The Bush legacy

[Mustang]

Clare Boothe Luce liked to say that “a great man is one sentence.” Presidents, in particular. The most common “one sentence” for George W. Bush is: “He kept us safe.”

Using this sentence to describe the President during 9-11 is insulting

Karl Rove was the master of false advertising.

It started when Bush was running for president with the slogan of Bush as a "compassionate conservative."

On Bush the man, America was sold on the idea that Bush was a rancher. Yep, he had the Stetson, and the jeans, and the pick up truck, AND that Texas swagger. But his ranch had no animals, and Bush was actually afraid of horses. And let's not forget that the so-called Ranch was bought right before the election (just in time for millions of Federal dollars in improvements), and was then quietly and quickly unloaded once Bush was out of office.

It continued with legislation like the Clear Skies Initiative which actually weakened environmental safe guards.

So, saying in the years following 9-11 that Bush 'kept us safe' is little more than an attempt at revisionist history. That's the kind of flagrant propaganda even Stalin would have admired since during and after WWII Stalin tried to sell Russians on the idea that he kept his country safe from Hitler and the Nazis when the reality was that he left the SU open to attack from the 3rd Reich after he entered into his agreement with Hitler to partition Poland.

Rove was ALWAYS trying to sell America on a line of BS. The whole WMD nonsense being the most egregious example.

 

[rightwinger]

what is it that is insulting?

I still have no understanding as to why you woudl use that event as an insult?
what are you trying to say?
9-11 was caused by 19 insanly motivated terrorist
the only insult about any of this was the left using those events to re gain power in 2006

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

 

[JRK]

The decision to invade was made entirely by Bush

You are one dumb shitforbrained idiot...

YEAs — 77 (This would be who voted FOR the Iraq War, dumbfuck).

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Read the bill

It authorizes the President to invade if he believes it is warranted

The decision to invade was entirely Bush's. It is his legacy

No it does not
If gave himn the power to enforce UN regulations that as you can read were being ignored in 2003
Saddam chose to ignore those regulations
Not GWB
He did what the people on both sides asked him to do, no told him to do
Chemical weapons


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.


The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.





Biological weapons


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.




Missiles


I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.


Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.


Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.Update 27 January 2003

You have been lied too

 

[rightwinger]

obama had to fix the Bush blunder, by blundering into Syria!

How many troops do we have in Syria?

 

[g5000]

Charles Krauthammer: The Bush legacy - The Washington Post
A great opinion wrote by CK of the post

Let me add not only was both wars a success, his tax rates created millions of jobs until the wealth boom caused by greed and not policy crashed in 08
To me GWB biggest failures were
Immigration reform
Not funding Medicare D
And no child left behind
in 2007 this country stood at the door step of a balanced budget, the last GOP budget
BHO and the dems added 700 billion to that base-line by 2009 and along with the press gave blame to W

A truly great president during 8 very difficult years

Bush legacy:

Number of jobs added during 8 years of Clinton: 30 million.

Number of jobs added during 8 years of Bush: 3 million (and I am not counting all the jobs LOST due to the crash, which puts Bush deep in the red on job creation)

TARP: $700 billion

National Debt: Doubled

Wars started : Three (Iraq, Afghanistan, Terra)

Government Size and Power Expansion:
1) Massive new cabinet level Department (DHS).
2) Domestic spying without warrants
3) Torture of prisoners
4) Suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens
5) Seizure of citizens' library reading lists
6) Massive new unfunded entitlement program (Medicare Part D)
7) Expanded the size of all but two government departments


The two departments Bush shrank were the SEC and the EPA. This was followed by the implosion of the global derivatives bubble, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Coincidence?

 

[Stephanie]

I still have no understanding as to why you woudl use that event as an insult?
what are you trying to say?
9-11 was caused by 19 insanly motivated terrorist
the only insult about any of this was the left using those events to re gain power in 2006

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

neither did Clinton or Obama, and if you people claim they did, that is a insult..

 

[JRK]

I still have no understanding as to why you woudl use that event as an insult?
what are you trying to say?
9-11 was caused by 19 insanly motivated terrorist
the only insult about any of this was the left using those events to re gain power in 2006

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

from 9-11 he did
no-one has said anything different

 

[rightwinger]

]

You are one dumb shitforbrained idiot...

YEAs — 77 (This would be who voted FOR the Iraq War, dumbfuck).

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Read the bill

It authorizes the President to invade if he believes it is warranted

The decision to invade was entirely Bush's. It is his legacy

No it does not
If gave himn the power to enforce UN regulations that as you can read were being ignored in 2003
Saddam chose to ignore those regulations
Not GWB
He did what the people on both sides asked him to do, no told him to do
Chemical weapons


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.


The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.





Biological weapons


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.




Missiles


I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.


Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.


Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.Update 27 January 2003

You have been lied too

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.



It was Bush's decision and it is his legacy

 

[healthmyths]

.

Gosh, the families of 5,000 dead young American soldiers and multiple thousands more young maimed American soldiers may think something's missing from that list.

.

If they do they are just as ignorant as YOU are in that the "1991 CEASE FIRE" the first time Saddam invaded Kuwait was SIGNED by Saddam NOT to violate the CEASE FIRE or the CEASE FIRE would discontinue and FIRE would continue... it just took 12 years, dozens of more UN resolutions AND THESE Democrats along with the SENATE AND HOUSE to sign oh a little inconsequential event known as 9/11 to the following:

First Clinton did..
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 CNN - Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance - December 16, 1998 signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public law 105-338 expressed the sense
of congress it should be policy to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime.

BEFORE BUSH and idiots like you obviously DON"T REMEMBER THESE PEOPLE...
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. 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 is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Explain why Clinton said this after bombing Iraq???
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 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

* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)


Congress passes Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)
"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, (68.9% of the house)
the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. (77%) The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

1 * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons
inspectors
2 * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat
to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
3 * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
4 * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own
people"
5 * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of
former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones
following the 1991 Gulf War
6 * Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
7 * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States
terrorist organizations
8 * Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
9 * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided
or harbored them
10 * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

BUT of course BUSH being that totally superior criminal able to convince ALL these people to his way of thinking... (which is really contradictory with the Bush BASHERS
statements "Bush was a buffoon... was an ape... was a ignorant...!!!)

So again... when you make that totally Bush BASHING statement remember you are also parrotting what the MSM was doing to Bush!!!

Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

In the opinion of historians 20 years from now Bush will go down as one of the GREATEST Presidents who had 4 major cataclysmic events something no other President has faced!
And because the MSM was so against Bush as they donated and voted 85% to the Democrats... Bush's reputation will be even more respected!

 

[rightwinger]

I still have no understanding as to why you woudl use that event as an insult?
what are you trying to say?
9-11 was caused by 19 insanly motivated terrorist
the only insult about any of this was the left using those events to re gain power in 2006

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

neither did Clinton or Obama, and if you people claim they did, that is a insult..

9,000 Americans died under Bush "keeping us safe"

More than Obama, Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter and Ford combined

 

[g5000]

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

from 9-11 he did
no-one has said anything different

We were no longer protected by habeas corpus with Bush. We were no longer protected from torture with Bush. We were no longer protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth or Tenth Amendments with Bush.

 

[JRK]

Clare Boothe Luce liked to say that “a great man is one sentence.” Presidents, in particular. The most common “one sentence” for George W. Bush is: “He kept us safe.”

Using this sentence to describe the President during 9-11 is insulting

Karl Rove was the master of false advertising.

It started when Bush was running for president with the slogan of Bush as a "compassionate conservative."

On Bush the man, America was sold on the idea that Bush was a rancher. Yep, he had the Stetson, and the jeans, and the pick up truck, AND that Texas swagger. But his ranch had no animals, and Bush was actually afraid of horses. And let's not forget that the so-called Ranch was bought right before the election (just in time for millions of Federal dollars in improvements), and was then quietly and quickly unloaded once Bush was out of office.

It continued with legislation like the Clear Skies Initiative which actually weakened environmental safe guards.

So, saying in the years following 9-11 that Bush 'kept us safe' is little more than an attempt at revisionist history. That's the kind of flagrant propaganda even Stalin would have admired since during and after WWII Stalin tried to sell Russians on the idea that he kept his country safe from Hitler and the Nazis when the reality was that he left the SU open to attack from the 3rd Reich after he entered into his agreement with Hitler to partition Poland.

Rove was ALWAYS trying to sell America on a line of BS. The whole WMD nonsense being the most egregious example.

No-one but the left has re wrote history
The UN made claims that there where 6500 muntions with chemical war heads missing, not GWB
The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The UN made claim Saddam was still using long range missiles, not GWB
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

The UN made claim that Saddam had chemicals and the material to make more, not GWB

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

This si from 1-27-2003
months after the vote in congress to enforce these regs that it is obvious here were being ignored
Update 27 January 2003

 

[Stephanie]

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

neither did Clinton or Obama, and if you people claim they did, that is a insult..

9,000 Americans died under Bush "keeping us safe"

More than Obama, Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter and Ford combined

so now you all are counting the dead? that is how fucking morbid and twisted you lefties are..anything to make your hate for Bush shine

 

[JRK]

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

from 9-11 he did
no-one has said anything different

We were no longer protected by habeas corpus with Bush. We were no longer protected from torture with Bush. We were no longer protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth or Tenth Amendments with Bush.

really?
name one US citizen that has had any of these Amendments bring them any harm? if there has been no harm then how have they violated?
Torture?
that is not what the justice dept said it was
that is your opinion, not a fact

 

[JRK]

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

neither did Clinton or Obama, and if you people claim they did, that is a insult..

9,000 Americans died under Bush "keeping us safe"

More than Obama, Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter and Ford combined

What did GWB do to kill anyone you idiot?
and where did the number 9000 come from?

 

[healthmyths]

The statement that Bush kept us safe is an insult

You may make all the arguments you want that it was not Bush's fault.....You cannot make an argument that "He kept us safe"

neither did Clinton or Obama, and if you people claim they did, that is a insult..

9,000 Americans died under Bush "keeping us safe"

More than Obama, Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Carter and Ford combined

OK.. 3,000 people (Correction... NOT ALL were Americans FYI!!!) in 9/11.
1,000 US soldiers died due to the Liberation and the remaining 4,000 due to TRAITORS like YOU who ignorantly applauded these statements that according to a Harvard study,
ENCOURAGED TERRORISTS! Created MORE terrorism!
These statements recruited terrorists that prolonged the Liberation of Iraq that was over in 6 weeks but prolonged by these traitors 6 years!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

WERE THESE POLITICAL STATEMENTS or just the truth???

CBS Anchor: 'We Are Getting Big Stories Wrong, Over and Over Again'
Our house is on fire," said Pelley. The video of Pelley's speech is courtesy of nowthisnews.com

Then we had the WORST HURRICANE SEASONS!!! at least 3,000 people died... but of course this was ALL BUSH's planning right????

And of course you don't know about the Gorelick Memo do you and the direct order the CIA could not share with FBI the 9/11 terrorists plan!

 

[rightwinger]

Her's something else missing - Death toll in A-Stan under Obama has more than doubled since GW Bush departed office.

No question about it

After seven years in Afghanistan, Obama still had to clean up the mess left by Bush. If only Bush had done the job right and not abandoned Afghanistan to engage in his blunder in Iraq all those American soldiers could have been saved

What mess?
What Blunder
you want to accuse, be specific so the truth can shut you up

What mess? What Blunder?

1. Bush abandoned the war on terror to pursue an invasion of a country that was not a threat and not involved in terrorism in the US
2. Bush trumped up charges of a perceived WMD threat based on selected intelligence and withheld intelligence that downplayed the threat
3. Bush underestimated the size of the invasion force needed to control Iraq
4. Bush prematurely declared mission accomplished
5. Bush believed that Iraq would "Treat us as liberators"
6. Bush was unable to curtail the inevitable Civil War after Saddam was deposed
7. Bush failed to build an effective international coalition
8. The decision to invade cost over 100,000 Iraqi lives and 5000+ American lives

 

[healthmyths]

Harvard Study...
A Harvard study found here
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity?
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent
attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
On a related note, the New York Times reports that the media aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as they used to:
Media attention on Iraq began to wane after the first months of fighting, but as recently as the middle of last year, it was still the most-covered topic.
Since then, Iraq coverage by major American news sources has plummeted to about one-fifth of what it was last summer, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
If the Harvard study is right, we may be looking at a virtuous circle: Less violence means less media coverage, which in turn means less violence, says the Wall Street Journal.
Perhaps one day we'll wake up to discover that America won the war in Iraq months earlier, but no one noticed because the reporters were all busy with other things.
Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008

 

[JRK]

]

Read the bill

It authorizes the President to invade if he believes it is warranted

The decision to invade was entirely Bush's. It is his legacy

No it does not
If gave himn the power to enforce UN regulations that as you can read were being ignored in 2003
Saddam chose to ignore those regulations
Not GWB
He did what the people on both sides asked him to do, no told him to do
Chemical weapons


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.


The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.


Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.





Biological weapons


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.




Missiles


I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.


Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.


Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.Update 27 January 2003

You have been lied too

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.



It was Bush's decision and it is his legacy

your so blind with hate that the simple truth eludes you
those words you copied?
came from congress
And according to the exact guidlines congress mandated to our president, he acted
The peoples voice had spoken, loud and across the board clear
when the report from Blix came-out in 2003 as I have peovided for you
he acted

 

[g5000]

from 9-11 he did
no-one has said anything different

We were no longer protected by habeas corpus with Bush. We were no longer protected from torture with Bush. We were no longer protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth or Tenth Amendments with Bush.

really?
name one US citizen that has had any of these Amendments bring them any harm? if there has been no harm then how have they violated?

You know all that screaming about the NSA spying on us you are hearing these days? The same thing was going on with Bush. It was in all the papers.

When were you born? How do you not know about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?

Torture?
that is not what the justice dept said it was

That's what one whackadoo in the Justice Department said it was. John Yoo.

And yet I can show you the United States government called waterboarding torture when it tried Japanese soldiers with war crimes for doing it.

Defendant: Asano, Yukio

Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan

Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.

Specifications:beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward

Verdict: 15 years CHL

Reviewing Authority Recommendations:

Reviewing Authority:

Prosecution Arguments:

Defense Arguments:

Judge Advocate's Recommendations:

Yokohama Reviews - Asano

that is your opinion, not a fact

No, it's a fact. I can't help it you are ignorant of recent history to such an extent.