PDA

View Full Version : Different light on Bush



ras314
08-19-2004, 06:32 PM
This definitely puts a different light on President Bush,
no matter how you feel about him.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.....in the fair city of Detroit Michigan there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the
entire war torn country of Iraq!

Worst president in history? The following appeared in the Durham, NC local
paper as a letter to the editor. Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started
this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently
claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point:

We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by
terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked
us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked
us. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was
honoring that commitment.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were
lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Usama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors
in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist
who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how
long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after
his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

nhp
08-19-2004, 07:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This definitely puts a different light on President Bush,
no matter how you feel about him. <hr /></blockquote>

Not really, I can see how biased this is, and I still don't like Dubya. I don't like Kerry much either.

[ QUOTE ]
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.....in the fair city of Detroit Michigan there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the
entire war torn country of Iraq!
<hr /></blockquote>

Of course, make it look like it's not so bad over there. Just list the amount of US soldiers dead, forget about the hundreds or thousands of Iraqis.

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by
terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree with you, but Saddam really had nothing to do with terrorism. Saddam had no link to Osama, and no link to terrorists, therefore, how is the War in Iraq part of the war on terrorism? Right now we are fighting insurgents over there that are not even linked with Al Qaida.

[ QUOTE ]
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
<hr /></blockquote>

Only a complete moron with an IQ of two would compare the greatness of FDR to the apeness of Dubya. We entered WWII to stop a madman from conquering all of Europe, to stop a madman from exterminating all of the Jews in Europe, to stop tyranny and oppression. World War II was the last Great War our country fought in. FDR was a hero. Do not compare a war motivated by greed, revenge, and faulty assumptions to World War II. Anyone who honestly thinks our MAIN reasons to invade Iraq were 1. To rid the world of the thread of Saddam, and 2. To Liberate Iraq, you are quite foolish. Those two excuses are used as a front to cover up the oil-plundering that is taking place right now.

[ QUOTE ]
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked
us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
<hr /></blockquote>

Oh, now Truman is one of the worst presidents in US history? Was it not Truman that prevented General Douglas MacArthur from using the Atomic Bomb on the Chinese when they attacked us during the Korean War? Aside from that, we entered the Korean War to prevent the spread of communism.

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
attacked us. He was offered Usama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by
Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. <hr /></blockquote>

Let's not forget that 9/11 had not happened yet when Clinton was in office. Let me remind you of what George W. Bush said about Osama Bin Laden AFTER 9/11 happened: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]




I don't think Dubya is the WORST president ever, but PLEASE don't compare what he has done to any of our great presidents, like FDR. Comparing WWII to the war in Iraq is a sick and twisted way of thinking.

highsea
08-19-2004, 08:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>I agree with you, but Saddam really had nothing to do with terrorism. Saddam had no link to Osama, and no link to terrorists, therefore, how is the War in Iraq part of the war on terrorism? Right now we are fighting insurgents over there that are not even linked with Al Qaida.<hr /></blockquote>Oh please. Zarqari is not linked to al-qaeda? Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism? What about his support of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah? He had a hijacking camp in the desert right outside of Bahgdad for Christ sake. He paid off families of suicide bombers. 25 grand a pop. It's okay to kill Jews in Israel but not in Germany? Prior to 9/11, Hamas had killed more Americans than al-qaeda. Hizbollah blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut. 214 dead marines. Don't try to tell me Saddam had no ties to terrorism.

The Mahdi Army is getting it's support from Iran and Syria. Fighters and weapons by the truckload. al-qaeda is the only terrorist group, is that it?<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>Anyone who honestly thinks our MAIN reasons to invade Iraq were 1. To rid the world of the thread of Saddam, and 2. To Liberate Iraq, you are quite foolish. Those two excuses are used as a front to cover up the oil-plundering that is taking place right now.<hr /></blockquote>Yup, I'm on my way right now to get some of that 50-cent a gallon gas. This is the same tired line of B.S. that was used in '91. We're just over there stealing oil. Too bad it's nowhere close to reality, but hey, that doesn't stop the Bush bashers now, and it didn't stop them in '91.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>... we entered the Korean War to prevent the spread of communism.<hr /></blockquote>That's right. And we went to Iraq to stop the spread of terrorism. Different enemy, same justification.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>Let's not forget that 9/11 had not happened yet when Clinton was in office. Let me remind you of what George W. Bush said about Osama Bin Laden AFTER 9/11 happened: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02<hr /></blockquote>Let's not forget that al-qaeda attacked us at least 4 times while Clinton was in office. He just was too busy defending himself with his legal problems that he couldn't be bothered with it.

And let's put some context into your Bush quote about OBL. He was saying that he wasn't going to obsess with OBL, he was focusing on the war as a whole. He trusts the Military to get OBL, just like they got Saddam. Considering that all accounts place OBL in Pakistan right now, there is not a hell of a lot Bush can do other than put pressure on Musharraf, who has done a hell of a job on our behalf, and survived 2 assasination attempts because of it.

Unless of course you think we should invade Pakistan.

-CM

crawdaddio
08-19-2004, 09:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Unless of course you think we should invade Pakistan.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

I'm actually surprised you don't.

eg8r
08-20-2004, 07:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We entered WWII to stop a madman from conquering all of Europe, to stop a madman from exterminating all of the Jews in Europe, to stop tyranny and oppression. <hr /></blockquote> Sounds like all the reasons to stop Saddam, whom last I checked was a madman.

[ QUOTE ]
Do not compare a war motivated by greed <font color="blue"> has this ever been proven? </font color> , revenge <font color="blue"> This could be true, daddy could not get it done. </font color> , and faulty assumptions to World War II. <hr /></blockquote>

Since you started it... [ QUOTE ]
Anyone who honestly thinks our MAIN reasons to invade Iraq were 1. To rid the world of the thread of Saddam, and 2. To Liberate Iraq, you are quite foolish <font color="blue"> I guess the reader would have to consider the source </font color> . Those two excuses are used as a front to cover up the oil-plundering that is taking place right now <font color="blue"> LOL, you are a riot. Where is the proof and why is gas still expensive. I would venture to say as far as all the information available right now, this is a lie. You are not even being creative, you are just jumping out there and bolding stating a lie. </font color> .
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget that 9/11 had not happened yet when Clinton was in office. <hr /></blockquote> WHAT THE HECK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Did you forget about the first WTC bombing in 93? That was under his watch, what did he do?

[ QUOTE ]
Let me remind you of what George W. Bush said about Osama Bin Laden AFTER 9/11 happened: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02] <hr /></blockquote> Thanks for the reminder, now let me translate it for you...I don't care where he is, I want him dead or alive. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Dubya is the WORST president ever, but PLEASE don't compare what he has done to any of our great presidents, like FDR. Comparing WWII to the war in Iraq is a sick and twisted way of thinking. <hr /></blockquote> I also don't believe he is the worst or the best. However, no one was comparing the war in Iraq to WWII. This is the problem, the only comparison was the entry into the two wars. If you have trouble differentiating the two then I am not sure any more clarification will help you.

eg8r