bush administration credibility

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Frackal
So are mindless slogans like that the basis of the reasoning you rely on to accept the ideas you do?

I suspect so to a large degree.


Anytime most of you are confronted with something like the above a similar exchange takes place:


"If Democrats force us to abandon Iraq it may fall to Islamic extremist control which could tip the balance of other governments in the region in that direction"

Response:


"Fundamentalists already control the US govt."

Frackal, with George Bush's help Iraq is already in the hands of Islamic extremists. Or haven't you heard? Why do you think the Shi'ites are taking all of the bombings and deaths lying down?

Because, after the "elections" are over and they have consolidated power, they are going to unite their region of Iraq with their Shi'ite brethren in Iran.

WTF does the USA do then? Invade Iran and fight Iraq and Iran too? When we can't even control Iraq?

And all of this thanks to the outright lies of George W. Bush. But Georgie boy really doesn't mind. By that time Bush and Cheney will have made billions off of their war profiteering. And to them, that makes the charnel house they'ver created quite worthwhile.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

They didn't support the war, genius, they supported the use of force if -- IF NECESSARY and apparently with NO WMD and NO THREAT OF ATTACK force was NOT NECESSARY. Add to that, that fvcking liar you worship PROMISED THAT THE USE OF FORCE WAS A LAST RESORT just prior to making it HIS FIRST RESORT.

So please, like the man said, if you don't have anything to say regarding the subject of the thread either start you own thread or STFU.

As you kids like to say, K THX.

Bush doesn't support the torture, genius, he suppors the use of alternative methods of interrogation -- IF NECESSARY.

Uh huh. Like the "alternate methods" Bush is supporting in Eastern European secret prisons? Like the "alternate methods" Bush supported in Abu Ghraib? Bagram? Gitmo?

How can America claim to export freedom and democracy based on torture?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eits
does anyone else wish they could be at a rumsfeld speech and just stand up and say something?

if you could, what would you say (if you wouldn't be tackled by secret service)?

i'd probably say, "oh, ok, asshole.... cuz you've been SOOOOO on-target so far. what a turd."

I, for one, welcome our semi-retarded freshly brainwashed leftist underlings to P&N!

I'M brainwashed? sure thing, homey.... go ahead and stand there waving your flag, singing "God bless america".... you're so patriotic! :roll:... after you're done playing follow-the-leader and take a vacation out of delusionaland, you might realize how big we screwed up (*GASP!* AMERICA SCREWS UP?!?! NEVER!!!)...

please.

 

[tommywishbone]

Come on now..... 'alternative methods' Alternative methods? Even an old drug dealing, armored car robbing convict like me knows how to translate those words; take 'em out back and beat the sheet out of 'em until they tell you what you what to hear.

Edit: OP... I'd call him a war pig, a freak, and a mass murderer. Then I'd tell him that I hope his entire family burns to death and then, *punch* *kick* *taszer*... end of my comments.

 

[eits]

bush supports torture if necessary... everyone knows that. only a retard or bill o'reilly would probably think different.

let's please get back to the point....

WHAT WOULD YOU STAND UP AND SAY TO RUMSFELD DURING ONE OF HIS SPEECHES IF YOU COULD?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: eits
does anyone else wish they could be at a rumsfeld speech and just stand up and say something?

if you could, what would you say (if you wouldn't be tackled by secret service)?

i'd probably say, "oh, ok, asshole.... cuz you've been SOOOOO on-target so far. what a turd."

I, for one, welcome our semi-retarded freshly brainwashed leftist underlings to P&N!

I'M brainwashed? sure thing, homey.... go ahead and stand there waving your flag, singing "God bless america".... you're so patriotic! :roll:... after you're done playing follow-the-leader and take a vacation out of delusionaland, you might realize how big we screwed up (*GASP!* AMERICA SCREWS UP?!?! NEVER!!!)...

please.

[butthead voice]
""oh, ok, asshole.... cuz you've been SOOOOO on-target so far. what a turd.""
[/butthead voice]

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Frackal
Honestly while we're on the subject, I'd like to ask some democrats:


"Hey, when supporting the war did you realize that getting us into it meant we'd have to see it through, or were you thinking even then that you could abdicate all responsibility the moment the political winds shifted even if it meant grave consequences but good short term poll numbers in an election year?"

Then start your own damn thread about it - and leave this one alone so it can develop as the OP wants.

I'd ask "Why do you think that your lightening strike brilliance with no follow-up plan after the shock and awe,
is any better now than how it was done when you were a teacher in Navy Flight School - and the message there was
Bring enough to do the job, and don't cut corners to be on the cheap ?"

and "After General Shinskini made it a point to lay out what level of troop volume it would take to secure the counrty after the rush,
why did you feel that you should go with only 1/3 of what historically has proven to be a proper task force -
and then colaborate with your staff to force him out of the Army Command ? A man who dedicated his life to being as right as possible
in Military Matters pushed out by your egotistical attitude of 'I'm so much smarter that anyone I know . . . except George Bush."

Yeah, we know what sort of planners you brought to the table. Kerry couldn't even plan a campaign. Most of his base didn't even show up and he was ready to declare before the election even started, and he wanted to be President! Where did that 20 million go?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Frackal
Honestly while we're on the subject, I'd like to ask some democrats:


"Hey, when supporting the war did you realize that getting us into it meant we'd have to see it through, or were you thinking even then that you could abdicate all responsibility the moment the political winds shifted even if it meant grave consequences but good short term poll numbers in an election year?"

Then start your own damn thread about it - and leave this one alone so it can develop as the OP wants.

I'd ask "Why do you think that your lightening strike brilliance with no follow-up plan after the shock and awe,
is any better now than how it was done when you were a teacher in Navy Flight School - and the message there was
Bring enough to do the job, and don't cut corners to be on the cheap ?"

and "After General Shinskini made it a point to lay out what level of troop volume it would take to secure the counrty after the rush,
why did you feel that you should go with only 1/3 of what historically has proven to be a proper task force -
and then colaborate with your staff to force him out of the Army Command ? A man who dedicated his life to being as right as possible
in Military Matters pushed out by your egotistical attitude of 'I'm so much smarter that anyone I know . . . except George Bush."

Yeah, we know what sort of planners you brought to the table. Kerry couldn't even plan a campaign. Most of his base didn't even show up and he was ready to declare before the election even started, and he wanted to be President! Where did that 20 million go?

Poor attempt at diverting Condor. But I am SURE you will try it again.

The Bush administration has no credibility only spin. But they do THAT very well.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

They didn't support the war, genius, they supported the use of force if -- IF NECESSARY and apparently with NO WMD and NO THREAT OF ATTACK force was NOT NECESSARY. Add to that, that fvcking liar you worship PROMISED THAT THE USE OF FORCE WAS A LAST RESORT just prior to making it HIS FIRST RESORT.

So please, like the man said, if you don't have anything to say regarding the subject of the thread either start you own thread or STFU.

As you kids like to say, K THX.

Bush doesn't support the torture, genius, he suppors the use of alternative methods of interrogation -- IF NECESSARY.

One of those methods (and the ONLY controversial one) being torture.

And we all know what 'if necessary' means in bush-speak. Shock and awe starts yesterday!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

They didn't support the war, genius, they supported the use of force if -- IF NECESSARY and apparently with NO WMD and NO THREAT OF ATTACK force was NOT NECESSARY. Add to that, that fvcking liar you worship PROMISED THAT THE USE OF FORCE WAS A LAST RESORT just prior to making it HIS FIRST RESORT.

So please, like the man said, if you don't have anything to say regarding the subject of the thread either start you own thread or STFU.

As you kids like to say, K THX.

Bush doesn't support the torture, genius, he suppors the use of alternative methods of interrogation -- IF NECESSARY.

Ah, an interesting comparison. But surely there is a difference between supporting torture only if necessary when no other methods have worked and pulling out a prisoner's fingernails the second you have him in cuffs, no? The former might be seen as totally reasonable, while the latter is kind of psychotic. See what I'm getting at here...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
That is perfectly fitting coming from a completely retarded rightist.

Another sweeping generalization from Bond!

I swear you and Dave are becoming closer and closer.

Hey there! Contributed anything lately? Didn't think so.

The only time I've wished I could speak to Rumsfeld was when it became clear that no WMD stockpiles were likely to be found, and he began answering WMD questions by diverting to 'liberation'. I couldn't believe it when I first saw it, and I still can't.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BBond
That is perfectly fitting coming from a completely retarded rightist.

Another sweeping generalization from Bond!

I swear you and Dave are becoming closer and closer.

Hey there! Contributed anything lately? Didn't think so.

The only time I've wished I could speak to Rumsfeld was when it became clear that no WMD stockpiles were likely to be found, and he bagan answering WMD questions by diverting to 'liberation'. I couldn't believe it when I first saw it, and I still can't.

HAHA! thank you!! yes man I was in the same boat thinking to myself, "DAMN, Rummy all of the sudden grew a heart and soul!?" riiiiiight.

 

[dahunan]

I still cannot understand how you put "Bush Administration" and "Credibility" in the same sentence

 

[replicator]

Originally posted by: Frackal

I just have to ROFL @ the right now saying it's the Democrat's fault that your own retarded leader screwed this country over in Iraq. This is so pathetic.

You are lying about what is being said.

No one said that the Democrats are at fault for how the war was conducted.

We are saying the Democrats were very much a part of getting us into war, and now they are attempting to avoid the responsibility they took on because it is politically strategic, even I fear if it means throwing Iraq to the wolves

You can try to shift the blame to the Democrats for following the President, but that is called loyalty, abused as it was. Had Bush and Co. told the truth, the Dems obviously wouldn't have supported the war. It is clear that Bush manipulated and exploited the fears of Americans after 9/11 to launch a war based on falsified and discredited information. Open your eyes.


Your heroes are liars.

 

[Polish3d]

Screw you pal

These aren't "my heroes"


The Democrats are responsible for their own actions. The efforts to excuse them on their support to invade is ludicrous.

Bush was the main driving force behind the war, but the majority of democrats were very supportive as well.

It is fair for Bush to get the main blast of criticism for getting us into war from the general populace, but for the Democrats in question to shrug off their eagerness to go in is no different than Congressional Republicans suddenly turning around and blaming Bush for the whole thing which no one with half of a halfwit's amount of sense would buy into.

The only reason this is going forth with such support from lefties is because they want to excuse the Democrat's support of the war in order to try and shift it into an "All Bush" venture so they can gain seats in 2006

I sincerely hope it backfires right in their f*cking fairweather faces

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Screw you pal

These aren't "my heroes"


The Democrats are responsible for their own actions. The efforts to excuse them on their support to invade is ludicrous.

Bush was the main driving force behind the war, but the majority of democrats were very supportive as well.

It is fair for Bush to get the main blast of criticism for getting us into war from the general populace, but for the Democrats in question to shrug off their eagerness to go in is no different than Congressional Republicans suddenly turning around and blaming Bush for the whole thing which no one with half of a halfwit's amount of sense would buy into.

The only reason this is going forth with such support from lefties is because they want to excuse the Democrat's support of the war in order to try and shift it into an "All Bush" venture so they can gain seats in 2006

I sincerely hope it backfires right in their f*cking fairweather faces

If the Dems would have been given the truth I doubt many of them would've voted the same way. For that matter I think if the Repubs had been given the correct info I bet at least some of them would've voted against.

The truth of the matter is the Congress failed the American people by not preforming their duty of checking the executive branch at all. They didn't really push the issue to get the true facts. They were (almost) all completely spineless because none of them wanted to be labeled a traitor.

No matter how bad Congress failed it's job, however, the Bush White House needs to be help accountable for lying to Congress, the American people and the World. As a result of their lies thousands of people have died in vain. Not to mention throwing us into massive debt and pissing off everyone else in the world.

I also fault the White House and the Far Right in general for labeling any doubters as unpatriotic and traitors. From 9/11 until the last year or so, it has been like a repeat of the Red Scare of the 50s. Everyone was afraid to disagree with the administration for fear of being labeled as a traitor.

Bottom line: Bush Lied, The Red Scare crap is unamerican and should never be used in a democracy, Congress Failed in one of their most important constitutional tasks. But just because Congress failed does not mean Bush should not be held accountable. Then again, everyone who failed to investagate this war before voting for it in congress should also be held accountable.

Now back to the original post, I would ask "Why don't you step down and let someone that actually has some ability and a plan lead us from here on out."

 

[Polish3d]

What evidence did Congress not recieve that Bush withheld?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Frackal
What evidence did Congress not recieve that Bush withheld?

who knows, if I remember correctly he or the administration said that they had more sensitive data which they could not release at that point

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Frackal
What evidence did Congress not recieve that Bush withheld?

Well considering Congress doesn't have the same level of clearance the president has, I am sure there was a lot of stuff they did not recieve.

Either way, they failed their jobs but not digging into the information they did have farther.

 

[Polish3d]

Gee guys... So did they fail at their jobs by not digging further, or did Bush intentionally withhold substantial evidence showing that the WMDs were not in Iraq from Congress?

"Who knows"

and

"I'm sure they probably did"

is far from being enough to indict anyone.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Gee guys... So did they fail at their jobs by not digging further, or did Bush intentionally withhold substantial evidence showing that the WMDs were not in Iraq from Congress?

"Who knows"

and

"I'm sure they probably did"

is far from being enough to indict anyone.

Congress and everyone expected the administration of having more new and concrete evidence which was too sensitive to release. When it came to show they had absolutely nothing.

We do not know if they really had anything or not because they never told us. We cant proove a negative.

 

[Proletariat]

The strategy of the enemy is to turn its enemy upon itself. In essence creating an ally out of its enemy.

We cannot turn against our own. This has become foolish, we must build a better America with everyone involved in its creation.

 

[Polish3d]

True Proletariat

I do think that in the future we cannot enter into ambiguous (even if correct, not saying Iraq is) large-scale wars/committments because without clearer moral clarity.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Frackal
Gee guys... So did they fail at their jobs by not digging further, or did Bush intentionally withhold substantial evidence showing that the WMDs were not in Iraq from Congress?

"Who knows"

and

"I'm sure they probably did"

is far from being enough to indict anyone.

Congress and everyone expected the administration of having more new and concrete evidence which was too sensitive to release. When it came to show they had absolutely nothing.

We do not know if they really had anything or not because they never told us. We cant proove a negative.

So are you saying that all those comments ("Saddam is reconstituting his weapons programs and if left unchecked will, without a doubt use these weapons again" et al )

were based upon intel that Bush promised Congress but they never got?

So they just made up those statements?



You have nowhere to go on this along the reasoning path you're currently taking

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Frackal
True Proletariat

I do think that in the future we cannot enter into ambiguous (even if correct, not saying Iraq is) large-scale wars/committments because without clearer moral clarity.

I have realized that we must... in some sense understand the neo-con side.

Labeling the neo-cons as inhuman is an insult to America. If these people have been voted into power, we must respect their ideals to an extent.

But I'm tired, and its late. I think you should sleep too (being on the east coast as well and all)