Post by Adam AlbrightPost by Steven DouglasPost by Adam AlbrightPost by Steven DouglasPost by Adam AlbrightYes Clinton lied about having sex. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield lies got
us in a unnecessary war that's cost countless lives.
It's saved countless lives that would have been lost due to the corrupt
UN Oil for Food program. It saved countless lives that would have wound
up in Saddam's mass graves. It saved countless women -- wives of
Saddam's political opponents -- from being raped while their husbands
were forced to watch. It saved countless children -- children of
Saddam's opponents -- from being tortured while their parents were
forced to watch. It saves countless Iraqis from starving due to the UN
sanctions. But of course liberals don't care about any of that. They
hate Bush -- they hate Bush more than they hate Saddam Hussein or Osama
bin Laden. They hate Bush, and that's ALL that matters in their
pathetic little lives.
Boy, the shit keeps pouring out of your mouth Douglas
Basically what you're saying is its OK that Bush gets to play God and
decide who dies.
No, he got authorization from Congress. Many prominent Democrats voted
to give Bush that authorization. In addition, Bush had Tony Blair and
the leaders of many other nations on his side. Libs keep talking like
Bush did this all by himself, but he had a lot of help from Democrats
and other world leaders.
That fairy tale won't fly. Bush LIED to Congress to get them to go
along.
Ah, that tired old liberal spin. On January 18, 2004, Democratic Leader
Richard Gephardt told Tim Russert of NBC News Meet the Press that he
didn't rely on President
Bush for his intelligence:
REP. GEPHARDT: Now, I didn't listen to him about the weapons of
mass destruction. I went to the CIA, talked to George Tenet, I talked
with his top people. I talked to former Clinton officials. I became
convinced that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or components of
weapons that could wind up in the United States. We cannot have a
weapon of mass destruction used in the United States, and I'll do
anything in my power to prevent that from happening. [end quote]
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3979910/
You see, the Clinton administration believed Saddam had WMD. It was the
Clinton appointed CIA director, George Tenet, who told Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. Apparently he also told Democratic Leader
Gephardt that as well. In addition, the intelligence that was provided
to other members of Congress came from the CIA that was run by the
Clinton appointed CIA director.
Post by Adam AlbrightBy the way you clueless Rightard, what Congress authorized wasn't
close to what Bush actually did. He wasn't given a blank check. Just
once, get your facts straight.
More liberal spin. President Bush was given authorization to use
military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. What sort of
authorization do you think he was given?
Post by Adam AlbrightPost by Steven DouglasPost by Adam AlbrightTrue, Saddam was a ruthless dictator. People died
under his rule. Ditto for dozens of other countires I could list that
have worse dictators that Bush has done zip about. Like North Korea
for example. Tell me why Bush hasn't seen fit to bring "democracy" to
the people of North Korea? They are suffering far worse then the
people in Iraq.
I'd like to free the people of North Korea, but it would be a bit more
difficult since North Korea was allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
That was one of the reasons to take out Saddam Hussein *before* he was
allowed to develop his nuclear weapons.
Another fairy tale. Shocking, Bush is trying to use it again telling
us Iran is devoping nukes. Again the real problem, North Korea, who
admits having nukes and our intelligence confirms is blown off by the
chimp in the oval office and something we can just talk with them
about.
Who was president when North Korea developed its nukes? And how was
that situation allowed to happen? Now, since North Korea already has
nukes, they can blow South Korea or Japan off the map if we get too
aggressive. It's really too bad we didn't take care of that problem
about ten or twelve years ago. But we didn't, so we're stuck with
"talking" to those guys at this point. Hopefully China will put enough
pressure on North Korea to keep them from doing something stupid with
their nukes.
Post by Adam AlbrightYou of course don't see the irony. If Bush is allowed to run
around trying to prevent states like Iraq and Iran from developing
nukes, the evil states like North Korea that ALREADY HAS THEM is
encouraged to make more (for their defense) fearing sooner or later
Bush will get around to attacking them and perhaps for spite sells
them to other states or terrorists.
I don't think we're going to attack them. It's going to take some
"talking" to get them in line at this point.
Post by Adam AlbrightPost by Steven DouglasPost by Adam AlbrightBush by starting his Iraq war killed far more than Saddam. The
estimates are anywhere from 40,000 to over 100,000 killed since the
Texas chimpanzee began his war so he could puff out his chest and
blubber "I'm the war president".
Wrong. Saddam's mass graves contained around 300,000 dead Iraqis.
Additionally, there were all the Iraqis who suffered under the UN
sanctions all through the 90s. But you probably thought the sanctions
were working just fine, killing 5,000 Iraqi children per month
according to some humanitarian groups' claims being made prior to the
war.
Oh my, news flash... Saddam killed people including many of his own
during another war. I'm shocked. You side-stepped how Bush plays God
and has killed over 100,000 in Iraq
I disagree with that number. It's a grossly inflated estimate based on
bad data. The more reasonable number from the Iraqbodycount website is
based on actual counting. To reach 100,000 in three years, about 100
people a day would have had to die EVERYDAY. There is no evidence of
that number of dead EVERYDAY in Iraq. And the Iraqis who have been
dying for the past couple of years are being targeted and murdered by
the terrorist insurgency.
Post by Adam Albrightin some feeble and failed attempt
to bring "democracy". Are you a religious person? Do you think God
will forgive Bush for the killing of all the innocent women, children
and non combatants Bush's tanks, bombs and guns have killed?
How did you feel about the removal of Milosevic from power? I
subscribe to the philosophy that evil can only prosper when good men do
nothing. Unfortunately, innocent civilians were killed in bombing raids
during the war to remove Milosevic from power. I hate it when any
innocent person is killed in a war where the goal is to remove an evil
from the world. I don't presume to speak for God, but the Bible says
there is a time for war and a time for peace.
Post by Adam AlbrightI won't pretend to speak for God, that's something else Bush comes
close to trying. I would think God would not be happy with the killing
of anybody. Heck, I seem to remember a commandment, "thou shall not
kill".
Actually, the correct translation is "thou shall not murder." Most
newer Bibles are correcting that translation, which has been tranlated
incorrectly in English for many years. You really should read more.
Post by Adam AlbrightDamn, did I miss a footnote in the bible where God gave religious
fakers and pretenders like Bush an exemption to his commandments? Do
you think Bush a believer in "end times" thinks God wants to use him
to bring end events about? Maybe instead of Bush wanting to be known
as the "war presidnet" he actually wants to be the last president.
Literally.
I have no idea. Are you a mind reader?
Post by Adam AlbrightWell rightard defend the Bushie muder rampage.
I disagree with that characterization. Instead, I'm thinking about all
the lives that will be saved because Saddam is no longer in power.
Post by Adam AlbrightPost by Steven DouglasPost by Adam AlbrightFar worse, by Bush being the babbling idiot he is, he lost his best
and perhaps only chance to capture/kill bin Laden and his band of
thugs. You remember him. That was the guy that admitted he was
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How fast rightard monkeys forget we
had him surrounded in Afghanistan, but he rode off on a ass under
cover of darkness right under our noses making Bush look like a bigger
ass. Just imagine, the commander and chief of the world's only super
power with all the military might at his disposal can't even capture
what amounts to a band of bandits on donkeys and camels. Pathetic! So
then Cheney whispers in Bush's ear, now would be a good time to invade
Iraq on some made up excuse to take attention off how bad we blew it.
Get a clue fool. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Bush lied. What
else is new. The whole laundy list of excuses Bush gave for going to
war have all proved to be bogus starting with Iraq is a threat, they
got WMD's to the fairy tale Bush wanted to bring "democracy" to the
people.
You don't want democracy for Iraq? They've already held some elections
there, you know. Would you reverse that if you could?
You're funny! The elections were months ago. What's changed? Want the
truth? Can you handle the truth? Violence level:increased. Attacks on
American troops: more deadly. Now please make me laugh and tell me the
people of Iraq are better off. They still don't have electrical power
that stays on. There isn't enough fresh water. Human waste goes into
open sewers in the streets. They have next to zero oil capacity, which
hahahah was suppose to fund the war. Remember? It isn't safe to go
outside after dark. Kidnapping has run wild and is a daily happening.
If that's democracy, I don't think they want anything to do with it.
Large parts of Iraq are secure. You're focusing on one part of Iraq,
and extrapolating it out to the entire country. Iraq is the size of
California. It would be like pointing to a high crime area in Los
Angeles, and saying it is representative of the entire State of
California.
Post by Adam AlbrightPost by Steven DouglasPost by Adam AlbrightGet your facts straight. The world hates Bush. Don't you ever pay
attention? Bush has done more to damage the reputation of the United
States then the past 20 administrations combined and everyone knows
it. Even money he will get impeached or be forced from office because
we both know the Repugs are headed for disaster in November.
Keep your hopes up. I know that's what you're living for, and I sure
wouldn't want your ulcer to get any worse than it already is.
I enjoy watching rightards like you squirm and sweat. No ulcers here.
Another fact you are hopelessly wrong on. Crawl out from under your
rock once in awhile a read a newspaper.
I read two newspapers daily.
Post by Adam AlbrightScience years ago said stomach
ulcers (which you imply I have) are mostly caused by a virus.
Hmm, I looked it up, and it says bacterial infection. But stress can
make an existing ulcer worse. Interesting, thanks for the information.
I've never thought much about ulcers. I was led to believe (many years
ago) they were caused by stress. Amazing the things one can learn on
usenet.
Post by Adam AlbrightYou're just another uninformed clueless rightard. You should have
learned by now how easily I crush you all under my feet without even
trying.
And besides that, you're a delusional egotist as well.