Argh...can someone please help me understand what good Bush has done?

Entity

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
10,090
0
0
I participate in a little social group of about 12 die-hard liberals (all people from my neighborhood). :)

I am, by far, the most centrist in the group, though my girlfriend is relatively close; while I generally support certain hallmarks of the left-leaning populace (social programs, etc.), I am not as much of a "bush sucks" sort of guy as the rest of them. Consequently when we get together, I end up arguing for a lot of somewhat conservative stances, for example, gun rights.

Anyway.

On a bit of a challenge, Kate (my g/f) and I are trying to gather research about Bush's presidency, as it is seen by people who are more conservative than I. I brought up his economic "package," which, according to some has stimulated growth and had a positive effect on the country. There was little response to that; what else can I bring up that Bush has done that people would acknowledge? The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.

I was trying to articulate why, while I don't support Bush, I'm having a hard time culling support for Dean. I'd like to continue on that line, but given that I'm not a Bush supporter, I have a tough time. Anyone wanna offer some info? ;)

Rob
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,511
46
91
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Were 'means and ingredients' used as the justification?

"We have solid evidence of WMD."

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Were 'means and ingredients' used as the justification?

"We have solid evidence of WMD."
Don't listen to revisionsit historians like Gaard. They'll have you believe it was mostly Saudis who participated in 9/11, not Iraqis.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,527
4,946
126
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
You better hope the police don't search your house then, at least if you believe both points you just made. You keep bringing up this same garbage arguement, there is a difference between having the ability and having the end product. In some parts of the world anthrax can be found in peoples backyards, but that doesn't mean they are weaponizing it.
 

Entity

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
10,090
0
0
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Yes, but didn't Bush, et. al claim that Iraq had weapons, not means?

I'm not saying I am against the war, because I wasn't; I wasn't really for or against it. Regardless, the justification that they used has turned out to be at best, a half-truth thus far.

Either way, that's not a winning issue. I'm just trying to prove that Bush isn't "evil," as they seem to think. They're surprisingly one-sided.

Rob
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Were 'means and ingredients' used as the justification?

"We have solid evidence of WMD."
Don't listen to revisionsit historians like Gaard. They'll have you believe it was mostly Saudis who participated in 9/11, not Iraqis.
;)

 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,511
46
91
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
You better hope the police don't search your house then, at least if you believe both points you just made. You keep bringing up this same garbage arguement, there is a difference between having the ability and having the end product. In some parts of the world anthrax can be found in peoples backyards, but that doesn't mean they are weaponizing it.
I do?

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Were 'means and ingredients' used as the justification?

"We have solid evidence of WMD."

Weapons Mounted on Donkeys? -- I just couldn't stop myself :D :p
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Were 'means and ingredients' used as the justification?

"We have solid evidence of WMD."

Weapons Mounted on Donkeys? -- I just couldn't stop myself :D :p
LOL that's a great one!
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Were 'means and ingredients' used as the justification?

"We have solid evidence of WMD."

Weapons Mounted on Donkeys? -- I just couldn't stop myself :D :p
Lets hope the WH press secretary isn't reading this, or it'll become the official stance on the issue.

On a related note:

Iraqi donkeys suffer under U.S. suspicion ;)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
well one thing I belive he did right, though I doubt it was done intentionaly, more of a side effect, he increased spending to get the country out of a recession, though usualy the best way is to strengthen the civil infastructure he did instead strengthen the military and intelegence gathering.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
The Kay report is probably the most incredible bit of pandering to the boss and self-justifying crap ever issued by the CIA.

Any nation with hundred year old chemical manufacturing capabilities can make Chemical warfare agents. Any nation capable of making insecticides can make nerve agents. Any nation with fifty year old biotech can make bioweapons.

The report is pure suckage.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The Kay report is probably the most incredible bit of pandering to the boss and self-justifying crap ever issued by the CIA.

Any nation with hundred year old chemical manufacturing capabilities can make Chemical warfare agents. Any nation capable of making insecticides can make nerve agents. Any nation with fifty year old biotech can make bioweapons.

The report is pure suckage.
But the situation with Iraq is different. We're not so apprehensive if England does it because they're our ally. However, since we have been to war with Iraq before...hopefully you can see where i'm going.

And on the issue of bo WMD's...in 1990/1991 when we were doing the whole Desert Storm thing, do you guys remember the soldiers who came home with Gulf War Syndrome? I know Saddam was supposed to have destroyed the nerve agents that cause GWS, but whose to say he wouldnt make more eventually, or whose to say he hadnt researched more dangerous nerve agents? You cannot make that assertation just as well that I cannot conclusively say he definatley had WMD. But since he still had the means to produce and was known to have done it before leads one down a path of suspicion.

As for supporting Bush, you could say his Presidency started out bad because he was handed a declining economy. Then to make things worse a terrible tragedy gappened, forcing the economy down farther. He handled the terrorist attack beautifully providing the right leadership and for a time uniting the Democrats and Republicans. So he set out on his war against terror and freed the peoples of 2 different countries from 2 highly oppressive regimes and he is now working to set up a democratic government in both countries. He also provided an economic stimulus package that spurred the economy out of recession and into a new phase of growth.

I guess you could also throw in that he is a strong leader and one that leads by his morals and his personal convictions. He also does what he believes is the right thing to do [otherwise he would listen to the masses while they are screaming to pull out of Iraq]


But one thing I have to ask for myself is where some people are coming up crap like this:

Don't listen to revisionsit historians like Gaard. They'll have you believe it was mostly Saudis who participated in 9/11, not Iraqis.
I know youre being sarcastic and making it appear as if you have some bit of wit, but Bush never tried to Iraqis or Saddam with 9/11. Thats all the media right there buddy.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
do you guys remember the soldiers who came home with Gulf War Syndrome?
Do you remember our government's official stance on Gulf War Syndrome? I think still to this day they haven't officially affirmed that this was a result from chem/bio weapon exposure. A lot of 'maybes' and 'possiblies' but they have still avoided stating any direct link.

Bush never tried to Iraqis or Saddam with 9/11
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH

 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
well one thing I belive he did right, though I doubt it was done intentionaly, more of a side effect, he increased spending to get the country out of a recession, though usualy the best way is to strengthen the civil infastructure he did instead strengthen the military and intelegence gathering.
There is still no net new job creation, which means no real growth. He's barely mitigated our decline. Why the hell do you think the euro hit $1.20 yesterday? It wasn't because of sane fiscal policy.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Entity
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Yes, but didn't Bush, et. al claim that Iraq had weapons, not means?
Um, no, he said they had unaccounted for materials which could be used to produce WMD.

Damn, you people really only hear what you want to hear, don't you?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<I know youre being sarcastic and making it appear as if you have some bit of wit, but Bush never tried to Iraqis or Saddam with 9/11. Thats all the media right there buddy. >>

After listening to Bush use the words '9/11' and 'Iraq' in the same sentence scores of times, I have to disagree with you. I don't know if he actually believed in any connection, but he damn well wanted the public to think there was. And to be honest, I'm not sure which is more forgivable.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Entity
Originally posted by: X-Man
The war in Iraq, given the justifications (WMD) that have, thus far, turned out to be false, I hesitate to bring up anything around that.
If you read David Kay's report, Iraq had the means and ingredients to produce biological and chemical weapons. If you have a history of using bombs to blow up people and the police search your house and find components to make bombs, but no bombs, it's still a crime.
Yes, but didn't Bush, et. al claim that Iraq had weapons, not means?
Um, no, he said they had unaccounted for materials which could be used to produce WMD.

Damn, you people really only hear what you want to hear, don't you?
Oh please. You actually believe this? And if I show you that they, on numerous occasions, said that they had proof of WMD, would your opinion of the war change?

 

Rockhound

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
408
0
0
All BS aside, but didn't Bill Clinton say in 1998 exactly what Bush has been saying all along? You can hammer Bush all you want, but Billy Boy said just as much 5 years ago, so be fair and nail him as well.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
do you guys remember the soldiers who came home with Gulf War Syndrome?
Do you remember our government's official stance on Gulf War Syndrome? I think still to this day they haven't officially affirmed that this was a result from chem/bio weapon exposure. A lot of 'maybes' and 'possiblies' but they have still avoided stating any direct link.

Bush never tried to Iraqis or Saddam with 9/11
March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH
<AHEM>....

...that victory in the conflict we're in in Iraq now matters as much to them in the civilized world as it does to the United States of America.

This is a battle to stop Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and every other enemy of freedom and modernity from turning the beginning of the 21st century into what is truly unbelievable, which would be a global religious war. We can't let that happen, and this is where we're going to stop it.
I wonder who said that yesterday? Now imagine all the twisted panties if it would have been Bush, Rummy, Rice, Powell, or other Adminstration official had said such a thing. "<gasp> he used Al Qaeda, Saddam, and Iraq in the same sentence...he must be trying to link them"


Incase people don't have a clue - It was smokin Joe Lieberman while on FOX News Sunday with Tony Snow.;)

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
So let's get this straight CAD, it's your belief that Bush neither tried to link Iraq/Saddam with 9/11 nor did he want the public to think that there was a link.

That's what I said, and given the fact that you rolled your eyes at what I said, can we assume that you disagree with it?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
That's a nice quote and all, but so what? It has no bearing on the point I was making - G.W. Bush did in fact link Iraq with 9/11. It was unfounded then, and unfounded now no matter who's mouth it's coming from.

And I find it ironic that you used that quote, the first time I saw it was today on the 700 Club w/ Pat Robertson agreeing emphatically.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
So let's get this straight CAD, it's your belief that Bush neither tried to link Iraq/Saddam with 9/11 nor did he want the public to think that there was a link.

That's what I said, and given the fact that you rolled your eyes at what I said, can we assume that you disagree with it?
You best not assume anything;) And no - I rolled my eyes at what I said in quotations(a ficticious quote;) ) not something that you think I said you said:p

Is it your belief that Smokin Joe was trying to link Al Qaeda with Saddam?

People are reading WAY too much into everything. Everything isn't some big conspiracy:p Some people need to find some proper grounding.
It's interesting how people read and see what they want to see though. The hightlighted part of what Gonad posted isn't the proper part to highlight as it has a qualifier - "including".
"to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations" is the main part and should be bolded. "including" means that the following is a part of "international terrorists and terrorist organizations" that we will take action against - not that Iraq is included in 9/11.
"Some people are idiots, including those who drink and drive or kill people". Now ask yourself this: Are all idiots- drunk drivers? and/or do they all kill people? Or is it that all those who drink and drive and/or kill people are "idiots". Or is it the whole "same sentence" BS.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<And no - I rolled my eyes at what I said in quotations(a ficticious quote ) not something that you think I said you said>>

Boy CAD, that sure shows a lot of character.
<--- rolling my eyes at CAD's lack of character.


Does the fact that the letter concerned attacking Iraq have any bearing on whether or not the quoted statement is relevant?

And just for the record, is it your belief that Bush never tried to link Iraq and 9/11 nor did he try to get the public to think there was? Not asking what you know to be true, just what your opinion is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS