[Hawkeye_a]

Alright now... it's safe to say there aren�t any WMDs in Iraq. I think there's a greater possibility of our moon crashing into mars than finding 'stockpiles' of WMDs in Iraq.

So... anyone notice what�s going on, at the white house, congress and the hill? a great charade of passing the blame around... it's quite funny really. But a great strategy of confusing the hell out of the U.N. and other nations.

So who is 'Bush'... I was under the impression that he was the President, the Commander in chief, and the 'leader' of the USA. And if i remember correctly, he was the one who was setting deadlines, dismissing WMD reports by the Iraqis and who gave the final order to launch an attack. Quite a cowboy in my opinion.

Regardless, he doesn�t seem to be blamed for anything here. isn�t that weird ? I always thought the first rule of leadership was "everything is your fault...success or failure". He was the decision maker the one who made the call in the end. Could his judgment have been so skewed?

So it must have been the intelligence community that messed up ? so what ? he gave the order on bad intelligence ? I love the way the media is playing about this as well...seem to be scrutinizing the issue, when the one to blame is right at the top. I mean seriously.... it would be like saying Bin laden was not to blame cause he was not on the planes, and the actual culprits were the hijackers.

At least Nixon took it (Waterloo) like a man... Bush on the other hand has tucked his tail neatly between his legs and runs away.

This guy (Bush), in my books, has failed in every possible way.

Oh and to the U.N..... thanks so much for verifying your role in global politics. If Iraq invades Kuwait...push it back. It Al-Queda/Taliban attack the U.S....invade. If the U.S. invades Iraq and has no justification...no problem. A nice example of international law at work. This is so friggon messed up.

Thoughts ? Comments ?

P.S.>>I�m glad Saddam is out of power n all, but it seems like bush couldn�t care less about the justifications, what�s even more surprising is that the British and Australian people seem to be putting far more pressure on their leaders to give them answers and they hold them responsible....I mean Blair and Howard are sweating. Nothing of that sort seems to be going on in the U.S.

[Evan_11]

You're pissed because (you think) Bush lied about WMD's yet you are glad that Saddam is no longer in power. Do you think that maybe Bush had to fudge a little to get this accomplished? It worked didn't it. The ends justified the means.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
You're pissed because (you think) Bush lied about WMD's yet you are glad that Saddam is no longer in power. Do you think that maybe Bush had to fudge a little to get this accomplished? It worked didn't it. The ends justified the means.

No the end doesn't justify the means. You could not be more wrong.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
You're pissed because (you think) Bush lied about WMD's yet you are glad that Saddam is no longer in power. Do you think that maybe Bush had to fudge a little to get this accomplished? It worked didn't it. The ends justified the means.

wow. i mean WOW.... "the ends justify the means".... wow.

1. he lied (he could have just as easily told the truth)
2. he didnt take responsibility.(well , he is a little bitch, what would you expect ?)

And no my good sir, the end does not justify the means. i suggest you take a glimpse at the history of the 20th century, and 'learn' something from it.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
wow. i mean WOW.... "the ends justify the means".... wow.

1. he lied (he could have just as easily told the truth)
2. he didnt take responsibility.(well , he is a little bitch, what would you expect ?)

And no my good sir, the end does not justify the means. i suggest you take a glimpse at the history of the 20th century, and 'learn' something from it.

Don't condescend me.

Saddam Hussein was a despot who got away with murder, literally while bribing those who opposed our overthrowing of his government.

In this case the ends justified the means.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by schmuck:
No the end doesn't justify the means. You could not be more wrong.

Typical Scmuck response. Try adding some content next time.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Typical Scmuck response. Try adding some content next time.

Welcome to ignore

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Don't condescend me.

Saddam Hussein was a despot who got away with murder, literally while bribing those who opposed our overthrowing of his government.

In this case the ends justified the means.

Alright whatever. thats not the reason i started this thread.... im sure there are dozens which have done thing.

My question:
why dosent he take responsibility for it ? there seems to be a lot of pointing fingers going on. if he (and you) are so sure what he did was right, why dosent he take responsibility for it ?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Alright whatever. thats not the reason i started this thread.... im sure there are dozens which have done thing.

My question:
why dosent he take responsibility for it ? there seems to be a lot of pointing fingers going on. if he (and you) are so sure what he did was right, why dosent he take responsibility for it ?

I don't understand the question. He takes responsibility for going to war.

Why would he come out and say he lied about WMD's when it was a proven fact that Iraq did indeed have them.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
wow. i mean WOW.... "the ends justify the means".... wow.

1. he lied (he could have just as easily told the truth)
2. he didnt take responsibility.(well , he is a little bitch, what would you expect ?)

And no my good sir, the end does not justify the means. i suggest you take a glimpse at the history of the 20th century, and 'learn' something from it.

Thank the Good Lord Himself that we got ourselves a Man Of Character. A Man That Will Restore Honor And Integrity to the White House.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Don't condescend me.

Saddam Hussein was a despot who got away with murder, literally while bribing those who opposed our overthrowing of his government.

In this case the ends justified the means.

What were the 'means'? Did bush risk a masssive increase in antiamerican terroist activity? Did bush risk further destabilization of the Muslim world. Did bush risk a nucleur attack? Did he risk the safety of the Iraqi people? What other unforeseen consequenties might there have been? What consequences might there still be? How much did this cost? How much will it hurt/help future generations of Americans/Iraqis?

I could risk my life for a gumball. If I lived to tell about it did the end justify the means?

As I hope you can see, it is not entirely clear what the 'means' actually were. The same goes for "the end". How do we oven know this is "the end"? Maybe it is just the beginning...

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Thank the Good Lord Himself that we got ourselves a Man Of Character. A Man That Will Restore Honor And Integrity to the White House.

dayum straight

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Alright whatever. thats not the reason i started this thread....

Yeah, you really started this thread to piss and moan about Bush, not to seek any kind of reasoned or logical argument. Your premise is a sickly farce to propagandise.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I don't understand the question. He takes responsibility for going to war.

Why would he come out and say he lied about WMD's when it was a proven fact that Iraq did indeed have them.

Wow, you must be 12 or something.

For future reference, when the phrase "proven fact" appears in an argument, the debater is pure bullsh!t That, and someone who probably failed English classes (how can a fact not be proven?).

Anyway, Iraq did have WMD�in the early 1990s. The only solid argument based on WMD is that Saddam did not have documentation that he disposed of the weapons. As my law professor emphasizes, don't lie to me that you have a nuke in your basement and then complain when the police come by to check.

Oh, and Hawkeye_a, regarding why Bush won't accept responsibility, I could say that it's because he's a politician, but it's way beyond that. Bush and his cohorts have shown an amazing lack of care and respect for anything or anyone that disagrees with them. I can only hope the American people notice this and take care of this political gang in the fall elections.

You're either with us, or against us�no truer words were ever spoken by you, Mr. Bush.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by dickeshead:
Wow, you must be 12 or something.

For future reference, when the phrase "proven fact" appears in an argument, the debater is pure bullsh!t That, and someone who probably failed English classes (how can a fact not be proven?).

Anyway, Iraq did have WMD�in the early 1990s. The only solid argument based on WMD is that Saddam did not have documentation that he disposed of the weapons. As my law professor emphasizes, don't lie to me that you have a nuke in your basement and then complain when the police come by to check.

You're contradicting your arguement: There has been no proven fact that Saddam destroyed his WMD's. Many of those are still unaccounted for.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Scientist:
What were the 'means'? Did bush risk a masssive increase in antiamerican terroist activity? Did bush risk further destabilization of the Muslim world. Did bush risk a nucleur attack? Did he risk the safety of the Iraqi people? What other unforeseen consequenties might there have been? What consequences might there still be? How much did this cost? How much will it hurt/help future generations of Americans/Iraqis?

I could risk my life for a gumball. If I lived to tell about it did the end justify the means?

As I hope you can see, it is not entirely clear what the 'means' actually were. The same goes for "the end". How do we oven know this is "the end"? Maybe it is just the beginning...

I agree but disagree.

There are never any foregone conclusions.

With the exception of a quite vocal and destructive minority we were right about invading.

Unfortunately that vocal minority is spoiling everything.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
I agree but disagree.

There are never any foregone conclusions.

With the exception of a quite vocal and destructive minority we were right about invading.

Unfortunately that vocal minority is spoiling everything.

Sorry to crash your party.

Just ignore us and resume killing people, if you like.

Suggestion though: It would be far more effective to just nuke everybody. "God" will sort them out, and those deserving will go straight to heaven, where they're surely better off.

Hurry now, and remember that the ends justify the means.

*Especially* when the means includes killing lots and lots of people.

-s*

[phoenixboy]

The ends justified the means.

what ends are you talking about?????

the ends that people are still dying in iraq? the ends that iraq soon will be another afghanistan, with people living in fear of persecution by an authoritarian islamic regime? the ends that us based corporations can now profit from "rebuilding" iraq? what ends???

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Do you think that maybe Bush had to fudge a little to get this accomplished? It worked didn't it. The ends justified the means.

Speaking of Machiavelli...

From "Of Artifices", The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli:
"Nothing makes a prince so well thought of as to undertake great enterprises and give striking proofs of his capacity. Ferdinand of Aragon, in our own time, has become the foremost king in Christendom. If you consider his achievements, you will find them all great and some extraordinary. First he made war on Granada, and this was the foundation of his power. Under the cloak of religion, with what may be called pious cruelty, he cleared his kingdom of the Moors, made war on Africa, invaded Italy and finally attacked France; while his subjects, occupied with these great actions, had neither time nor opportunity to oppose them."

From "Of Maintaining A Princedom", The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli:
"Princes who set little store by their word but have known how to over-reach men by their cunning have accomplished great things, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to honest dealing. The prince must be a lion, but he must also know how to play the fox. He who wishes to deceive will never fail to find willing dupes. The prince, in short, ought not to quit good courses if he can help it, but should know how to follow evil courses if he must."

[Hawkeye_a]

i think the means and end for Bush are:
means: large arsenal of weapons, ignoring international law. breaking international alliances, invading countries and killing people (both his own and irqis)

ends: getting to taste the sweet sweet iraqi oil. thats all. thats the end for him

apparently THAT end justifies the means. the ppl who support this psychopath are a bunch of lemmings i tell u. Suddenly Saddam seems the lesser of the two evils.

personally, i think the end for the iraqis is a good one. the fact that have the illusion of choice and freedom is good for them in a way.

What im concerned about is the fact that the leadership responsible for this whole fiasko is not taking responsibility. never mind the stupidity of a 'preemptive strike'. but at least take responsibility for the decision he makes...his administration keeps making excuses like faulty intellegence, and whatnot. just friggon take responsibility... youre(Bush) a leader, at least act like one. (Thats what this thread is about), and yes it is a 'bush bashing' thread.

The fact that he took the cowards way out to resolve this problem/issue is one matter, but at least do the honorable thing as a leader and accept responibility for the succes/failure of your cause. You see blaire and howard standing behind their resolve and decisions, and this douche is searching for a scapegoat.... he (and his followers/supporters) are quite honestly the laughing stock of the world.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Speaking of Machiavelli...

From "Of Artifices", The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli:

From "Of Maintaining A Princedom", The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli:

Thank you.

And thank you.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Evan_11:

Unfortunately that vocal minority is spoiling everything.

This vocal "minority" is becoming the majority. You lose. You're all suckers and your dragging the country down with you. War-mongers.

Bush will be voted out in Nov. Whether he will abide by the vote and leave office is another question!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
i think the means and end for Bush are:
means: large arsenal of weapons, ignoring international law. breaking international alliances, invading countries and killing people (both his own and irqis)

ends: getting to taste the sweet sweet iraqi oil. thats all. thats the end for him

I'm pretty sure that Bush himself is nothing more than a means to an end.

He's a pawn, chosen to do his neocon tacticians' dirty work and draw people's hate and opposition. If he gets killed or voted out of office, he is easily and readily replaceable, since he has no real will of his own (in the sense that he is unable to make an informed, independent decision - don't jump on me; HE said so himself, basically).

-s*

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by GG Allin:

Bush will be voted out in Nov. Whether he will abide by the vote and leave office is another question!

As much as i hate this guy and his methods, i think he will be 'chosen'/voted to be president for the next term. im willing to put money down on it.

The dems have lost sight of what matters, all they do is criticie the republicans, but no one really knows where they stand on the major issues.
If they need to win, they need to tackle issues like:
-economy&outsourcing
-taxation
-environment&kyoto and hydrogen fuel research.
-a CONSTRUCTIVE (as opposed to Bush's destructive) approact to global conflict.
-abortion&choice
.
.

Basically they need to outline a plan to improve the country and international relations.... which means clean up the mess Bush made (which means everything he did... Kyoto, war, economy, international relations, treaties, UN,etc).

But yeah the way it stands now, i think we are going to see another 4 years of this mad man in power.

[kindbud]

keep whining, peaceniks.

After five more years of Dubya, you might get good at it.

[gadster]

Bush? Bush was employed as a cheerleader for far darker forces. If you look through his past, you will see that his strength is being a cheerleader. The whole GW Bush Presidency is being run by his Dad's pals. He has no clue.

Poor ole GW is a celebrity. Not a President. Wake Up USA.

And please, vote.

[ghost_flash]

Why doesn't Hillary Run?

If Bush has done such a terrible job, and
the rest of the world hates him and what
he stands for, and has done. <runon>

Really, if all the Democrats have to offer
are these men with serious problems in
their character and history, then why
not put up Hiillary?

Based on all the threads in this forum
against Bush, she would be a sure-win!

I would love to see it, win or lose.
I guess she isn't that pristeen at
that, and we maybe need more
time to forget her pitfalls?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Why doesn't Hillary Run?

If Bush has done such a terrible job, and
the rest of the world hates him and what
he stands for, and has done. <runon>

Really, if all the Democrats have to offer
are these men with serious problems in
their character and history, then why
not put up Hiillary?

Based on all the threads in this forum
against Bush, she would be a sure-win!

I would love to see it, win or lose.
I guess she isn't that pristeen at
that, and we maybe need more
time to forget her pitfalls?

[kindbud]

Obviously, Lerk can name the Democrat that can beat Dubya.

So let's have that name, Lerk.

edit:

the sound of chirping crickets is almost deafening

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by gadster:
Bush? Bush was employed as a cheerleader for far darker forces. If you look through his past, you will see that his strength is being a cheerleader. The whole GW Bush Presidency is being run by his Dad's pals. He has no clue.

Poor ole GW is a celebrity. Not a President. Wake Up USA.

And please, vote.

I know, you are right. He has surrounded
himself with celebreties, and all sorts of
people of great intelligence, with important
issues such as saving rare frogs, and strange
named birds. They confiscate whole farms
because of a few eggs. He's sold all of our
state parks. He's really gone off the edge.

Wait, never mind, that was CLINTON.
He was the one who favored himself as
the "ROCK STAR". Briefs or Boxers?

Mr. MTV president.
We should have him back.
Beer bong anyone?

Hiccup.

Yeah, ok.

I'm sorry, he was a tough president!
Nobody messes with the USA!
He bombed a janitor once,
and he molested an
intern as well.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Obviously, Lerk can name the Democrat that can beat Dubya.

So let's have that name, Lerk.

edit:

the sound of chirping crickets is almost deafening

LOL! I'm replying four minutes after you posted. a little early for the crickets, doncha think?

again, another dodge. The point of the thread is whether bush will be a standup leader and take responsibility for the war he wanted and lied for.

Whether other candidates can win the next election has no relevance to whether Dubya has integrity.

nice try.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I know, you are right. He has surrounded
himself with celebreties, and all sorts of
people of great intelligence, with important
issues such as saving rare frogs, and strange
named birds. They confiscate whole farms
because of a few eggs. He's sold all of our
state parks. He's really gone off the edge.

Wait, never mind, that was CLINTON.
He was the one who favored himself as
the "ROCK STAR". Briefs or Boxers?

Mr. MTV president.
We should have him back.
Beer bong anyone?

Hiccup.

Yeah, ok.

I'm sorry, he was a tough president!
Nobody messes with the USA!
He bombed a janitor once,
and he molested an
intern as well.

[kindbud]

And again, OBVIOUSLY, Dubya has enough integrity to defeat any Democrat.

How much more integrity does he need?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
And again, OBVIOUSLY, Dubya has enough integrity to defeat any Democrat.

How much more integrity does he need?

do you, perhaps, not understand the meaning of the word "integrity", at least as it is being used in this instance?

even so, again, a dodge.

[kindbud]

Dubya believes everything he tells you. He isn't intentionally misleading anyone. There is no doubt he loves America and has its best interest at heart with everything he does.

That's integrity.

Following opinion polls and adjusting your agenda accordingly - in an effort to avoid political conflict is NOT integrity...it's quite the opposite.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Dubya believes everything he tells you. He isn't intentionally misleading anyone. There is no doubt he loves America and has its best interest at heart with everything he does.

That's integrity.

Following opinion polls and adjusting your agenda accordingly - in an effort to avoid political conflict is NOT integrity...it's quite the opposite.

I suppose we'll have to disagree, then, that Dubya has integrity.

But even if you were correct (for the sake of argument), and Dubya believed what he told us, once it was proven incorrect, wouldn't a good leader take responsibility? doesn't the "Buck stop here"?
or does the motto for the Bush administration say "When in trouble, evade responsibilty like the plague"?

[kindbud]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky..."


um, yeah, Lerk. I think, historically, the President isn't supposed to admit he was wrong. This probably holds true for all politicians and elected officials.

[maxelson]

Well. Wasn't THAT just the apologist's response. So. You KNOW Bush is hiding, then. FINALLY. You admit it. Very forthright of you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky..."


um, yeah, Lerk. I think, historically, the President isn't supposed to admit he was wrong. This probably holds true for all politicians and elected officials.

I'm somewhat alarmed, though no longer suprised, that EVERY criticism of Bush must be dodged and parried by a swipe at Clinton. Even if the swipe at Clinton is accurate, the sins of Clinton do not wash the sins of Bush clean.

and, aren't you just now excusing Bush for NOT having integrity? "I think, historically, the President isn't supposed to admit he was wrong. "

How can you simultaneously make both arguments with a straight face: 1. that Bush has consistent integrity, and 2. that when he doesn't have integrity its ok because Clinton didn't have integrity, either?

[kindbud]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Well. Wasn't THAT just the apologist's response. So. You KNOW Bush is hiding, then. FINALLY. You admit it. Very forthright of you.

No, he just isn't completely sure he was wrong - and neither am I.

See, you believe he's intentionally misleading you, whereas I believe he's telling me the truth. Now I understand how people could support Clinton. I always figured he was lying to me. The simple fact of the matter was, he didn't think he did anything wrong. So he wasn't being dishonest when he said he didn't get a BJ - because he didn't see anything wrong with it.

PS, Lerk, I never claimed Dubya's integrity was flawless. I merely claimed it was good enough to beat anyone running against him.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
No, he just isn't completely sure he was wrong - and neither am I.

See, you believe he's intentionally misleading you, whereas I believe he's telling me the truth. Now I understand how people could support Clinton. I always figured he was lying to me. The simple fact of the matter was, he didn't think he did anything wrong. So he wasn't being dishonest when he said he didn't get a BJ - because he didn't see anything wrong with it.

Now you see...this is how you can tell when a republican is wrong, knows they're wrong, but refuses to admit it: they summon the ghost of Clinton repeatedly as if that's an argument.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by kindbud:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky..."


um, yeah, Lerk. I think, historically, the President isn't supposed to admit he was wrong. This probably holds true for all politicians and elected officials.

Was he telling Ms. Lewinsky he didn't have
sexual relations? Or was he telling us he
didn't have relations with Ms. Lewinsky?

Hm.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by kindbud:
No, he just isn't completely sure he was wrong - and neither am I.

See, you believe he's intentionally misleading you, whereas I believe he's telling me the truth. Now I understand how people could support Clinton. I always figured he was lying to me. The simple fact of the matter was, he didn't think he did anything wrong. So he wasn't being dishonest when he said he didn't get a BJ - because he didn't see anything wrong with it.

PS, Lerk, I never claimed Dubya's integrity was flawless. I merely claimed it was good enough to beat anyone running against him.

KB, It is irrelevant whether or not you or I think he was lying. He was WRONG. Whether or not HE believed it is irrelevant. He was WRONG and it has been said over and over and by all kinds of folks who are in a position to know. That is not the contention. The contention is that he KNOWS he's wrong now. He needs to SAY it.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Now you see...this is how you can tell when a republican is wrong, knows they're wrong, but refuses to admit it: they summon the ghost of Clinton repeatedly as if that's an argument.

Jot that down, liberals.

Might not ever live to see a Republican actually being wrong - but it's good to be prepared, I suppose.

[kindbud]

Originally posted by maxelson:
KB, It is irrelevant whether or not you or I think he was lying. He was WRONG. Whether or not HE believed it is irrelevant. He was WRONG and it has been said over and over and by all kinds of folks who are in a position to know. That is not the contention. The contention is that he KNOWS he's wrong now. He needs to SAY it.

or else what?

A) you're gonna hack out another keyboard-based assault on Dubya's integrity?

B) you're gonna vote DEMOCRAT this November?

C) all of the above

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! I'm replying four minutes after you posted. a little early for the crickets, doncha think?

again, another dodge. The point of the thread is whether bush will be a standup leader and take responsibility for the war he wanted and lied for.

Whether other candidates can win the next election has no relevance to whether Dubya has integrity.

nice try.

Thank you !!!! someone actually understood the point of this post.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
PS, Lerk, I never claimed Dubya's integrity was flawless. I merely claimed it was good enough to beat anyone running against him.

actually, you said:

Dubya believes everything he tells you. He isn't intentionally misleading anyone. There is no doubt he loves America and has its best interest at heart with everything he does.

That's integrity.

that doesn't appear to be statement of partial credit. You appear to be, in a binary yes/no way assigning him integrity.

Besides, I'm unsure how anyone can just, you know, "sort of" have integrity on a sliding scale. is that like be "kinda pregnant"?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by kindbud:
or else what?

...or else that famed integrity of his takes a hit.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by kindbud:
No, he just isn't completely sure he was wrong - and neither am I.

See, you believe he's intentionally misleading you, whereas I believe he's telling me the truth.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I see it as a matter of taking responsibility for the ramnifications of his decision to launch a preemptive war, both the positive and the negative.

Does it bother you at all that the U.S. president may be making decisions of this magnitude based on conjecture and faulty intelligence? What has changed since then? What decisions will he make today and how can we be expected to have confidence in them? Will pillorying some CIA personnel restore that confidence?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by kindbud:
or else what?

or else, by not doing so, demonstrate a lack of integrity.

again, you seem to be arguing that he has integrity, but then keep defending him for not having it.