|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Bush: We are authorized to...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Bush: We are authorized to...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
I just got done watching the documentary about the Dixie Chicks called "Shut Up and Sing."
There was a clip of Bush making a speech to the public as he prepared to go into Iraq. He stated very clearly that "We are authorized to go into Iraq to rid the country of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION."
Obviously, there were none and, suddenly, the war became about "fighting terrorism in Iraq."
How can anybody but the most ignorant and ill-informed continue to support this President?
How can anybody say that Bush is anything but a liar? |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
| what did he lie about? dont make me post all of the quotes by reps and dems alike that stated iraq obviously has WMDs and it needed to be dealt with. they all lied? that was our intelligence. iraq stated they compiled WMDs to boot. and because we didnt find any, does not mean they didnt have any. and besides, WMDs or not, we are right where we need to be to fight extremism, the middle of the middleast. we will never be able to stop extremist thinking, but we can stop their means of gaining WMDs. iran will be dealt with next, as they should be. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
what did he lie about? dont make me post all of the quotes by reps and dems alike that stated iraq obviously has WMDs and it needed to be dealt with. they all lied? that was our intelligence. iraq stated they compiled WMDs to boot. and because we didnt find any, does not mean they didnt have any. and besides, WMDs or not, we are right where we need to be to fight extremism, the middle of the middleast. we will never be able to stop extremist thinking, but we can stop their means of gaining WMDs. iran will be dealt with next, as they should be. |
Once it was found that there were no WMD's, a troop pull-out should've begun immediately. Instead, Bush rewrote the mission, stating we were there to fight terrorism. We were not, as you say, there to fight extremism at first. Our original mission was to keep Saddam from manufacturing WMDs.
Whatever happened to those satelite pictures of the weapons labs that sank Colin Powell's career? Something smelled fishy from the beginning.
Like I said in an earlier thread, Congress authorized Bush to use force but Bush misused the authorization. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
| Also, NC, Bush is exhibiting the same extremism that he is claiming to be fighting. It's just that his extremism is Christian-based instead of Muslim-based. |
|
|
| IWannaBangBiel |
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
iran will be dealt with next, as they should be. |
So, I trust you'll be the first grunt off the chopper then? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
"Iran will be dealt with next, as they should be."
That's exactly what Saddam used to say. |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| The current documentary " No End in Sight " addresses this issue very well.... the BCF was not prepared to go into war.. they had no exit stragedy because they had no entrance policy either. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
| The Bushbots will answer that with more revisionist history. By the time of the next Republican Administration, we will be told that Saddam, Uday and Qusay(sp?) flew the planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was flown by Fidel Castro. |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| and Hugo Chavez flew a invisible stealth plane into building 7. |
|
|
| Rike |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Once it was found that there were no WMD's, a troop pull-out should've begun immediately. Instead, Bush rewrote the mission, stating we were there to fight terrorism. We were not, as you say, there to fight extremism at first. Our original mission was to keep Saddam from manufacturing WMDs.
Whatever happened to those satelite pictures of the weapons labs that sank Colin Powell's career? Something smelled fishy from the beginning.
Like I said in an earlier thread, Congress authorized Bush to use force but Bush misused the authorization. |
The democrats aren't for pulling the troops out either buddy. I'm sure now that you've learned this shocking news you will stop supporting them. ;) |
|
|
| artiel |
You are making a good point Charlie. This is evidence that all along the lie that WMDs were there was a reason good enough to placate the population for long enough so that they could execute their propaganda attack upon the citizens of the US so that they would be willing to enter into an ideological battle.
Trust me, (or don't) the end goal here is a showdown with all that oppose us. Whatever happened to live and let live? Try as I might even though I believe that this is the end goal, I can't understand the thinking required to buy into it. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
The democrats aren't for pulling the troops out either buddy. I'm sure now that you've learned this shocking news you will stop supporting them. ;) |
With the disaster that is Iraq, there is obviously no easy answer. And this isn't a Dem vs Rep thread, either.
This is a thread saying we should've pulled out much earlier (like as soon as we realized Bush duped us).
You're a tad inaccurate about the Dems, by the way. They would like us out. It's just a matter of finding the best way.
If it was me, I'd pull back to the borders and just contain the playground. Let the civil war continue to it's natural end. At least, by pulling back to the borders, Americans will be safer. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
With the disaster that is Iraq, there is obviously no easy answer. And this isn't a Dem vs Rep thread, either.
This is a thread saying we should've pulled out much earlier (like as soon as we realized Bush duped us).
You're a tad inaccurate about the Dems, by the way. They would like us out. It's just a matter of finding the best way. If it was me, I'd pull back to the borders and just contain the playground. Let the civil war continue to it's natural end. At least, by pulling back to the borders, Americans will be safer. |
Duh, that applies to everyone scooter, including Bush...........Giving the Dems a pass is hypocrisy at it's worse....9 months after promising to end the war, they'll soon be funding it some more....this time, without the trinkets and shiny beads they got last time.... |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
The democrats aren't for pulling the troops out either buddy. I'm sure now that you've learned this shocking news you will stop supporting them. ;) |
It is impossible to pull out the troops out of the actions of yer hero. But that is AOK with you? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Duh, that applies to everyone scooter, including Bush...........Giving the Dems a pass is hypocrisy at it's worse....9 months after promising to end the war, they'll soon be funding it some more....this time, without the trinkets and shiny beads they got last time.... |
who promised to end the war? When - and what is the quote? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Duh, that applies to everyone scooter, including Bush...........Giving the Dems a pass is hypocrisy at it's worse....9 months after promising to end the war, they'll soon be funding it some more....this time, without the trinkets and shiny beads they got last time.... |
I don't recall the Dems "promising to end the war" specifically.
I've heard individual candidates promise to start "removing troops as soon as possible."
Hell, even some of the ever-growing group of Republican Bush bashers are saying that. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
I don't recall the Dems "promising to end the war" specifically.
I've heard individual candidates promise to start "removing troops as soon as possible."
Hell, even some of the ever-growing group of Republican Bush bashers are saying that. |
It is strange how that has become an unquestioned talking point though. Unless zimmie has some details - or anyone else. |
|
|
| Tech Difficulty |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
I don't recall the Dems "promising to end the war" specifically.
I've heard individual candidates promise to start "removing troops as soon as possible."
Hell, even some of the ever-growing group of Republican Bush bashers are saying that. |
the truth is, none of the democrats have ever really promised to remove all the troops from iraq. some may have run during the congressional hearings saying they disapprove of this war, which the public in turn decided that meant they wanted to withdraw the troops. i think this is where the confusion begins. the democrats never said they expressly would remove the troops, but a lot of them did run on the platform that they were against this war, and the american people decided that was good enough for them. that is why the republicans lost control of congress. the fact is, the democrats ran on the platform that they dont agree with this war, the people of america felt this meant the democrats would not fund the war and would push to end it. i think zimmie and some of the other conservatives on this board believe that the democrats said they wanted to remove troops and end the war
i do believe however that if the democrats were truly against this war, they would do more to see that the troops do come home, or at the very least, stop funding the war so that it can end that way perhaps |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Tech Difficulty
the truth is, none of the democrats have ever really promised to remove all the troops from iraq. some may have run during the congressional hearings saying they disapprove of this war, which the public in turn decided that meant they wanted to withdraw the troops. i think this is where the confusion begins. the democrats never said they expressly would remove the troops, but a lot of them did run on the platform that they were against this war, and the american people decided that was good enough for them. that is why the republicans lost control of congress. the fact is, the democrats ran on the platform that they dont agree with this war, the people of america felt this meant the democrats would not fund the war and would push to end it. i think zimmie and some of the other conservatives on this board believe that the democrats said they wanted to remove troops and end the war
i do believe however that if the democrats were truly against this war, they would do more to see that the troops do come home, or at the very least, stop funding the war so that it can end that way perhaps |
So you have determined that the public was duped by the Democrats?
I am glad you have no problem with the Democrats falling on their sword and writing off the next election. Very magnanimous of you. |
|
|
| mb33139 |
Quote: Originally posted by Rike
The democrats aren't for pulling the troops out either buddy. I'm sure now that you've learned this shocking news you will stop supporting them. ;) |
The Dems CANNOT PULL THE TROOPS OUT dopey. They simply do not have enough votes by themselves. In order for the Senate to effectively challenge the President, they need votes from the republican side to over ride a veto. Unfortunately, the repubs are still voting to prolong the occupation of Iraq and call it a "war".
This is what makes the repubs so fuckin' low. Luckily, most people have caught on to the neocon agenda and there shouldn't be another repub administration for 16 years after the next election.
Not that a Dem President with a Dem Congress will be much better. There is lots of corruption on that side too.. But it WILL be an improvement over these idiots running the show now. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
The Dems CANNOT PULL THE TROOPS OUT dopey. They simply do not have enough votes by themselves. In order for the Senate to effectively challenge the President, they need votes from the republican side to over ride a veto. Unfortunately, the repubs are still voting to prolong the occupation of Iraq and call it a "war".
This is what makes the repubs so fuckin' low. Luckily, most people have caught on to the neocon agenda and there shouldn't be another repub administration for 16 years after the next election.
Not that a Dem President with a Dem Congress will be much better. There is lots of corruption on that side too.. But it WILL be an improvement over these idiots running the show now. |
OK, I think I was starting to argue with you in another thread. But it seems we are on the same page. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
|
|
