Bush admits revelations from God!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

As far as i remember the UN werent sure either way , that is why they wanted more time to inspect but Bush had his mind made up. Only a handful of people needed to know that Hussein had no weapons. The rest could have been sold a lie. Whether Bush and Blair believed it or not the fact is that none where found so it has terrible connotations for any future international dealings. Say we were told that Syria for instance had WMD and was planning to use it. Who would believe Bush and Blair then. Reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.

eamonn

I wish Bush would have gave the U.N. more time, but do You think Saddam Hussein would have cooperated with the U.N. doubt it very much. Saddam never really cooperated after the first Iraq War.

If America does back down on Iran it will destabilize the Middle East greatly. It is nice to know that You would support us if we had to go to war with Iran.

Agreed. It is possible, of couse, that they did have a program but found some way of hiding or moving it. That, however, in the face of the failure to find anything, is total speculation and doesn't help the public perception at all.

Probably. All this could have been avoided if George Bush sr had took out Saddam Hussein's regime like they promised to the first time while they had a lot more support instead of promising the anti-Saddam rebels support if they had an uprising then left them to die, or better still if they never backed Saddam and gave him WMD in the first place. Oh well, no use crying over spilt milk but when will the western governments learn their lessons or is it all one big game to them?

Possible but i would have thought it very hard to pull off given the amount of scrutiny Iraq was put under in the lead up to war. I think that maybe the west where duped into accepting low quality intelligence from the escaping Iraqis because that is what they wanted to hear.

Sabotage was Iraq's main form of defence so i would have thought they would have used the wmd on the allies instead of hiding it but like you said it is possible Saddam was silly enough to think he could keep playing games (this still doesnt say much for western intelligence though). It was obvious from the outset that war was inevitable so Saddam was indeed very naive if he thought that the US didnt mean business, particularly after Afghanistan.

eamonn

I agree that George Bush sr. should have taken out Saddam Hussein in 1991, and if we would have this world would have been some what a better place for it.

I was really MAD that Saddam Hussein was not taken out then. I BLAME the U.N. and the U.S.A. for not doing just that when it could have been done so easily back then. Maybe would not have problems that we have now.

Dont expect the UN to do anything but minor peacekeping. They are an innefective organisation that have many divisions between the member countries with nothing but ceremonial power. Every time there is heavy scale fighting anywhere they pull out, they arent a real army. Really the problem is that the US followed by the coalition started a war without finishing it and the world is now suffering for it.

eamonn

You must remember the World looks up to the U.N. it is the way to solve problems in this World it is the Forum of this World. Yes it is ceremonial, has it divisions, even between it is members.
Yes the U.N. is gutless no real army, pulls out when the fighting begins, and they are not a real army and don't have any real powers to be so.

Yes Bush Sr. should have finished it by taking Hussein out in 1991, when he had a chance to do so.

But it was not mandated by the U.N. to do so. Neither the U.S. or U.N. made any mandate to the World to do so.

And yes it is because that we did not do so that we are paying the price of not doing so now.

The British Government is very very accomplished at telling lies. Disinformation is our middle name.

Maybe this Rupert guy thinks Al-Qa’ida terrorists are just “misunderstood”.
Sorry, but they are evil-doers. It seems that Bush, a Christian, is better able to understand and articulate this simple fact than the likes of Mr Cornwell.

As I posted above, Mahmoud Abbas has denied Nabil Shaath’s report about what Bush had said. (Nabil Shaath’s previous statements, by the way, include the lie that there was a massacre at Jenin.)
But this hasn’t stopped the left-wing press having a field day.

I suppose it’s all grist to the mill for people who think that George Bush is really more dangerous than Al-Qa’ida, and that western-style democracy is really no better than Sharia law or Ba'athist fascism.

It’s quite plausible that George Bush talked about having a moral and religious obligation towards the Middle East, and that God had inspired him. So what?
It really is a non-story: a rehashing of a story first printed two years previously.
As Scott Burgess pointed out on his Daily Ablution site, it was only the Independent and the Guardian who put this on their front pages. Other papers went with the announcement of a vaccine for cervical cancer.

Burgess quotes another Independent journalist, Paul Valley. Here’s Valley’s view on the Bush story:



Burgess responds:



But then, as Burgess puts it, the Independent is now more of a "daily propaganda pamphlet" than a "newspaper".

Further evidence of this was seen a week after the Bush “story”:

Last edited by Klytus on 16 Oct 2005, 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

"Respected" by some maybe, but Pilger and Fisk are viewed by many others not so much as journalists but as shameless and predictable anti-American and anti-Israel propagandists and apologists for Islamic terrorism.

If people want to find out about the Middle East and the war on terror, they'd be better off reading Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn.

You think I was anti-semitic or anti-Israel?
Do you question the independance of the journalist I mentioned or their lack of contribution to the Daily Mail and Right-Wing News?

It was never Bush's intention to do so.
(He did not want to build a base in, or try to hold Iraq for what should be very obvious reasons.)
What Bush wanted was the right to dump the oil from the disputed oil fields on the Iraq/Kuwait border at below market value. A policy that was doing significant damage to Iraq's ability to pay off their war debt from their war with Iran. Iraq reacted militarily to actions in Kuwait, and the US struck like cobras hiding in the sand.

Bush has no intention of giving control of Iraq over to a UN peacekeeping force.
"The United States will not run from Iraq as it did from Vietnam." Reuters 10/15

What does General Wesley Clark have to say about Bush's stance.

Some will argue that Wesley Clark is a leading democratic and heavily biased, but is he more or less biased then a completely staged media op with the troops carefully arranged by the Bush camp. I have to say less.

But, lets take look at the Pentagon briefing from October 14.
http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20051014-4065.html

Hardly sounds like the mess in Iraq is going to be over anytime soon.

Or that the American troops are going to be leaving anytime soon.


And let us not forget about acts of treason
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101400189.html?nav=rss_nation
[/url]


Poor Georgie, sometimes I feel he is just a misunderstood boy in a man's clothes.
"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to—I can't remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking through that."—Pre-inaugural interview with U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 22, 2001 issue

Isn't it time to just impeach George Bush.
http://www.democrats.com/impeachment-reasons
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3636

George W. Bush, one of America's biggest disasters.

I think I'm done with this thread.

What do the quotes you presented prove, that the militrary presence in Iraq isn't going away soon? Nobody says that it is.

And, here we go again with the empty "ad hominem" attacks.

You guys keep talking to each other. As long as you are not willing to consider history and the writing of the learned, this discussion can't possibly go anywhere.

Some of you just seem to be saying, "America is always wrong, but I'm very open minded!! !!" as the mantra of your convictions.

Yeah, okay.

So long LitGuy

Who's sole rsponse to my first posting was

Which would make sense if I had made a declarative statement about what it said.

Obviously someone neglected to read this

The point I wanted to get across with the above quotes was that engaging the United States Military in a war to conquer Iraq was idiotic and unnecessarily expensive. George W.'s father did not do so for that reason. To do so while knowingly lying to Congress, the American people, and the United Nations is criminal and alone deserving of impeachment.

Am I supposed to applaud George W. for creating another Vietnam?
Oh, I forgot, its not another Vietnam, because this time the US is not supposed to run.
What exactly did George do during Vietnam?
Did he even complete his term of service?
Was he drunk most of the time?
This article might shed some light
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm

So why is this drunk who arguably failed to complete his last two years of military service putting American youth in harms way? Because, we elected him! Or did we? His first term of service was given to him by the Judicial Branch. Reports from the 2004 election show considerable levels of fraud. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html
So maybe, the american electorate didn't elect or reelect him. Maybe he was forced onto us.
Now 50% of Amercans want him impeached, and his approval rating keeps sliding down with currently 51% disapproving of the job he is doing. Huh, thats the same percentage that want him impeached. Catching on.

Yet, George W., like the everready bunny, just keeps going and going and ...

Apparently this quote was applied to his own argument.

Because, that's all that Litguy did.

Finally, yes, Kissinger is learned. He also had lots of practice exporting terrorism to Central and South America.A history lesson for which many would like to see him charged with crimes against humanity.I have little problem understanding why he is brought up to Defend George W..
I just don't happen to agree with him.