Did the American Government really lie?

[User-Removed]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

apologies in advance...I'm kind of talking to two people at once here.



Funny, people said that about Jimmy Carter, too. Still waiting.

Unfortunately for you, Bush's legacy is going to be put in the history books as, "Well, he wasn't Gore, and he wasn't Kerry." When that's the best you can say about the guy, you really don't have much going for you. (by the way, Skip, lay off all the secret combination stuff. Your rantings make it pretty hard to take you seriously)

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with you on some things. But don't worry, I'm also going to disagree with Skip on a lot of things. You both seem to be fairly fanatical in your opinions.

You are correct when you say that we have not had as many attacks on American soil thanks to our troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If you move the war onto the enemy's home court, of course there will be less action on your own--that result is arithmetical. Now please note that I never said I was opposed to being in this war, but opposed to how it is being managed. If we're going to sit over there in a mismanaged, politically minded war, then our troops really aren't doing anything than serving as decoys to satisfy our need for safety. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with the idea of our troops routinely getting killed simply so that you and I won't. However, if they want to go in and fight this like a war, crush the enemy, and seize all their assets, and accept the inevitability of civilian casualties (you know, like you're supposed to do in war), then I'm all for it. So, I see two solutions to this problem that would make me happy:

1) Realize that under current management we're not going to succeed over there and pull out our troops, thereby letting the place devolve into mayhem.
2) Decide to fight this like a war, and go in and win.

Either solution works for me, so I really don't care which gets implemented...but the status quo simply won't do.

Next, yes, it would be nice if people realized that a lot of the terrorism stuff is something that could have been handled (and should have) during the Clinton administration. They dropped the ball. But the fact that Clinton made that really bad decision doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been poorly managed under the current administration.

By all means...Let's stop everything, everyone is doing to just to make you happy....

BTW...Take the iPod out of your ear...your ravings might make more sense...

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by MyDogSkip

By all means...Let's stop everything, everyone is doing to just to make you happy....

See, now you're catching on. Now if we can convince a few more billion people that that's what we should do, the world will be in good shape. ;-)

[Islander]

Originally Posted by MarginOfError

apologies in advance...I'm kind of talking to two people at once here.



Funny, people said that about Jimmy Carter, too. Still waiting.

Unfortunately for you, Bush's legacy is going to be put in the history books as, "Well, he wasn't Gore, and he wasn't Kerry." When that's the best you can say about the guy, you really don't have much going for you. (by the way, Skip, lay off all the secret combination stuff. Your rantings make it pretty hard to take you seriously)

With all due respect, I'll have to disagree with you on some things. But don't worry, I'm also going to disagree with Skip on a lot of things. You both seem to be fairly fanatical in your opinions.

You are correct when you say that we have not had as many attacks on American soil thanks to our troops being in Iraq and Afghanistan. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If you move the war onto the enemy's home court, of course there will be less action on your own--that result is arithmetical. Now please note that I never said I was opposed to being in this war, but opposed to how it is being managed. If we're going to sit over there in a mismanaged, politically minded war, then our troops really aren't doing anything than serving as decoys to satisfy our need for safety. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with the idea of our troops routinely getting killed simply so that you and I won't. However, if they want to go in and fight this like a war, crush the enemy, and seize all their assets, and accept the inevitability of civilian casualties (you know, like you're supposed to do in war), then I'm all for it. So, I see two solutions to this problem that would make me happy:

1) Realize that under current management we're not going to succeed over there and pull out our troops, thereby letting the place devolve into mayhem.
2) Decide to fight this like a war, and go in and win.

Either solution works for me, so I really don't care which gets implemented...but the status quo simply won't do.

Next, yes, it would be nice if people realized that a lot of the terrorism stuff is something that could have been handled (and should have) during the Clinton administration. They dropped the ball. But the fact that Clinton made that really bad decision doesn't change the fact that the whole thing has been poorly managed under the current administration.

With equal respect, I disagree with your position. Sometimes, in order to preserve your way of life, in order to ensure that current or future enemies know where you stand and to what extent you are willing to go to defend yourself, your country and your love ones; someone has to die. In order for those that fear to know they can count on you, somebody has to die. There will be blood and that is the price to pay for freedom and for ones ideals and principles. At some point you have to be willing to sacrifice for what you hold to be true otherwise is empty rhetorical pomp.

Men write history but it is re-written every so often. G.W. Bush may or may not be the best president. But one thing is clear, you WILL NEVER know what it is to make a decision in those circumstances. ALL of Europe thought they could negotiate with Hitler and avoid the war. One after one most of Europe fell without really much of a struggle. They allowed evil to germinate and flourish unopposed while claiming to preserve peace. Check out your history. America resisted for 4 years to enter the war. If it wasn't for those who died to contain evil the world you live in would be a very different world. Monday morning "quarterbacking" from your living room is always interesting. But, do not forget, you were not there.

You already made up your mind in regards to the current state of affairs so I think my post may not be very relevant to you. I just thought I put something out there to consider for those that are not sure what to think with so many loud voices.

[sixpacktr]

MOE,

I agree with you that the war should have been fought better. We have reached a point where, because of our technology, we think that we can have a bloodless (at least on our side) war, and the fact is that you need 'boots on the ground' to make it last. The surge has been a huge success, and it is too bad that it took so long to implement it. Who's to blame? Pres Bush or Congress? Hmm, that's a toughie. Given that after the initial sweep in and destruction of the Iraqi dictatorship the shrill cries from the left and traitors of this country seemed to domininate all discussion. My personal opinion is that Pres Bush should have given them all the Bronx cheer and put more troops in earlier, wiped out Sadr and some of the others, and we'd be done with it. Instead, he tried (and we wanted) to fight this on the cheap, lob a few bombs (like Clinton) and hope to scare them.

I stick by my claim that someday GW will be regarded as a great President, because he did take on the terrorists. Pres Lincoln was roundly criticized throughout most of his Presidency for everything that could go wrong, but now we call him the 2nd greatest if not our greatest President, because he preserved the Union. And his detractors have ended up on the trash heap of history. Much like the Messiah Barack, Billary, Pellosi, Brother Reid, and others will.

And Islander. right on. None of us have had to make those tough decisions, based upon the info available. So easy to criticize when the most important decision most of us face during the day is what to eat that night, or whether to watch Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune...I'd wager if you gave some of the people I noted above the reins of power they'd make about the same decision, because their rantings right now are so absolutely inane that no one in their right mind would actually believe the BS (Barbra Streisand) flying out of their mouths...

[MarginOfError]

I think, Islander, that we agree more than you imply by your post. I do think that preserving our freedoms and our families will require that someone dies. My issue with the war (in its current state) is that we're not doing the killing (not enough anyway). If we're going to be over there, let's fight a war and win it (which usually requires stomping your enemy into the ground). But if we're not going to have an aggressive campaign to win, then I'd just as soon not have our troops there. Essentially, let's do it right, or let's not do it at all.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I am stunned to the point of disbelief that NONE of you said ANYTHING about the Constitution.

Pres. Bush has violated it (along with Congress) on nearly every front. In fact, I cannot point to a single action that WAS in accordance with the Constitution during his administration, other than the date / time / of the 2 inaugurations and the oaths...

Good President? When GOD himself has declared that ANYTHING more or less than the Constitution "cometh of evil"?

Give me a break!

[drjme]

Originally Posted by hethathathears

The other day I went to the gym so I could maintain my "I'm too sexy for my shirt look," when I overhead a party of four lament about the evils of the American Government and the wicked and incompadent Bush administration. They went on to voice that the Bush administration should be brought up on charges for crimes against humanity for the evils inflicted on the Iraqi people. They went on to say that the American Government lied to the American people about there ever being Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that the hole thing was so that we could get our hands on oil.

Now I wanted to put my arm to the square and call down fire from heaven for having such a disrespectful attitude about our amazing President that has done so much for the American people. But I have found that this kind of thinking has permeated through out the entire world. I began to question, that maybe I was just a simpleton for believing that President Bush did an OK job. I would say that in some things, the good President has fumbled the ball, like border security and drilling for oil, but I think that as far as Iraq and Afghanistan, he was pretty much right on.

I mean, one of the qualifying issues of if the Iraqi war was valid was if there were weapons of mass destruction when we arrived and did we find them. The answer was no. But then again, if the Police Department went to a known drug dealer and posted a note that said, in 3 weeks we are going to come and search your house, and if we find any drugs, we will arrest you and put you away for life, wouldn't you think that the dealer would be smart enough to remove all of his drugs and paraphernalia. The same was true with entering Iraq. There was Lot's of notice given. Lot's of Senate subcommittee meetings. Lot's of preparing.

One of Saddam's generals even admitted when he defected that they loaded up the weapons of mass destruction and sent them over to Syria. He even gave dates and methodes. I thought the truth was already out, and yet years after, the liberal media is still staying that the America Government lied. Another fact, didn't Saddam use Chemical weapons on his own people in Halabja, March 16, 1988. If I was to paste and clip an article from the Internet, the article read-

Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

The question is, did he use every last drop on his own people and there just wasn't anymore, or did he have barrels and barrels of it, but he just loaded it all up on planes for future use.

Or is it just me and the rest of the world is right? What do you think?

unfortunately, The rest of the world is right. There were no weapons of mass destruction found. none. The war was based on a lie and yet you're troops are still there.

I agree with JBS on what your constitution says about war. Do some study on it.

These replies that are pro-bu$h are all the typical morbot replies. You try to justify 'the burning of the constitution' while also claiming it is a Divinely inspired Document.

My issue with the war (in its current state) is that we're not doing the killing (not enough anyway)

Are you serious??????? you're not LDS are you???

[JohnBirchSociety]

If we are fighting a Constitutionally declared war (we currently ARE NOT) then we must kill the enemy until they surrender unconditionally, or are destroyed.

That's the unfortunate aspect of war, and why we try to avoid it, and why ONLY CONGRESS can declare it.

If fight we must, then we must FIGHT. No "Rules of Engagement"...

Hitler would have LOVED "Rules of Engagement"....

Friends! Again, WHAT OF YOUR CONSTITUTION?

[JohnBirchSociety]

Originally Posted by hethathathears

The other day I went to the gym so I could maintain my "I'm too sexy for my shirt look," when I overhead a party of four lament about the evils of the American Government and the wicked and incompadent Bush administration. They went on to voice that the Bush administration should be brought up on charges for crimes against humanity for the evils inflicted on the Iraqi people. They went on to say that the American Government lied to the American people about there ever being Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that the hole thing was so that we could get our hands on oil.

Now I wanted to put my arm to the square and call down fire from heaven for having such a disrespectful attitude about our amazing President that has done so much for the American people. But I have found that this kind of thinking has permeated through out the entire world. I began to question, that maybe I was just a simpleton for believing that President Bush did an OK job. I would say that in some things, the good President has fumbled the ball, like border security and drilling for oil, but I think that as far as Iraq and Afghanistan, he was pretty much right on.

I mean, one of the qualifying issues of if the Iraqi war was valid was if there were weapons of mass destruction when we arrived and did we find them. The answer was no. But then again, if the Police Department went to a known drug dealer and posted a note that said, in 3 weeks we are going to come and search your house, and if we find any drugs, we will arrest you and put you away for life, wouldn't you think that the dealer would be smart enough to remove all of his drugs and paraphernalia. The same was true with entering Iraq. There was Lot's of notice given. Lot's of Senate subcommittee meetings. Lot's of preparing.

One of Saddam's generals even admitted when he defected that they loaded up the weapons of mass destruction and sent them over to Syria. He even gave dates and methodes. I thought the truth was already out, and yet years after, the liberal media is still staying that the America Government lied. Another fact, didn't Saddam use Chemical weapons on his own people in Halabja, March 16, 1988. If I was to paste and clip an article from the Internet, the article read-

Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

The question is, did he use every last drop on his own people and there just wasn't anymore, or did he have barrels and barrels of it, but he just loaded it all up on planes for future use.

Or is it just me and the rest of the world is right? What do you think?

ANOTHER BIG QUESTION:

Why did we (Donald Rumsfield comes to mind an his visits with the horrible Sadam) supply IRAQ with Chemical Weapons?

Hmmmm....seems those things come back to haunt us...

As I've often remarked, we have the absolute best enemies money can buy....

[MorningStar]

Why do people conveniently forget that Clinton said there were weapons of mass destruction too? He did order Iraq to be bombed for a few days when my husband was in the Air Force and every year right around Thanksgiving, he was on stand by to go to the Middle East because Saddam was being a pain about letting in the inspectors. I remember too having to write a paper based on Clinton's comments about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think that was the year I graduated - 1993. I don't think anyone lied about there being weapons of mass destruction - they were mistaken. There's a difference there. And it was believable because of the horrible things Saddam did.