Please, can someone help me understand?

[Siddhartha]

People who intend to vote for Bush, could you please explain to me how you can still support GWB after it has come out that every justification he and his people used were false, flawed, and or wrong?

I just do not understand why you do not hold him accountable for this disastrous foreign policy mistake.

It is not my intention start a Bush or a liberal vs conservative bashing thread. There are plenty of other threads for that.


Thank you

Randolph

 

[Perknose]

Let me know if you get a coherent and believable answer from any of the Bush boys here, you know one that doesn't dodge the main point and just go on and on about 'Sadaam was an evil tyrant", etc.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

[predicted answers]

Blah blah clarity of vision blah blah blah moral compass blah can't relent in the war on terror blah blah would rather fight terrorists on their turf than on American soil blah can't have a September 10th mentality blah blah elections in Iraq blah blah blah protecting the institution of marriage blah can't trust Kerry blah blah blah invading Iraq was the right thing to do blah . . .

[/predicted answers]

 

[Crimson]

Because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Let me know if you get a coherent and believable answer from any of the Bush boys here, you know one that doesn't dodge the main point and just go on and on about 'Sadaam was an evil tyrant", etc.

Let me know when you can write a post thats coherent and believable that doesn't include some sort of personal attack against people who support Bush. Give me a break, you insult conservatives for 'dodging the main point' and you make a post that does nothing but what you acuse conservatives of doing?

You sir get the hypocrite of the week award! W00t!

 

[Siddhartha]

I know it is almost irresistible to start making personal attacks but please do it somewhere else.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I know it is almost irresistible to start making personal attacks but please do it somewhere else.

I know, Perknose should really stop doing that... unfortunately, he's given 'special' rules which apply to only him and selected 'others'.

 

[BA]

Man, I was going to make an ironic comment about pre-emptive strikes, but crimson closed that opportunity

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: BA
Man, I was going to make an ironic comment about pre-emptive strikes, but crimson closed that opportunity

I apologize.. please, forgive me..

 

[conjur]

Anyone? I'd be interested to know, too.

There's been nothing offered so far.

 

[abaez]

I had this conversation with my friend. He said the as long as the end result is good - a free iraq, it doesn't matter what the reason was in the first place. I then asked if us nuking north korea and getting rid of a crazy dictator that has nukes and keeping America safe from evil is a good enough result and justifies us doing it he quit irc.

 

[lordtyranus]

George Bush is not John Kerry

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
George Bush is not John Kerry

So you intend to vote against Mr Kerry?

 

[CycloWizard]

Because Iraq, nor the WoT in general, constitutes the only issue up for grabs in this election.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have explained this a million times. People hate themselves and identify with some external that gives them a substitute sense that they belong to and thus are the good. To see what fools they are would be to die, to feel how much they hate themselves. Because they don't know and can't believe there is nothing really wrong with then except that they were taught to self hate, they are powerfully motivated to be completely unaware of any of this. You will not be able to understand, comprehend, or take in any of this and will forget immediately that you read it. Nobody knows the truth because they do not know that they do not want to.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have explained this a million times. People hate themselves and identify with some external that gives them a substitute sense that they belong to and thus are the good. To see what fools they are would be to die, to feel how much they hate themselves. Because they don't know and can't believe there is nothing really wrong with then except that they were taught to self hate, they are powerfully motivated to be completely unaware of any of this. You will not be able to understand, comprehend, or take in any of this and will forget immediately that you read it. Nobody knows the truth because they do not know that they do not want to.

Are you saying that I can't disagree with the invasion handling of Iraq and still vote for Bush?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Are you saying that I can't disagree with the invasion handling of Iraq and still vote for Bush?

It seems to me that would be a tough position to defend, ethically speaking, but obviously you're under no obligation to defend it.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
People who intend to vote for Bush, could you please explain to me how you can still support GWB after it has come out that every justification he and his people used were false, flawed, and or wrong?

I just do not understand why you do not hold him accountable for this disastrous foreign policy mistake.

It is not my intention start a Bush or a liberal vs conservative bashing thread. There are plenty of other threads for that.


Thank you

Randolph

how can u vote for kerry when he said the same, identical thing?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

You won't hear any liberals crying about how they lied, now would you? Double standard, Hipocracy, call it whatever you want, its sad...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone? I'd be interested to know, too.

There's been nothing offered so far.

Surely there's at least one Bush supporter willing to stay on-topic and post more than 3 words in defense of their support of Bush?


Perhaps not.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Anyone? I'd be interested to know, too.

There's been nothing offered so far.

Surely there's at least one Bush supporter willing to stay on-topic and post more than 3 words in defense of their support of Bush?


Perhaps not.

simple, because regardless if they found wmd or not, i think we should've gotten rid of saddam. Hows that?

 

[Steeplerot]

how can u vote for kerry when he said the same, identical thing?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

You won't hear any liberals crying about how they lied, now would you? Double standard, Hipocracy, call it whatever you want, its sad...

Now in Glorious Neovision for the reality challenged!

Becasue when ideas (idears) change you have to shift tactics (flip flop) to stay ahead and keep your options open, yes sometimes you send mixed (mexed) messages but to stand firm you have to be able to roll with the punches. (pretzels)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Are you saying that I can't disagree with the invasion handling of Iraq and still vote for Bush?

It seems to me that would be a tough position to defend, ethically speaking, but obviously you're under no obligation to defend it.

I do feel obliged to defend it though. An indefensible position isn't one worth holding, militarily or otherwise. This is the crux of the matter both militarily and politically, in this thread at least.

I believe that there are other issues that are of much greater importance than Iraq - issues that are more fundamental to our society and society as a whole. Thus, I cast my vote on the side of these issues that I deem correct in an effort to slow or even stop the listing of society before it capsizes. The fact is, I don't know whether or not Bush lied to take us to Iraq. I have attempted to argue why I think he might have, among other things that I think he may have done improperly. These things would point not to gross incompetence, but actual evil perpetrated by this administration. These 'conspiracy theories' have basically been cast aside by even the most RBH members of this forum, so I cast them out when considering who to vote for. So, since I cannot know the truth about the reasoning, motivations, or methods leading to the war in Iraq, to 9/11, or to other major events, it doesn't seem reasonable for me to wage judgment based solely on these issues. The manner in which and by whom they were perpetrated is a consideration for me, but it is hardly the only, let alone primary, consideration.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
People who intend to vote for Bush, could you please explain to me how you can still support GWB after it has come out that every justification he and his people used were false, flawed, and or wrong?

I just do not understand why you do not hold him accountable for this disastrous foreign policy mistake.

It is not my intention start a Bush or a liberal vs conservative bashing thread. There are plenty of other threads for that.


Thank you

Randolph

how can u vote for kerry when he said the same, identical thing?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

You won't hear any liberals crying about how they lied, now would you? Double standard, Hipocracy, call it whatever you want, its sad...

I was hoping to stay on topic in this thread....

GWB is the president and leader of the US not Mr Kennedy, Mr Edwards, Mr Kerry, or any of the others you have quoted.

How can I vote for Kerry?
Kerry did not:
1. Mislead the American public into invading Iraq.

2. Divert military resources away from knocking out the people and organization that attacked the US on 9/11/01. Going by the terrorist alerts that have occurred, these people still have the abliity to attacked the US.

3. Poorly conduct the war.

4. Push huge tax cuts during a war, which will have long term reprecussions for the US economy.

5. Bend the separation of church and state. How much money is going to religious organizations? How is that money being spent? Are these organizations using this money to forward their belief systems?

Kerry will not let the religious right:
1. Determine domestic and foreign policy.

2. Choose two to possibly four Supreme Court justices.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
People who intend to vote for Bush, could you please explain to me how you can still support GWB after it has come out that every justification he and his people used were false, flawed, and or wrong?

I just do not understand why you do not hold him accountable for this disastrous foreign policy mistake.

It is not my intention start a Bush or a liberal vs conservative bashing thread. There are plenty of other threads for that.


Thank you

Randolph

Topic Title: Please, can someone help me understand?
Topic Summary: How can anyone support Bush after the truth has come out about Iraq?


Welcome to P&N Randolph.

Unfortunately the fervent Bush Neocons will not be able to answer your question.

What you are witnessing is The Reason, it is called Brainwashing.

You have seen how powerful it is.

You obviously have not been affected since you are able to ask that simple question.

Hopefully your question will have been moot in a couple of weeks and the U.S. has a Regime change this January.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I do feel obliged to defend it though. An indefensible position isn't one worth holding, militarily or otherwise. This is the crux of the matter both militarily and politically, in this thread at least.

I believe that there are other issues that are of much greater importance than Iraq - issues that are more fundamental to our society and society as a whole. Thus, I cast my vote on the side of these issues that I deem correct in an effort to slow or even stop the listing of society before it capsizes. The fact is, I don't know whether or not Bush lied to take us to Iraq. I have attempted to argue why I think he might have, among other things that I think he may have done improperly. These things would point not to gross incompetence, but actual evil perpetrated by this administration. These 'conspiracy theories' have basically been cast aside by even the most RBH members of this forum, so I cast them out when considering who to vote for. So, since I cannot know the truth about the reasoning, motivations, or methods leading to the war in Iraq, to 9/11, or to other major events, it doesn't seem reasonable for me to wage judgment based solely on these issues. The manner in which and by whom they were perpetrated is a consideration for me, but it is hardly the only, let alone primary, consideration.

Translation: "I will vote for Bush because he is Republican and Republicans oppose abortion."

That is the answer for many people Siddhartha. Their issue is abortion. Nothing else matters.