Yes, Bush and Hitler share many similiarities in their actions..

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: daniel49
the whole concept of this thread is too absurd to even debate, but I especially like the first point.
About the 2000 and 2004 elections.
I will never ceased to be amazed at what poor loosers the left are.
Strangely this last election when dems won there were no rampant conspiracy loons out.
The problem just evaporated.
Poof, just like magic:roll:

Yeah, it was odd, oh..

wait...

the supreme court got involved because dems were crying a river and even then it didn't matter.

The supreme court didn't need to get involved to elect them...

yep, forgot about that itsy bitty lil piece of info.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, you said

The incompetence could be written off to arrogance, ineptitude and stupidity. The costs in lives, money and the credibility and reputation of our nation for going into Iraq can only be ascribed to pure evil.

Implying that Bush is evil. Am I wrong in my interpretation of what you said? Are you not saying Bush is evil?

I'm not IMPLYING anything. If it helps your understanding, I'll say it directly -- [/b]BUSH IS EVIL[/b], as in the antithesis of GOOD.

The 70% you quote is the number of people who now think the war was a mistake, or that we should not have done it etc.

However, in 2003 there was 70% of Americans who were in support of the war and the invasion. Does that mean that these 70% of Americans were evil too in their intent?

I know you have an extremely short attention span, but do you remember the part about Bush LYING to Congress and the American public? Do you happen to recall that each and every successive and ever changing "reason" he gave for invading Iraq has since been proven to be false, and that we have since learned that the administration had plenty of reason to know what they were saying was bullsh8?


===

George W. Bush lied to the American public about why he started a useless, elective war that has killed thousands of U.S. troops and tens of thousands of other innocent people and spent us into trillions of dollars of debt that will remain a burden on our society for generations to come. He did so while offering continuously shifting alleged reasons for his actions, NONE of which were true:

• There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.

They ignored little things like:

• All warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  

  After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.
  
  "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
  
  "Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.
  
  "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."
  
  Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.

• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need several hundred thousand troops to do the job.
  

  Army chief: Force to occupy Iraq massive
  
  WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Army's top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.
  
  Iraq is "a piece of geography that's fairly significant," Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with "ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."
  
  In response to questioning by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the committee, Shinseki said he couldn't give specific numbers of the size of an occupation force but would rely on the recommendations of commanders in the region.
  
  "How about a range?" said Levin.
  
  "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers," the general said. "Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful."

Of course, the Bush administration didn't want to hear that from anyone who actually knew something so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him. :roll:

Strange that both of them were fired for their objections. The Bushwhackos' MO was simply to ignore or get rid of anyone who stepped up to counter their moves to take the country to their war of lies. :frown:

• General Anthony Zinni also repeatedly warned the Bushwhackos about their folly.
  

  Warnings ignored, says retired Marine
  
  By Rick Rogers
  UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
  
  April 16, 2004
  
  Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.
  
  "I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
  
  At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.
  
  Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series.
  
  For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and religious clashes that would be unleashed.
  
  "I think that some heads should roll over Iraq," Zinni said. "I think the president got some bad advice.
  .
  .
  (article continues)

Bush lied to Conress and the American public. So far, his lies have cost the lives of almost 3,000 American killed in action, many more killed just as heroically in the course of their service, there (but not counted as dying in battle), tens of thousands of American wounded and otherwise injured, and hundreds of thousands in Iraqi and other innocent lives.

His lies have cost multiple trillions (terra-bucks). He has mortgaged our futures, as well as those of our children, our grandchldren and our greatgrandchildren. He has done this while cutting revenues with tax cuts and further enriching his already rich buddies with no-bid contracts. He has done this while shredding American civil rights and riding on the bigotry and hatred of a bunch of moral pygmies from the hyper zealot religious right.

As I see it, as long as you want to think of Bush as evil you are in an extreme minority of people in this country. And I believe that minority to be so small as to make it irrelevant.

I don't care how you try to justify or sugar coat it, or how you try to push the venality of Bush's actions into some grey mist of forgotten history. If you don't consider what he and his band of criminals to be EVIL, you need to send your moral compass back to the manufacturer for calibration. :|

 

[ProfJohn]

Alright Harvey, enough already.

You think Bush is evil, good for you. Now go join the other half dozen people who would be brave enough to make such a statement.

A few last comments:
Bush did not LIE, he repeated what he was told and what many others were also saying, including both of the Clinton's

I do not recall Bush ever saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That was not used at all in the justification for invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq not because Saddam was linked with 9-11, but because of the fear of Saddam aiding terrorist in the future.

The same guy who claimed we would need several hundred thousands of troops to 'win the peace' also claimed it would take 500,000 troops to win the war. You ignore the fact that he was wrong on that, but hold him up as a hero because of his other statements.

Finally... what is with the "lies cost multiple trillions" comment? So far we have spent 300 billion on Iraq, a large sum for sure, but not even 1/3 of a trillion. Meanwhile we have spent an estimated 5 trillion on the "war on poverty" and have virtually nothing to show for it. Why don't you complain about all that money being wasted?

Unless you have something worthwhile to comment on I doubt I will respond again.
Have a good day. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Alright Harvey, enough already.

You think Bush is evil, good for you. Now go join the other half dozen people who would be brave enough to make such a statement.

I'm glad you think speaking the truth with documentation qualifies me as "brave." Does that make sycophant administration apologists like you cowards?

A few last comments:
Bush did not LIE, he repeated what he was told and what many others were also saying, including both of the Clinton's

How wrong can you be? President Bill Clinton did NOT invade Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton was wrong to support the war, but she, along with the rest of Congress didn't have the all facts. They had only the spoon fed, stove piped "intelligence" information the Bushies wanted to give them.

I do not recall Bush ever saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That was not used at all in the justification for invading Iraq.

So you don't consider all of the statements by Dick Cheney and other administration officials declaring a direct links between Al Qaeda and Iraq to be part of the administration's line of BS or that it was intended to support the belief that Saddam was linked to 9-11? Do you think it's just a coincidence that, at one time, nearly 70% of Americans believed that?

We invaded Iraq not because Saddam was linked with 9-11, but because of the fear of Saddam aiding terrorist in the future.

Was that the first, second, third, fifth or tenth lie the administration gave for invading Iraq? :roll:

It doesn't matter. They were all lies. :|

The same guy who claimed we would need several hundred thousands of troops to 'win the peace' also claimed it would take 500,000 troops to win the war. You ignore the fact that he was wrong on that, but hold him up as a hero because of his other statements.

Which guy? If you're talking about General Shinseki, you'll have to provide some documentation of the 500,000 figure. Assuming you can, we would have been better off to have 500,000 troops than the paltry 50,000 Ronald Dumbsfeld wanted. That was increased to a slightly larger, but still paltry 75,000 when they started their fiasco, and we'd still be better off with the 300,000 usually quoted in Shinseki's statements.

Or did you mean Colin Powell? He sold us out when he didn't speak up to oppose the war, despite his own rules from the first Gulf War including the use of overwhelming force.

The Powell Doctrine, also known as the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force, was elaborated by General Colin Powell in the run up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War. It is based in large part on the Weinberger Doctrine, devised by Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense and Powell's former boss.

The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:

• 1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

The fifth point of the Doctrine is normally interpreted to mean that the U.S. should not get involved in peacekeeping or nation-building exercises. Powell expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate. This is well in line with Western military strategy dating at least from Carl von Clausewitz's On War. However, in the context of the Just War theory, the doctrine of overwhelming force may violate the principle of proportionality.

Finally... what is with the "lies cost multiple trillions" comment? So far we have spent 300 billion on Iraq, a large sum for sure, but not even 1/3 of a trillion.

The operative words in your statement are "So far..." From MSNBC:

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion
Estimates vary, but all agree price is far higher than initially expected

By Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 5:25 p.m. PT March 17, 2006

Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent

One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.
.
.
U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.

The upper limit of the cost of the Bushwhackos' insanity is undefined, as is the end point, as is any rational strategy for reaching it. And that ignores the additional losses because those funds were not available to use for all the positive, constructive purposes that would grow the economy, including education, disaster preparedness (remember Katrina?) and general investment in revenue generating infrastructure. Then, you should include the cost of all the spilled blood. Those who died will never be back to contribute their earning power, let alone other, less tangible possible human contributions such as invention, leadership, or just the value of being able to support their families or to be parents to their children.

Meanwhile we have spent an estimated 5 trillion on the "war on poverty" and have virtually nothing to show for it. Why don't you complain about all that money being wasted?

BRILLIANT!!! You want to compare investing in attempts to solve the problems of poverty with the money squandered in a war based on lies?

Get a fscking grip on reality, or at least get some semblance of ethics and morality. Assuming every well intentioned anti-poverty project failed due to poor planning or execution, they would still be attempts to solve real problems of real human beings. How in the name of everything noble this nation stands for do you dare to compare that to spending any amount of money on a war that never had anything to do with the security of our nation? The only positive income this war has generated has gone into the pockets of Halliburton and other war profiteers.

Unless you have something worthwhile to comment on I doubt I will respond again.
Have a good day. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Promises, promises, promises... You have yet to say anything worthwhile in this thread or any other. You could do the world a favor by keeping your word, this time.

Have a nice day, yourself. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
RANT! RANT! RANT! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

Believe whatever you want to believe.

As I said, the number of people who agree with you that Bush is evil is so small that it is inconsequential.

Of course those believing that he is an imbecile is a different story.

There's my vote. Well, let me shade it a bit. I don't think Bush is stupid, but he's been a very poor executive, and been incapable of listening to the advice he needs most. He's delegated authority to a bunch of hard-charging idiots, and it seems like he's not a real big fan of dissent. Every President should have advisors that disagree with what his other advisors say. It seems in the Bush Presidency that any disagreement was summed up by saying you weren't a team player. That's the issue. Bush had this naive idea of not wanting to hear the other side of the coin or any dissent.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: operaman1
Bush is a leader who surrounded himself with the wrong advisers. He listened to their advice exclusively and is paying the price for it. I do not see him as evil or stupid in so much as insulated and not realistic in some of his assessments. This can be attributed to not having enough dissenting opinions which I put more at the feet of Cheney and Rumsfeld than Bush.

I see him as a guy who saw North Korea and saw the potential in Iraq, rolled the dice that Saddam was closer than he was in getting a nuke and it came up snake eyes. Then, when he needed to be realistic concerning the way the war was going was too stubborn to go the United Nations for help.

In 04 he should have dumped Cheney then, but his "loyalty" to people kept him from making the prudent decision that has left the Republicans with the Albatross they have today. Also the bright guy who thought giving Halliburton the contracts in Iraq was a good idea is a moron as it would take two seconds to make the connection between Cheney and them. Really just a terrible job of public relations and damage control all the way around.

As to the war? I mean really it is not a war in so much as a civil war and conflict now. The difference is it comes 20 years sooner than if we had left Saddam in charge and we are flipping the bill for it. It is different groups all wanting the same pie. There really was not going to be a winner in all of this and there may never be. It is a sad, sad commentary on mankind to see it all. What is more sad is worse things go on in Africa everyday and no one cares. Hey, wait a minute, they aren't sitting on some gargantuan percentage of the world's oil supply. Never mind then...

Seriously, it is an unfortunate situation. Had the war been avoided I think Saddam would have gotten a nuke at some point if for no other reason than Iran is close now. Still then the UN would be flipping the bill for dealing with Saddam instead of the US flipping the bill for everything.

I wonder though: All in all, if man had the hindsight to realize the devastation that is the atomic bomb would there be a huge case of taksey backsies even going back to WWII? Ah, but that is neither here nor there. There were a lot of different factors then just like there are now. Nukes are here to stay, and unfortunately, there are leaders dumb enough to use them...

So really no one wins.

Holy Batman. I didn't read this before I posted, but you sum up my thoughts exactly.