pro-Bush P&Ners - how can you justify continuing to defend the bush administration?

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
It's maddening to me that anyone who claims to be a 'conservative' these days would still be sticking up for these scumbags. Bush isn't acting like a president anymore, he's acting like a king. How on earth can you say you are for 'small government' when you turn a blind eye to government abuse? All i see from you guys is trying to spin and regurgitate GOP talking points and even when some republican congressmen are beginning to rebel against the abuse of power.

The Iraq war justification, the Iraq war mismanagement, the 'bin laden determined to attack america' PDB, the record number of presidential vacations that bush has taken, the rich gannon scandal, the NSA eavesdropping scandal, abu ghraib/guantanamo bay/secret european prisons/other torture scandals, jose padilla, harriet meyers/other crony appointments, schiavo, the signing statements, record expansion of the federal gov't, 'you're doing a heckuva job brownie', the recent lawyer scandal, valerie plame... and i know i'm forgetting dozens of other scandals because there's just TOO MANY OF THEM. These are just the scandals that are off the top of my head... if i did a google search i could probably find pages worth of scandals to fill this post with. For argument's sake, lets say only half of these scandals are valid. Are you still satisfied? Is it because you have a high tolerance of corruption, or is it because there's an "R" next to his name that you turn a blind eye?

Is this the government you want? You know if you let this slide, you'll be bitching on end if a Democrat becomes president and starts using Bush's precedence to abuse power as well, right?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Sorry, the idea of Iraq did not make sense. How did it make sense?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.
Well I can tell you that if Gore had been elected we'd be in a better situation than we are now. We definately wouldn't have found ourselves in the quagmie in Iraq and we wouldn't have Cheney directing our foriegn policy.

 

Kwaipie

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2005
1,326
0
0
Just the idea of a War on Terror is a big enough fallacy to realize we are being governed by morons. This administration is trying to lead with fear, that's no way to live.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

WHAT moral issues, this is one of the most corrupt administrations of all times. Don't be evasive.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

You talk like Kerry was The President at some point in time.

Can any of you Apologists ever talk about something that did not happen and focus on the destruction of this Country by your heroes?

It's not just disgusting but TREASON and should be treated as such, period.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.
You right-wings nut-cases continue to commit the same intellectual fraud you've been perpetrating since before the invasion of Iraq. You keep insisting that our presence in Iraq has something to do with the war on terror. Bush keeps saying "We fight them there or we fight them here."

Fight WHO? The Iraqi Sunnis? The Iraqi Shiites? Are you claiming the Iraqis engaged in civil war are aching to attack America?

Please explain to us how Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the war on terror. And once you fail miserably at that endeavor, you can also explain to us why pulling out of Iraq is tantamount to a "surrender [in] the war on terror."
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Because I am an evil man. Knowing that if Bush was not president, the middle east would be heaven on earth and there would be peace through out the world... since everything... even Sadam was Bushes fault and I am evil.. I will continue to defend bush whenever I see him try to fix the Iraq situation.

I guess you are a good man. Bashing Bush whenever you get a chance... starting overtly bias threads like this one.. etc.... once Bush is out of office, I guess you will dance for joy because of the impending utopia where jews and arabs live together; where muslims will stop beheading Infidels.. and where food will fall from the sky.

Yes, all bush supporters are evil... just look at all the "facts"....
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Well I can tell you that if Gore had been elected we'd be in a better situation than we are now.

We definately wouldn't have found ourselves in the quagmie in Iraq and we wouldn't have Cheney directing our foriegn policy.

Well you could say without a doubt Cheney would be directing foreign policy but you can you say without a doubt Gore would not have started a false war against Iraq?

See I can play the same nonsense as the resident Republicans.
 

k1pp3r

Senior member
Aug 30, 2004
277
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.
You right-wings nut-cases continue to commit the same intellectual fraud you've been perpetrating since before the invasion of Iraq. You keep insisting that our presence in Iraq has something to do with the war on terror. Bush keeps saying "We fight them there or we fight them here."

Fight WHO? The Iraqi Sunnis? The Iraqi Shiites? Are you claiming the Iraqis engaged in civil war are aching to attack America?

Please explain to us how Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the war on terror. And once you fail miserably at that endeavor, you can also explain to us why pulling out of Iraq is tantamount to a "surrender [in] the war on terror."

I recall "several" dems stating that Saddam was a threat and should be taken out. I blame the gov as a whole for this BS, and the dems control isn't doin crap right this minute despite the promise of a historical first 100 hours, in which that tried passing a bunch of non-binding resolutions.

Politics in general are retards, regardless of party.
 

amish

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
4,295
6
81
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Sorry, the idea of Iraq did not make sense. How did it make sense?

WMDs, axis of evil, terror were the buzz words that got everyone in a frenzy and made everything sound great. then it turned out that there were no WMDs (that at least can be found), the "axis of evil" is really just "the allies of annoyance", and osama and saddam didn't make ass babies together.

the war helped the economy at least. the only real problem that i saw in the beginning was that this was poorly executed by rumsfeld for not trusting his generals.
 

k1pp3r

Senior member
Aug 30, 2004
277
0
0
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Sorry, the idea of Iraq did not make sense. How did it make sense?

WMDs, axis of evil, terror were the buzz words that got everyone in a frenzy and made everything sound great. then it turned out that there were no WMDs (that at least can be found), the "axis of evil" is really just "the allies of annoyance", and osama and saddam didn't make ass babies together.

the war helped the economy at least. the only real problem that i saw in the beginning was that this was poorly executed by rumsfeld for not trusting his generals.

1) i believe we did find some old nerve gas shells, not the stockpiles we thought they had though.

2) the ground was went really well, its the follow up that we blew
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Well I can tell you that if Gore had been elected we'd be in a better situation than we are now.

We definately wouldn't have found ourselves in the quagmie in Iraq and we wouldn't have Cheney directing our foriegn policy.

Well you could say without a doubt Cheney would be directing foreign policy but you can you say without a doubt Gore would not have started a false war against Iraq?

See I can play the same nonsense as the resident Republicans.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
 

amish

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
4,295
6
81
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Sorry, the idea of Iraq did not make sense. How did it make sense?

WMDs, axis of evil, terror were the buzz words that got everyone in a frenzy and made everything sound great. then it turned out that there were no WMDs (that at least can be found), the "axis of evil" is really just "the allies of annoyance", and osama and saddam didn't make ass babies together.

the war helped the economy at least. the only real problem that i saw in the beginning was that this was poorly executed by rumsfeld for not trusting his generals.

1) i believe we did find some old nerve gas shells, not the stockpiles we thought they had though.

2) the ground was went really well, its the follow up that we blew

i'm really referring to the senate hearing where general shinseki was asked how many troops would be needed to invade and control iraq. rumsfeld shot him down and thought that it would be 100,000 less IRC. i'm guessing that it would have been nice to have those extra troops to restrict the movement of insurgents.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Is this the government you want? You know if you let this slide, you'll be bitching on end if a Democrat becomes president and starts using Bush's precedence to abuse power as well, right?


Things I like Bush for.

1. Tax cuts.
2. No Child Left Behind
3. Afghanistan
4. Getting rid of Saddam
5. Staying on Iran's Ass
6. Getting those involved to work out the Korean mess caused by Carter (who basically backstabbed Clinton on that one)


Things I don't like Bush for.
1. Spending, Spending, Spending.
2. Not ever using the VETO
3. Not having a reasonable plan for getting out of Iraq, but this is probably more about having bad advisors (and an obviously flawed CIA)
4. Signing the Patriot Act
5. Not coming down on Emminent Domain (someone with power should I have stepped up)
6. Did I mention spending?
7. Allowing the TSA to take over airport security



Still I think he was a better choice than Kerry or Gore. Gore showed his true lunacy years after losing the election and Kerry was just the most horrid choice the Democrats have made since Michael Dukakis. I cannot vote for any party that espouses class warfare and villifies being rich. If they can't get the anti-success crowd out then perhaps I will consider their candidates, until then I will vote against them even if means voting Republican.

 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Either way you slice it, it's clear that basically any of the legitimate presidential candidates of the last few years, left or right, would have been had a higher net impact than Bush, especially when it comes to war where Dems are notorious for exhausting diplomatic channels and not gung-ho ala bastardized elements that taint the right. In reality we're talking about one of the biggest disgraces of a president in U.S. history. Bush Sr. was far superior to his son, and arguably better than even Clinton and Reagen. Really no question Bush Jr. has been over his head since day one.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Shivetya
I cannot vote for any party that espouses class warfare and villifies being rich.

If they can't get the anti-success crowd out then perhaps I will consider their candidates, until then I will vote against them even if means voting Republican.

Just like his hero King Georgie says King Shivet. :roll:
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
9
76
how can you justify continuing to defend the bush administration?
Some folks like a challenge.

Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

WHAT moral issues, this is one of the most corrupt administrations of all times. Don't be evasive.
the gays... the gays... Kerry was in favor of CIVIL UNIONS! /faints in horror
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Well I can tell you that if Gore had been elected we'd be in a better situation than we are now.

We definately wouldn't have found ourselves in the quagmie in Iraq and we wouldn't have Cheney directing our foriegn policy.

Well you could say without a doubt Cheney would be directing foreign policy but you can you say without a doubt Gore would not have started a false war against Iraq?

See I can play the same nonsense as the resident Republicans.
Well if Gore was President he wouldn't of had Cheney manufacturing evidence to use to fool Congress and American People to even consider the invasion.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Phokus
Is this the government you want? You know if you let this slide, you'll be bitching on end if a Democrat becomes president and starts using Bush's precedence to abuse power as well, right?


Things I like Bush for.

1. Tax cuts.
2. No Child Left Behind
3. Afghanistan
4. Getting rid of Saddam
5. Staying on Iran's Ass
6. Getting those involved to work out the Korean mess caused by Carter (who basically backstabbed Clinton on that one)


Things I don't like Bush for.
1. Spending, Spending, Spending.
2. Not ever using the VETO
3. Not having a reasonable plan for getting out of Iraq, but this is probably more about having bad advisors (and an obviously flawed CIA)
4. Signing the Patriot Act
5. Not coming down on Emminent Domain (someone with power should I have stepped up)
6. Did I mention spending?
7. Allowing the TSA to take over airport security



Still I think he was a better choice than Kerry or Gore. Gore showed his true lunacy years after losing the election and Kerry was just the most horrid choice the Democrats have made since Michael Dukakis. I cannot vote for any party that espouses class warfare and villifies being rich. If they can't get the anti-success crowd out then perhaps I will consider their candidates, until then I will vote against them even if means voting Republican.

well put.
On Iraq, I don't have a problem with the invasion. Every world leader said he should have been taken out for the same idea Bush pointed out.
However, it was the administration's lack of preparation on the actual occupying part of the plan. Utterly pathetic.
Very much in contrast with the well run invasion.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,513
9,555
136
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I've noticed that many Conservatives here have admitted that Bush's actions regarding Iraq have been a horrific mistake and go as far to say that he is not a fellow Conservative.
The idea of Iraq made sense, but our execution has sucked.
Not sure who you blame for that though, lots of mistakes have been made. Ideas that made lots of sense at the time turned out to be wrong etc etc

And he is not a very good conservative, except when it comes to moral issues and defense issues.
But spending and growth of government wise he sucks.

Despite all of the above I would still rather have him than a liberal Democrat ala John Kerry who would spend even more money, create even more government programs and surrender the war on terror.

Sorry, the idea of Iraq did not make sense. How did it make sense?

WMDs, axis of evil, terror were the buzz words that got everyone in a frenzy and made everything sound great. then it turned out that there were no WMDs (that at least can be found), the "axis of evil" is really just "the allies of annoyance", and osama and saddam didn't make ass babies together.

the war helped the economy at least. the only real problem that i saw in the beginning was that this was poorly executed by rumsfeld for not trusting his generals.

1) i believe we did find some old nerve gas shells, not the stockpiles we thought they had though.

2) the ground was went really well, its the follow up that we blew


Uh .................., do you mean the handful of empty artillery shells that had residue of mustard gas from 20 years before? The ones that are less dangerous than the products currently under most people's kitchen sinks? Faux News FTL. :(
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,609
6,442
126
The people on the right are like a compass that always points in the wrong direction. You can always tell who is nuts because they get their support. The right has a talent for creating disaster. They are our tone deaf.

Naturally there is nothing you can do about it. They hate themselves and and facts you present them with hurt their feelings and make them feel under attack. They avoid mirrors because there are monsters in them.