Bush: "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Because I'm convinced that without the threat of WMD (real or false) we wouldn't have gone to war. Do you disagree?
i don't take the position, and i do not believe Bush has taken the position, that we went to into iraq for a single reason. i believe there werre multiple reasons, including the opinion that saddam had WMD, and that saddam was a supporter of terrorist activity (geez, i mean he was paying something like $25,000 to the family of any Palestinian who blew himself up in Israel..you don't think that's supporting terrorists), he was sheltering Abu Nidal, he had contacts with Bin Laden, he had lots of oil money, and a hatred of the U.S..He gassed the Kurds, he tried to assassinate Bush sr. He invaded Kuwait, he killed millions of iranians..

i think lots of reasons where building up, and based on the best intelligence available, an abundance of caution in trying to protect americans from attacked in the U.S. again, Bush and co. decided after trying numerous diplomatic means to relieve saddam of his rule.

It was not "rushed into", this is a liberal canard..Saddam had years to comply
numerous liberal luminaries agreed that saddam was a serious threat
9/11 had happened.

are their WMD? i still suspect there are, i suspect they're in Syria, or buried, or in bunkers..maybe not a "critical mass" of such weapons, but you know, you only need to use one WMD in a highly populated area, and your going to get serious trouble.

What would we have done if we knew there were no WMD..i believe if there was absolutely no threat of WMD, Saddam could have been pushed out of power diplomatically years ago.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Because I'm convinced that without the threat of WMD (real or false) we wouldn't have gone to war. Do you disagree?
i don't take the position, and i do not believe Bush has taken the position, that we went to into iraq for a single reason. i believe there werre multiple reasons, including the opinion that saddam had WMD, and that saddam was a supporter of terrorist activity (geez, i mean he was paying something like $25,000 to the family of any Palestinian who blew himself up in Israel..you don't think that's supporting terrorists), he was sheltering Abu Nidal, he had contacts with Bin Laden, he had lots of oil money, and a hatred of the U.S..He gassed the Kurds, he tried to assassinate Bush sr. He invaded Kuwait, he killed millions of iranians..

i think lots of reasons where building up, and based on the best intelligence available, an abundance of caution in trying to protect americans from attacked in the U.S. again, Bush and co. decided after trying numerous diplomatic means to relieve saddam of his rule.

It was not "rushed into", this is a liberal canard..Saddam had years to comply
numerous liberal luminaries agreed that saddam was a serious threat
9/11 had happened.

are their WMD? i still suspect there are, i suspect they're in Syria, or buried, or in bunkers..maybe not a "critical mass" of such weapons, but you know, you only need to use one WMD in a highly populated area, and your going to get serious trouble.

What would we have done if we knew there were no WMD..i believe if there was absolutely no threat of WMD, Saddam could have been pushed out of power diplomatically years ago.

I don't recall ever stating that Saddam didn't support terrorism. I do, however, recall stating many times the fact that S.A. and Qatar also paid the suicide bambers's families.

And btw heartsurgeon, once again you've failed to answer a simple question. Let me repeat it for you...
Because I'm convinced that without the threat of WMD (real or false) we wouldn't have gone to war. Do you disagree?

yes or no?





 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
yes or no?
i answered the question.
IF there was absolutely no threat of WMD
"Saddam could have been pushed out of power diplomatically years ago."

that means we would not have had to militarily remove him because i believe we would have been successful in forcing him out diplomatically.

you cannot make the assumption that he would have stayed in power as long as he did without the perception that he had WMD.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yes or no?
i answered the question.
IF there was absolutely no threat of WMD
"Saddam could have been pushed out of power diplomatically years ago."

that means we would not have had to militarily remove him because i believe we would have been successful in forcing him out diplomatically.

you cannot make the assumption that he would have stayed in power as long as he did without the perception that he had WMD.

Why not? You're making the assumption that we would have diplomatically removed him without the threat of WMD, right?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I don't believe Bush went to war for "Iraqi Freedom" or human rights

typical liberal b.s.
you would have just let the iraqi's rot under saddam,
but since you are a liberal, you obviously hold the high ground on human rights.

Dari must be a liberal then. Straighten him out, will ya Dari? Of course Dari won't publically disagree, nor will any other prowar member who disagrees. Like I said before, none of the prowar members EVER disagree with each other about the reasons for going to war. It's like a silent rule or something.

Do you agree with Bush?

that's a bizarre question..of course i agree. I think what he meant was if you agree with Bush that he's done more for human rights than any previous president. How is that a bizarre question?
the more unbelievable thing is that you actually think Dean or any of the other nine dwarfs can win...



Is there ANY prowar member here who is willing to prove me wrong. Any of you members who believe the war was justified, but disagree with heartsurgeon that we went in for humanitarian reasons. I know there are those who believe this, I've spoken to you. Do you have what Dari lacks, the character to defend your beliefs? If a liberal (instead of heartsurgeon) had called you a liberal, would it make a difference?



Ok. One last time before I let this alone. Is there any, ANY, prowar member here who will publically disagree with heartsurgeon? Dari refuses to do it. But of the rest of you (and I know who you are ;) ), is there one among you who will show the character to disregard any sense of loyalty to a fellow right leaning brother and speak up? You all waste no time to debate, dispute, and disagree with almost anything/everything a left leaning member says. Why the silence when 'one of your own' makes a claim that you have gone on record as saying isn't so?

Dari made the comment about divide and conquer. Obviously it's a competition to him...politics. I'm simply curious if those whom I've been conversing with are of the same mindset....competition....or are men of conviction, men who's beliefs are more important than winning the debate.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari must be a liberal then. Straighten him out, will ya Dari? Of course Dari won't publically disagree, nor will any other prowar member who disagrees. Like I said before, none of the prowar members EVER disagree with each other about the reasons for going to war. It's like a silent rule or something.


I rest my case.
Dari's what ever his Mentor/Suggar Daddy dresses him up as the night before!

 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: tallest1
Heres a simple question for the Bush-supporters: Do you agree with Bush?

depends on the topic.

1-Iraq and the war on terror, yes
2-stem cell research/cloning, no
3-steel tarrifs, no
4-that we need to drill for oil in Alaska, yes
5-space exploration, yes
6-tax cuts, yes
7-stupid immigration policy, no
8-healthcare bill, no
9-education policy, no

but the sum of the yes's outweigh the sum of the no's in my opinion. we need to present a strong face and go after thos that wronged us, we need to be safe so we can pursue happiness.

#topics = 9

sum of yes = 4
sum of no = 5


:D
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Originally posted by: jahawkinYet George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

I agree, George, no other President has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent foreign citizens, AND hundreds of patriotic, selfless American troops, in a war based upon lies.

Way to go Shrub, you have the distinction of this honor.
 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
I think the question for people who, in general, support Bush was (or, at least, should be):

Do you agree with Bush's statement that "no president has ever done more for human rights than [he has]?"

cumhail

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: tallest1
Heres a simple question for the Bush-supporters: Do you agree with Bush?

depends on the topic.

1-Iraq and the war on terror, yes
2-stem cell research/cloning, no
3-steel tarrifs, no
4-that we need to drill for oil in Alaska, yes
5-space exploration, yes
6-tax cuts, yes
7-stupid immigration policy, no
8-healthcare bill, no
9-education policy, no

but the sum of the yes's outweigh the sum of the no's in my opinion. we need to present a strong face and go after thos that wronged us, we need to be safe so we can pursue happiness.

#topics = 9

sum of yes = 4
sum of no = 5


:D
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: tallest1
Heres a simple question for the Bush-supporters: Do you agree with Bush?

depends on the topic.

1-Iraq and the war on terror, yes
2-stem cell research/cloning, no
3-steel tarrifs, no
4-that we need to drill for oil in Alaska, yes
5-space exploration, yes
6-tax cuts, yes
7-stupid immigration policy, no
8-healthcare bill, no
9-education policy, no

but the sum of the yes's outweigh the sum of the no's in my opinion. we need to present a strong face and go after thos that wronged us, we need to be safe so we can pursue happiness.

#topics = 9

sum of yes = 4
sum of no = 5

:D

1-14-2004 More Georgia Democrats to Endorse Bush

Sen. Zell Miller may have been the first prominent Georgia Democrat to endorse President Bush, but it appears he won't be the last.

The party maverick says Democrats from the Georgia Legislature and elsewhere will be among those attending a $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser for the president Thursday night at the Georgia World Congress Center.

One of them is state Rep. Mickey Channell, who represents a conservative district that includes Greensboro. Channell said he and "several" other members of the Legislature would endorse Bush.

"It's not a Democrat-Republican issue," Channell said. "To me, it's whether or not President Bush is the right one for the job at this point in time. It's my opinion he is."

"There's no question that Georgia is a strong Bush state and the South is strong Bush territory, most Southern states seem certain to support Bush. Miller's impact could be even stronger in the West and Midwest, where there are battleground races and a growing number of Democrats questioning their political identity.


 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

1-14-2004 More Georgia Democrats to Endorse Bush

Sen. Zell Miller may have been the first prominent Georgia Democrat to endorse President Bush, but it appears he won't be the last.

The party maverick says Democrats from the Georgia Legislature and elsewhere will be among those attending a $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser for the president Thursday night at the Georgia World Congress Center.

One of them is state Rep. Mickey Channell, who represents a conservative district that includes Greensboro. Channell said he and "several" other members of the Legislature would endorse Bush.

"It's not a Democrat-Republican issue," Channell said. "To me, it's whether or not President Bush is the right one for the job at this point in time. It's my opinion he is."

"There's no question that Georgia is a strong Bush state and the South is strong Bush territory, most Southern states seem certain to support Bush. Miller's impact could be even stronger in the West and Midwest, where there are battleground races and a growing number of Democrats questioning their political identity.

There's no way those delusions will fly up here in the midwest.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
I don't know about human rights but Bush has done quite bit to increase the standard of living for millions of people, just not in this country.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,051
2,096
136
Originally posted by: jjsole
I don't know about human rights but Bush has done quite bit to increase the standard of living for millions of people, just not in this country.



What ???

I read in the local paper ( detroit,mi ) that the number of people living in poverty was increased 20 ish % in MI in the last year.




 

Ultima

Platinum Member
Oct 16, 1999
2,893
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: jjsole
I don't know about human rights but Bush has done quite bit to increase the standard of living for millions of people, just not in this country.



What ???

I read in the local paper ( detroit,mi ) that the number of people living in poverty was increased 20 ish % in MI in the last year.

I think that's what he was saying. He thinks Bush has raised standard of living in other countries, but he hasn't done anything to raise this standard in the nation that barely elected him in the first place.