Bush Says Disgusted by Abuse of Iraqis, Vows to Act

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
so far, by and large the biggest flip-flop i've seen in bush's admin has been his initial shunning of the UN, and now the 180° to desperately needing the UN, and an arab coalition prescence to ever give iraq any hope of stability, let alone 'fighting the war on terror'.

Sorry, Spilly, I just don't see this as a flip flop.

Bush wanted to use force to remove Saddam and his regime. The administration saw them as a threat and felt they had more than enough time already to cooperate and opted to go in and forcibly remove them even though the UN was against this action. They wanted UN support then as they do now. They did what they felt was right in March of 2003 and are now doing what they think is right in 2004. It's 2 totally different initiatives. One was 'war' and the UN is being sought out now for a peacekeeping mission.

 

[krisy]

Originally posted by spillmind
oh no, he's completely absolved of any wrong doing in this war. remember, he is on a theological mission here. (i mean, he sends our troops in for his steady cause) no, he didn't do it with his own hands, but he did commission this war.

when we condone tactics like dropping cluster bombs, bombing legitimate businesses (hunting terror) and an occupation vs. a co-existence (not to say this is because we haven't tried), it's easy to see why support is slipping for the war not only domestically, but collectively among iraqis as well. and just because this story got out, you really think this is the only case? besides, what genius (traitor) let this crap get out to the mainstream media anyhow?

taking the higher is not the easy road, but's it's the only road if we seek to achieve whatever we set off to achieve. whatever that may be....? so far, by and large the biggest flip-flop i've seen in bush's admin has been his initial shunning of the UN, and now the 180° to desperately needing the UN, and an arab coalition prescence to ever give iraq any hope of stability, let alone 'fighting the war on terror'. ahem.

...um, how could you *not* see this coming?

spillmind,I don't think this is the first time this has probably happened with prisoners held by America or other nations. My point was,that it isn't Bush's fault in any way.and I don't believe it was torture.

Taking the high road is usually not the easy road,you are right. But shouldn't you be glad we have a pres that is willing to take it to make this country safer? Why do you think 9-11 happened? In part,because this country did NOTHING after the U.S.S> Cole and several other terrorists hits on foreign soil.High road wasn't taken in the last administration

As far as the U.N. goes,well,I don't think they are very useful. If this ever so wonderful coalition of countries maybe would have some more balls about it,and maybe a few more countries sent some men to Iraq,maybe we wouldn't have lost so many lives. But no,once again the mighty U.S. is left with a few friends to take care of the rest of the world. We know there were weapons we saw pictures of them being used. We know there were Al Queda training camps in Iraq.nuff said.If people in Iraq don't like what we have done,tuff shit. We are only making the world saferand aren't going to sit around in idle just because they want to be ruled by an evil dictator.

Bottom line-lets quit blamimg Bush for every thing,it's getting quite hypocritical,because it' usually the media doing it,and they start a lot of the conroversy inthis world by blowing things out of proportion.

 

[jewettjim]

Yes, Presiodent Bush asked (pleaded) for United Nations support in enforcing their own resolutions. Yes, he is again asking the UN for support in establishing a new Iraqi government. Where is the flip-flop? The original Bush request for full UN support was denied by France, Germany and Russia and now we know why...they had a sweetheart deal for oil by bribing Sadam. I don't see any flip-flop by asking support from an organization that has denied support in the past. I see that as persistence.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by spillmind
oh no, he's completely absolved of any wrong doing in this war. remember, he is on a theological mission here. (i mean, he sends our troops in for his steady cause) no, he didn't do it with his own hands, but he did commission this war.

when we condone tactics like dropping cluster bombs, bombing legitimate businesses (hunting terror) and an occupation vs. a co-existence (not to say this is because we haven't tried), it's easy to see why support is slipping for the war not only domestically, but collectively among iraqis as well. and just because this story got out, you really think this is the only case? besides, what genius (traitor) let this crap get out to the mainstream media anyhow?

So now terror is a legitmate business? I think you should rephrase your idiotic statement here or else you'll lose all credibility. Cluster Bombs are nothing new. Where was your bleeding heart when Iraq was bombed after their "legitimate" invasion of Kuwait? Where was it all throughout the 90's when Bubba would bomb Iraq just to move some attention form other things at home? Didnt hear much crying then even though the economy that started so well from the end of the Reagan era was slowly destroyed in only 8 years of office from a certain president. Didnt hear much complaining from guys like you on the fact that Clinton did nothing to prevent terrorism on our soil and actually negotiated with terrorists at the White House and at Camp David (Arafat). Thats why guys like you have no credibility to begin with. You all of sudden became moral crusaders when Bush took office.

taking the higher is not the easy road, but's it's the only road if we seek to achieve whatever we set off to achieve. whatever that may be....? so far, by and large the biggest flip-flop i've seen in bush's admin has been his initial shunning of the UN, and now the 180° to desperately needing the UN, and an arab coalition prescence to ever give iraq any hope of stability, let alone 'fighting the war on terror'. ahem.

...um, how could you *not* see this coming?

Another standard campaign practice by democrats. Portray your own flaws on your opponents. Why else is Bush called a liar, manipulator, cheater, murderer, and now flip-flopper? A term that was only recently used to so eloquently describe Kerry's stance on the issues. All of sudden its become another transparent part of the Democratic Campaign Rhetoric.

As for the UN, they were willing to help us in Afghanistan as were France and Germany. Then, when we asked them for the same help in Iraq, all of sudden they didnt want to help? Hmmm i wonder why. Perhaps it was the "Oil for Food" program that lined their leader's pockets with millions of ill-gotten dollars that managed to starve alot of iraqis (who you seem so adament about saving now) and send military weaponary illegally to Sadaam, such as the MIG's found buried carefully in the sand recently. No matter, even without the irrelevant UN, we established a coalition of over 70 nations to remove Sadaam from power.

 

[spillmind]

So now terror is a legitmate business? I think you should rephrase your idiotic statement here or else you'll lose all credibility.

oh ok, we've never accidentally bombed an iraqi business- every single building harbored terrorists. it's a good thing you've been working out to compensate for the shortfall upstairs. however, this is one 'liberal' you won't be eliminating

Cluster Bombs are nothing new. Where was your bleeding heart when Iraq was bombed after their "legitimate" invasion of Kuwait? Where was it all throughout the 90's when Bubba would bomb Iraq just to move some attention form other things at home? Didnt hear much crying then even though the economy that started so well from the end of the Reagan era was slowly destroyed in only 8 years of office from a certain president. Didnt hear much complaining from guys like you on the fact that Clinton did nothing to prevent terrorism on our soil and actually negotiated with terrorists at the White House and at Camp David (Arafat). Thats why guys like you have no credibility to begin with. You all of sudden became moral crusaders when Bush took office.

you're full of crap. cluster bombs and this kind of tactic TOTALLY undermines the 'humanitarian effort' there. so when bush comes out saying he's 'disgusted'- the hypocrisy is so freaking glaring, you've got to have your blinders on 24/7 to NOT SEE THE CONTRADICTION. besides, i NEVER condoned our treatment of the iraqi people after the gulf war to present. you'd better point out where i said that, or you'll lose all credibility.

Another standard campaign practice by democrats. Portray your own flaws on your opponents.

let's see. many people still think CLINTON was to blame for 9/11. WHO WAS PRESIDENT? nuff said.

Yes, Presiodent Bush asked (pleaded) for United Nations support in enforcing their own resolutions. Yes, he is again asking the UN for support in establishing a new Iraqi government.

don't see much 'pleading' here what do you mean, WHERE IS THE FLIP FLOP? short term memory bushies have... hmmmm....

Taking the high road is usually not the easy road,you are right. But shouldn't you be glad we have a pres that is willing to take it to make this country safer? Why do you think 9-11 happened? In part,because this country did NOTHING after the U.S.S> Cole and several other terrorists hits on foreign soil.High road wasn't taken in the last administration

damn, HOW MANY LINKS DO I HAVE TO POST ABOUT CLINTON FIGHTING TERROR? so many BUSHIES still have this MISCONCEPTION that clinton did nothing to combat terror. try this page

Bottom line-lets quit blamimg Bush for every thing,it's getting quite hypocritical,because it' usually the media doing it,and they start a lot of the conroversy inthis world by blowing things out of proportion.

OUR PRESIDENT IS THE MOST HYPOCRITICAL of them all! his failed policies, his smear campaign, his war tactics, they ALL smack of cognitive dissonance!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
damn, HOW MANY LINKS DO I HAVE TO POST ABOUT CLINTON FIGHTING TERROR? so many BUSHIES still have this MISCONCEPTION that clinton did nothing to combat terror.

Why don't you post the one where Sudan offered OBL to him and he turned down the offer?

 

[jimnyc]

Hmmm.... Figures, guess that link wouldn't go along with your statement about him fighting terror, huh? And even worse, he lied to the commission about making that statement and then lied to the press. Funny thing is though, the entire statement he made was recorded.

 

[jimnyc]

And again, here it is in Bubba's own voice:

http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3

 

[insein]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why don't you post the one where Sudan offered OBL to him and he turned down the offer?

Or any of the ones where he treated terror as a major problem and not just some criminal act for the FBI to handle half-assed. I don't recall Clinton doing a very good job.

And the assinine statement about who was president when 9/11 happened just shows how much of a fucking retard you are. Yep the terrorists just decided on January 2001 (Bush's inauguration), "you know what lets blow up the WTC, the pentagon and several other major landmarks in the US. I figure we infiltrate in maybe May or June since the weather will be nice in Boston. Plus that will give us a couple of months to learn how to fly a 747, and set-up our cover."

That plan was started from the moment the first WTC bombing occurred. An attack that clinton managed to only arrest 5 people for. The US embassy bombings in Africa killed thousands on US soil. Yes embassies are US soil. How many people brought to justice, 2. The USS Cole, An american Battleship and therefore American Soil, was attacked. How many people brought to justice by Clinton, 0. Nice work Bubba.

 

[spillmind]

Hmmm.... Figures, guess that link wouldn't go along with your statement about him fighting terror, huh? And even worse, he lied to the commission about making that statement and then lied to the press. Funny thing is though, the entire statement he made was recorded.

hmmm funny thing that you are ready to string clinton up by his balls for this horrendous intel failure, but you absolve bush from ANY REPSONIBILITY for 9/11! guess *that* doesn't have much consistency, now does it?!

And the assinine statement about who was president when 9/11 happened just shows how much of a fucking retard you are.

i've got no more words for you. you've joined the ranks of the fake token liberal moderator. congratulations. (it only took two posts!)

 

[insein]

Originally posted by spillmind
hmmm funny thing that you are ready to string clinton up by his balls for this horrendous intel failure, but you absolve bush from ANY REPSONIBILITY for 9/11! guess *that* doesn't have much consistency, now does it?!

i've got no more words for you. you've joined the ranks of the fake token liberal moderator. congratulations. (it only took two posts!)

Thank goodness. I was hoping i would have to hear you whine endlessly about how your right with zero proof like psycho. I accept your surrender.

 

[spillmind]

Thank goodness. I was hoping i would have to hear you whine endlessly about how your right with zero proof like psycho. I accept your surrender.

not to a couch potato like you!

if i am such a fucking retard, why are you trading posts with me? where's your higher ground, now mr. playground?

i believe you STILL NEED TO BACK UP YOUR NONSENSE, speaking for my stance you assumed i take:

I think you should rephrase your idiotic statement here or else you'll lose all credibility. Cluster Bombs are nothing new. Where was your bleeding heart when Iraq was bombed after their "legitimate" invasion of Kuwait? Where was it all throughout the 90's when Bubba would bomb Iraq just to move some attention form other things at home? Didnt hear much crying then even though the economy that started so well from the end of the Reagan era was slowly destroyed in only 8 years of office from a certain president. Didnt hear much complaining from guys like you on the fact that Clinton did nothing to prevent terrorism on our soil and actually negotiated with terrorists at the White House and at Camp David (Arafat). Thats why guys like you have no credibility to begin with. You all of sudden became moral crusaders when Bush took office.

but you won't, because we both know you're full of crap.

That plan was started from the moment the first WTC bombing occurred.

again, PROVE THIS NONSENSE. you can't and you won't!

now get off that couch and stop posing like arnie. i'm embarassed for you.

 

[Annie]

don't see much 'pleading' here what do you mean, WHERE IS THE FLIP FLOP? short term memory bushies have... hmmmm....

by Spillmind

hmm, he was telling the truth, on several levels. The Security Council's failure to act, did render the UN impotent regarding the concept of using it for military cooperation. Since that time, it has become increasingly the de rigor for the press to report on the problems in Kosovo regarding the inability for the integration of troops.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040408-025823-2895r

or this:

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/93/376/12565_peacekeepers.html


or this:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2798373

damn, HOW MANY LINKS DO I HAVE TO POST ABOUT CLINTON FIGHTING TERROR? so many BUSHIES still have this MISCONCEPTION that clinton did nothing to combat terror. try this page

by Spillmind

Since you seem to think your argument becomes authorative by posting lists of links from sites that bolster your take on a situation, here is a list that shows that while the Clinton administration was becoming increasingly aware of terrorism, they lacked the ability to act with authority. Part of the reason was the mindset of the American people, something that could not be addressed by any administration prior to 9/11; another problem was the character of the President, that was under his control. The last link includes Clinton's own take on fault:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/12/131124.shtml
The next interesting, pointing out that Clinton's administration did not even consider bin Laden anything more than a moneybag, until after 1997:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/8516296.htm?1c
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/8524056.htm
http://keystonhttp://www.wsws.org/a...911-a22.shtmleonline.com/story.asp?Art_id=976
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/hagin_20040421.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4727382.html

So Spillmind, while some 'Bushies' might want to ignor some mistakes, most are willing to admit the mistakes and go from there-a good lesson in all our lives. The 'Clintonclones' should borrow a page and get honest.

Truth of the matter-Clinton did very little to make the US safe from terrorists; neither did the Bush administration until 9/11. Since then the game changed.

 

[jewettjim]

Liberals are not just a mis-guided group of do-gooders (with others peoples' money), they are the ENEMY. They would do ANYTHING to regain power including aiding and abeting terrorism. Fatso Ted Kennedy does it repeatedly by calling the current war on terrorism theater "Bush's Vietnam." The insurgents in Iraq and terrorists worldwide take comfort in this kind of bombastic talk.

 

[spillmind]

Liberals are not just a mis-guided group of do-gooders

*yawn* yeah, i guess donating blood, volunteering for my community on many levels, getting our companies to help out communities, not to mention pay taxes (18K last year) is the ENEMY? *someone* needs a reality check!

So Spillmind, while some 'Bushies' might want to ignor some mistakes, most are willing to admit the mistakes and go from there-a good lesson in all our lives. The 'Clintonclones' should borrow a page and get honest.

i'm not saying clinton was any better than bush. i'm saying that he was taking appropriate steps, like any president would have. this whole 'clinton did nothing' is just a bunch of rubbish.

Truth of the matter-Clinton did very little to make the US safe from terrorists; neither did the Bush administration until 9/11. Since then the game changed.

i totally agree.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
hmmm funny thing that you are ready to string clinton up by his balls for this horrendous intel failure, but you absolve bush from ANY REPSONIBILITY for 9/11! guess *that* doesn't have much consistency, now does it?!

How does Clinton turning down an offer to have OBL turned over to the USA relate to intel failure?

 

[Annie]

It doesn't. That won't indict the spillminds or other clintonclones from arguing that we are on the ropes. They refuse to take the lessons learned to heart, to do so means taking responsibility for their part.

 

[spillmind]

assumptions abound! I NEVER VOTED FOR CLINTON. GET A CLUE, WOULDYA?

How does Clinton turning down an offer to have OBL turned over to the USA relate to intel failure?

would rephrasing 'intel failure' as 'missed opportunities' help you with the parallel? why do you always act like you don't know what i'm talking about, and instead just pick apart sentences?:ali:

 

[Annie]

spilly, you are the one that picks apart sentences and posts. You are wrong on this, time to move on, (I'm sure one of your fav organizations.)

 

[jewettjim]

(*yawn* yeah, i guess donating blood, volunteering for my community on many levels, getting our companies to help out communities, not to mention pay taxes (18K last year) is the ENEMY? *someone* needs a reality check!)

Well la-tee-da, glad to hear some libs like to prove they are do-gooders. Giving blood, etc...big fricking deal!! Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, like so many of you do....MAKE YOU THE ENEMY.