"I cry a lot" - GWB [Archive] - Debate Policy

gabosaurus

09-05-2007, 11:10 AM

Yeah... I'd cry to if I were the sitting President during:

- The ousting of Saddam
- The freedom of millions of Iraqi's
- Taking the fight to Al Queada
- The removal of the Taliban
- A ultra-low unemployment rate
- A booming economy

The Taliban is still around. So is AQ. Unemployment and economy have no relation to who is in the White House. Saddam was not a threat to anyone. Iraq is not free.
Anymore BS you wish to spread out?

-Cp

09-05-2007, 11:50 AM

The Taliban is still around. So is AQ. Unemployment and economy have no relation to who is in the White House. Saddam was not a threat to anyone. Iraq is not free.
Anymore BS you wish to spread out?

Wow... pull yer head out of your ass:

1. The Taliban IS NOT in Power in Afghanistan - they have a democracy there now. The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan in which the ruling Taliban government was toppled.
2. Unemployment and Economy have nothing to do with the white house? Really? Is that why the libs praise Clinton for the .com boom?
3. He wasn't a threat to anyone? Really? Tell that to the 500,000+ Iraqi's he killed (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html)
4. Iraq isn't free? Really? In most parts of the country Iraqis were able to vote freely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_January_2005).

You really are one of the most ignorant people I know of....

Abbey Marie

09-05-2007, 12:00 PM

http://media.charlotteobserver.com/smedia/2007/09/04/18/Bush_Biogaphy.sff.embedded.prod_affiliate.57.jpg
AP Photo

A tear runs down President Bush's cheek as he takes part in a Medal of Honor Ceremony for Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham of Scio, N.Y., Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Bush granted journalist Robert Draper several extended interviews in late 2006 and early 2007, as well as unusual access to his aides, for the book "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush," which went on sale Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2007. In the book Bush is quoted as saying, "I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president. I'll shed some tomorrow."

GW in Ohio

09-05-2007, 12:02 PM

Wow... pull yer head out of your ass:

1. The Taliban IS NOT in Power in Afghanistan - they have a democracy there now. The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan in which the ruling Taliban government was toppled.
2. Unemployment and Economy have nothing to do with the white house? Really? Is that why the libs praise Clinton for the .com boom?
3. He wasn't a threat to anyone? Really? Tell that to the 500,000+ Iraqi's he killed (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html)
4. Iraq isn't free? Really? In most parts of the country Iraqis were able to vote freely. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_January_2005).

You really are one of the most ignorant people I know of....

Chuckie...Chuckie...Chuckie...

Whether Iraq is "free" is very much up in the air right now. So they were able to vote in a US-sponsored election. That's nice. The guys they elected haven't done jack shit about resolving the political impasse.

And if freedom means never knowing if a trip to the market or a school will be the last for you or your kid, most Iraqis would gladly go back to bad old days of Saddan Hussein.

At least they had electricity and a reasonable certainty of making it through the day alive.

1/3 of Iraqis are displaced. That means they don't have a place to live. And the temperature is 115 degrees every day.

Freedom? :finger3::dance::finger3:

JackDaniels

09-05-2007, 12:40 PM

WTH?

Perhaps you need to reread so you can comprehend?

avatar4321

09-05-2007, 04:37 PM

So he is human. Id be more worried if he couldnt cry. But I am glad he does it on his own time rather than when he needs to be leading the American people.

Gaffer

09-05-2007, 04:48 PM

Chuckie...Chuckie...Chuckie...

Whether Iraq is "free" is very much up in the air right now. So they were able to vote in a US-sponsored election. That's nice. The guys they elected haven't done jack shit about resolving the political impasse.

And if freedom means never knowing if a trip to the market or a school will be the last for you or your kid, most Iraqis would gladly go back to bad old days of Saddan Hussein.

At least they had electricity and a reasonable certainty of making it through the day alive.

1/3 of Iraqis are displaced. That means they don't have a place to live. And the temperature is 115 degrees every day.

Freedom? :finger3::dance::finger3:

You really should try reading something besides liberal talking points some time. Since the surge started there are less attacks taking place Those attacks are made by al aqueda to terrorize the citizens and reestablish control.

The iraqi's have more services now than they did before the war started. You need to read more. Admit it, you want saddam back.

1/3 of the iraqi's are not displaced. They went on vacations. Most go to Jordan and syria to get away from the tremendous heat. And they are starting to return now. Since the surge started its become a different iraq.

Are you aware there have been 1500 al queda kill every month since January. The streets are being cleaned up and the tribes that use to fight the US troops have come over to our side. we are winning in spite of you and your loser ilk.

gabosaurus

09-05-2007, 08:40 PM

Dubya needs to cry more. Especially when thinking about all the American lives he has sacrificed in his useless war of aggression.

jimnyc

09-05-2007, 08:42 PM

Dubya needs to cry more. Especially when thinking about all the American lives he has sacrificed in his useless war of aggression.

*quack* *polly wants a cracker* *quack*!

Is there some sort of handbook being shared out there amongst the liberals?

gabosaurus

09-05-2007, 08:46 PM

Don't look at me. I am not the one quacking.

jimnyc

09-05-2007, 08:51 PM

*quack* *I can't help but reply* *quack quack* *bush's fault* *quack*

or for those that can't comprehend:

"Blah blah blah blah..."

gabosaurus

09-05-2007, 08:58 PM

I am not the one who has failed to comprehend. I know what Dubya is up to.
Some people have swallowed his line of terrorist bullshit. I have not.

bullypulpit

09-05-2007, 09:01 PM

http://www.charlotte.com/nation/story/263361.html

The most damning quote from that book was...

<blockquote>"I'm playing for October-November to get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."</blockquote>

Yes, and while Bush is "playing" our soldiers are dying. While he is worrying about his "legacy", our soldiers are killed. While he he sets the stage...one where his successor, whether Democrat or Republican, is faced with an extended presence in the region...so America can fulfill its "destiny", our blood and treasure is spilled on the sands of Iraq.

Where, in this cold-blooded political calculus, is the concern he so often voices for our troops? By his own words and actions, his legacy is more important that their lives. The only destiny is the one writ large in neon letters on the inside of his forehead where, like the voices, it is known only to him.

His only legacy will be ignominy...And damage to America and her standing in the world that will take decades to recover from, if we ever can.

Gunny

09-05-2007, 09:23 PM

The Taliban is still around. So is AQ. Unemployment and economy have no relation to who is in the White House. Saddam was not a threat to anyone. Iraq is not free.
Anymore BS you wish to spread out?

Yeah, hiding in caves.

Unemployment and eonomy most certainly DO have a relation to who is in White House if it's bad. Probably the biggest disappointment you libs have had.

Saddam was a threat to no one? You need help.

The fertilizer being spread is by YOU.

bullypulpit

09-05-2007, 10:31 PM

Yeah, hiding in caves.

Apparently not. Al Qaeda is reconstituted to, if not above, pre-9/11 levels in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in western Pakistan. And there are several sizeable communities there. I would suggest that you review the <a href=http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf>July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate</a>

Saddam was a threat to no one? You need help.

Saddam was a threat to no one out side his own borders. In a February 24, 2001 meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, Colin Powell stated...

<blockquote>"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - <a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml>Colin Powell, 2/24/2001</a></blockquote>

9/11 gave the Bush administration the political cover it needed for Bush and his his neo-con, chicken-hawk cabinet to work off their collective chubby for Saddam.

Sorry Gunny. Much as I respect you, you're wrong on this one, and have been from the start.

Gunny

09-05-2007, 10:44 PM

Apparently not. Al Qaeda is reconstituted to, if not above, pre-9/11 levels in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in western Pakistan. And there are several sizeable communities there. I would suggest that you review the <a href=http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf>July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate</a>

Pakistan is NOT Afghanistan.

Saddam was a threat to no one out side his own borders. In a February 24, 2001 meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, Colin Powell stated...

<blockquote>"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - <a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml>Colin Powell, 2/24/2001</a></blockquote>

Tell that to the Kurds and Shia. Or Kuwait and Iran.

9/11 gave the Bush administration the political cover it needed for Bush and his his neo-con, chicken-hawk cabinet to work off their collective chubby for Saddam.

Sorry Gunny. Much as I respect you, you're wrong on this one, and have been from the start.

Looks to me like YOU are the one who is wrong, cherrypicking facts to suit your argument.

BoogyMan

09-05-2007, 11:40 PM

*quack* *polly wants a cracker* *quack*!

Is there some sort of handbook being shared out there amongst the liberals?

BINGO!!!

jimnyc, you have hit the nail squarely on the head with this one.

bullypulpit

09-06-2007, 06:56 AM

Looks to me like YOU are the one who is wrong, cherrypicking facts to suit your argument.

Didn't have to cherry-pick anything with you picking nits. You claimed Al Qaeda was "hiding in caves", I merely presented evidence to counter that silly claim.

Tell that to the Kurds and Shia. Or Kuwait and Iran.

Iran's war with Iraq and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait were pre-Gulf War I, in case you've forgotten...Back when Poppy Bush was POTUS. The Kurds have done remarkably well for themselves since, and the Shi'ia suffered the same consequences that all of Saddam's internal opposition did after Poppy encouraged them to rebel, then left them swinging in the breeze. They were crushed like grapes.

Now, either your memory is veeeeery selective, or you're the one cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

PostmodernProphet

09-06-2007, 08:15 AM

Saddam was a threat to no one out side his own borders.

except Iran....except Kuwait....except whoever would have been next.....

JohnDoe

09-06-2007, 08:23 AM

Didn't have to cherry-pick anything with you picking nits. You claimed Al Qaeda was "hiding in caves", I merely presented evidence to counter that silly claim.

Iran's war with Iraq and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait were pre-Gulf War I, in case you've forgotten...Back when Poppy Bush was POTUS. The Kurds have done remarkably well for themselves since, and the Shi'ia suffered the same consequences that all of Saddam's internal opposition did after Poppy encouraged them to rebel, then left them swinging in the breeze. They were crushed like grapes.

Now, either your memory is veeeeery selective, or you're the one cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

Well bully,

You couldn't have stated the timeline FACTS more suscinctly!

I truely do not understand how the masacre of the kurds can be used by those on the right, over and over and over again, when this occured before gulf war 1?

Nor can I understand those on the right, using the masacre of the Shiia, when it was us that encouraged them to rebel against Saddam, with the indication to them that we would be there to help them if they got in a bind, then only to abandon them , when Saddam started slaughtering them? They should HATE us forever, when it comes to that one!
----------------------------------
And I also read just recently that Karzi only rules over Kabul, and that the war Lords and Taliban rule the rest of the country again....or are expanding and getting close to such? Was that info wrong?

jd

bullypulpit

09-06-2007, 06:46 PM

except Iran....except Kuwait....except whoever would have been next.....

What part of this...

<blockquote>"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - <a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml>Colin Powell, 2/24/2001</a></blockquote>

...Did you not understand?

bullypulpit

09-06-2007, 06:58 PM

Well bully,

You couldn't have stated the timeline FACTS more suscinctly!

I truely do not understand how the masacre of the kurds can be used by those on the right, over and over and over again, when this occured before gulf war 1?

Nor can I understand those on the right, using the masacre of the Shiia, when it was us that encouraged them to rebel against Saddam, with the indication to them that we would be there to help them if they got in a bind, then only to abandon them , when Saddam started slaughtering them? They should HATE us forever, when it comes to that one!
----------------------------------
And I also read just recently that Karzi only rules over Kabul, and that the war Lords and Taliban rule the rest of the country again....or are expanding and getting close to such? Was that info wrong?

jd

The massacre of the Kurds only came to the forefront when no WMD's were found in Iraq. After that little faux pas the Bush administration was left grasping for anything which might be used to justify the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation which posed no direct threat to the US or her allies.

As for the Taliban, they are <a href=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/0ff6b41ff15e3bba5f28559f71f90af2.htm>imposing Sharia'a law in Southern and Central Aftghanistan</a>. Between the Taliban and the drug lords, Hamid Kharzai is little more than the Mayor of Kabul.

typomaniac

09-06-2007, 07:20 PM

I wonder who he really is crying for?

He's crying because he's a spoiled baby who's upset about not getting to be dictator.

Now he's going to hold his breath until we turn blue:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/dpeyton/liar.jpg

Gunny

09-06-2007, 07:38 PM

Didn't have to cherry-pick anything with you picking nits. You claimed Al Qaeda was "hiding in caves", I merely presented evidence to counter that silly claim.

You presented only evidence that they're completely out of the country. So much for caves. Thanks.

Iran's war with Iraq and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait were pre-Gulf War I, in case you've forgotten...Back when Poppy Bush was POTUS. The Kurds have done remarkably well for themselves since, and the Shi'ia suffered the same consequences that all of Saddam's internal opposition did after Poppy encouraged them to rebel, then left them swinging in the breeze. They were crushed like grapes.

Point is, both the shia and kurds would disagree with your assessment that Saddam was a threat to no one. As would Iran and Kuwait, two neighboring countries he DID invade at different times. Whether or not they were pre-anything is irrelvant.

Now, either your memory is veeeeery selective, or you're the one cherry-picking facts to suit your argument.

Hardly. The facts support my argument rather well.

bullypulpit

09-06-2007, 09:14 PM

Hardly. The facts support my argument rather well.

Nice try.

But Al Qaeda's location was not an issue until you made it one (Change the subject, attempt to deflect the facts). Given the threat that Al Qaeda poses the issue of the location is irrelevant, save that it is within the borders of our 'ally' in the "GWOT", Pakistan. Which, in turn, begs the question of just why, nearly six years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others responsible for planning the attack of 9/11 remain at large and still breathing.

My words were..."Saddam was a threat to no one out side his own borders".

Colin Powell's words were..."(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors...".

Your statements regarding Shi'ias and Kurds, populations WITHIN Iraq's borders, were yet another attempt to deflect the facts and change the subject.

Gunny

09-06-2007, 09:21 PM

Nice try.

But Al Qaeda's location was not an issue until you made it one (Change the subject, attempt to deflect the facts). Given the threat that Al Qaeda poses the issue of the location is irrelevant, save that it is within the borders of our 'ally' in the "GWOT", Pakistan. Which, in turn, begs the question of just why, nearly six years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others responsible for planning the attack of 9/11 remain at large and still breathing.

My words were..."Saddam was a threat to no one out side his own borders".

Colin Powell's words were..."(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors...".

Your statements regarding Shi'ias and Kurds, populations WITHIN Iraq's borders, were yet another attempt to deflect the facts and change the subject.

I'm not the one who made the Taliban's/AQ's location an issue. I responded to YOU. Since the Taliban/AQ are no longer in power in Afghanistan, and according to you not even within its borders, I'd say job well done.

On the other hand, are you advocating the US invading Pakistan to snuff them completely out? Or are you being intellectually dishonest by claiming htey exist while knowing they are in a country that will not give permission to operate within its borders?

And sorry if ignore your artificial parameters placed on Saddam Hussein to suit your argument. He was in fact, a threat. he had a history of being a threat. His actions set precedence; which, you are trying to ignore.

bullypulpit

09-06-2007, 10:19 PM

I'm not the one who made the Taliban's/AQ's location an issue. I responded to YOU. Since the Taliban/AQ are no longer in power in Afghanistan, and according to you not even within its borders, I'd say job well done.

I stand corrected, however, the Taliban are making incursions into Afghanistan from Pakistan and they are reinstating Shari'ia law in those areas of Afghanistan they control. It should also be noted that <a href=http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370205>Al Qaeda has been dispatching operatives</a> FROM Afghanistan to other theaters of operation You're also ignoring the fundamental question. Why was Al Qaeda able to reconstitute its operations ANYWHERE? Particularly given Bush's "dead or alive" rhetoric in the days and weeks after 9/11.

On the other hand, are you advocating the US invading Pakistan to snuff them completely out? Or are you being intellectually dishonest by claiming htey exist while knowing they are in a country that will not give permission to operate within its borders?

It didn't seem to matter that we invaded Afghanistan to root them out. Nor, did it seem to matter that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when Bush ordered the invasion of that country. It is the Bush administration's stated policy that:

<blockquote>We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States... - George W. Bush, 11/21/2001</blockquote>

If he is to be consistent in his policy, then the invasion of Pakistan is the logical consequence of this stated policy.

And sorry if ignore your artificial parameters placed on Saddam Hussein to suit your argument. He was in fact, a threat. he had a history of being a threat. His actions set precedence; which, you are trying to ignore.

The "artificial parameters" were those created by the Bush administration, and perpetuated by its apologists, in their repeated and mutable attempts to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.