for a list of Clintons accomplishments in the Nixon-vs Clinton thread. Maybe you can find 1
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  22. #52
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    One of the worst in US history.
    You mean Dubya, right? When we look back on this administration, history will be quite unkind to it, and for very good reasons. Historians already rank Dubya near the bottom of U.S. presidents...

    The only things he did right and gets credit for were those bills that he was forced to sign kicking and screaming by congress. If not for congress he would have no accomplishments to speak of at all.
    Clinton did quite a lot right. He was moderate, despite efforts to paint him differently. The nation was properous under Clinton.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  23. #53
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    You mean Dubya, right? When we look back on this administration, history will be quite unkind to it, and for very good reasons. Historians already rank Dubya near the bottom of U.S. presidents...
    Again this is merely your opinion the same as mine on Clinton. I however have manty facts to back mine up.

    Clinton did quite a lot right. He was moderate, despite efforts to paint him differently. The nation was properous under Clinton.
    Please go to the Clinton vs Nixon thread. That has all been covered. Thats hardly an accomplishment of his. He was only seen as moderate because he had a republican congress.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  24. #54

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Historians already rank Dubya near the bottom of U.S. presidents...
    Who?

  25. #55
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
    Again this is merely your opinion the same as mine on Clinton. I however have manty facts to back mine up.
    Having seen some of the things you posted from blogs as "facts" you would be on very shakey ground. Opinion or not, I can point to hard numbers and indisputable fact: No WMD, no Omar or Osama in custody/or dead, a 2 trillion dollar error (and counting) on the budget, energy prices (remember that "energy policy?"), etc.

    Please go to the Clinton vs Nixon thread. That has all been covered.
    A humor thread? Hardly, LOL.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  26. #56
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Having seen some of the things you posted from blogs as "facts" you would be on very shakey ground.
    Maybe you could be a bit more specific. I dont agree with everything in every article I post.

    Opinion or not, I can point to hard numbers and indisputable fact: No WMD,
    False

    no Omar or Osama in custody/or dead, a 2 trillion dollar error (and counting) on the budget, energy prices (remember that "energy policy?"), etc.
    This hardly backs your claims.

    A humor thread? Hardly, LOL.
    Humor? Read it I doubt you wil be laughing or is this just a dodge to avoid the question?
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

  27. #57
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    I'm seriously curious, Harvest: what did Clinton do to make the US prosperous during his terms?

  28. #58
    Member Member Azi Tohak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Smallville USA.
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
    I'm seriously curious, Harvest: what did Clinton do to make the US prosperous during his terms?
    Well... he paid hookers, his VP invented the internet, his brilliant monetary sense got the investments going in the internet and we all know how well THAT worked out. But that was Bush's fault right? The DOW and NASDAQ suddenly dropped what... 10000 points the day he was inagurated right?

    Azi
    "If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse."
    Mark Twain 1881

  29. #59
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Uh, gawain, you're being unecesarrily contrary now. There are no WMDs in Iraq, and there were none when we invaded. Clinging to that justification is just reactionary.
    None - so explain the Sarin Gas Artillery shell that was used as an IED and failed to actually work correctly for several reasons- the first being that the sarin was over 10 years old - the second reason being that the two agents did not mix - because the shell is designed to mix the agents in flight.

    Or can you explain the precruser that was found in serval locations, or how about the Duefer Report findings.

    Was it in the amounts necessary to justify the President's and PM Blair's reasons for invading - well that is up to the individuals personal opinion.

    However since the cease fire treaty and the UN resolutions stated that Iraq was to have No WMD - even the one round is by defination enough to techincially justify the invasion.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  30. #60
    Very Senior Member Gawain of Orkeny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Centereach NY
    Posts
    13,763

    Default Re: Bush Bashing

    Then you are seriously out of touch and should be more careful of what you post. Its all quite common knowledge. If yiu had daud tey didnt find the stockpiles of WMDs that were supposed to be there then I wiuld have had to agree with you but to say there were none is just wrong

    Hers one. If you would like more just let me know.

    Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
    Monday, May 17, 2004



    BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.

    Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

    Two people were treated for "minor exposure" after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery, a U.S. official told Fox News.

    "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

    The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."

    However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

    Click to Read the Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook

    A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the sarin gas shell is the second chemical weapon discovered recently.

    Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."

    They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

    It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.

    An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.

    "If that's the case, why didn't they announce it earlier?" the official asked.

    The UNMOVIC official said the group needs to know more from the Bush administration before it's possible to determine if this is "old or new stuff. It is known that Iraq used sarin during the Iraq-Iran war, however.

    Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

    "It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.

    The incident occurred "a couple of days ago," he added. The discovery reportedly occurred near Baghdad International Airport.

    Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq, and it's thought that fighters there may be upping their attacks on U.S. forces by using such weapons.

    The round was an old "binary-type" shell in which two chemicals held in separate sections are mixed after firing to produce sarin, Kimmitt said.

    He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.

    The shell had no markings. It appears the binary sarin agents didn't mix, which is why there weren't serious injuries from the initial explosion, a U.S. official told Fox News.

    "Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

    "I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

    But there were more reasons than weapons to get rid of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said.

    Iraqi Scientist: You Will Find More

    Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

    George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

    "Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.

    "I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

    Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.

    "I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it's a nerve gas, it's a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it's not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances, George said.

    Officials: Discovery Is 'Significant'

    U.S. officials told Fox News that the shell discovery is a "significant" event.

    Artillery shells of the 155-mm size are as big as it gets when it comes to the ordnance lobbed by infantry-based artillery units. The 155 howitzer can launch high capacity shells over several miles; current models used by the United States can fire shells as far as 14 miles. One official told Fox News that a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas.

    The Iraqis were very capable of producing such shells in the 1980s but it's not as clear that they continued after the first Gulf War.

    In 1995, Japan's Aum Shinrikyo (search) cult unleashed sarin gas in Tokyo's subways, killing 12 people and sickening thousands. In February of this year, Japanese courts convicted the cult's former leader, Shoko Asahara, and sentence him to be executed.

    Developed in the mid-1930s by Nazi scientists, a single drop of sarin can cause quick, agonizing choking death. There are no known instances of the Nazis actually using the gas.

    Nerve gases work by inhibiting key enzymes in the nervous system, blocking their transmission. Small exposures can be treated with antidotes, if administered quickly.

    Antidotes to nerve gases similar to sarin are so effective that top poison gas researchers predict they eventually will cease to be a war threat.

    Fox News' Wendell Goler, Steve Harrigan, Ian McCaleb, Liza Porteus, James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO