Thread: Maybe the worst sitting President ever....

In other words when we give up our liberties we are appeasing terrorists.

Ooops.

Will we ever get our liberties back? Will the lock-down ever end? Never. Governments don't give back rights they take away.

Really, we'd be better off doing things just as we did on 9-10 rather than give the government so much power to 'protect us' as some of us are just so willing to do.

Funny how the other people here who call themselves 'conservatives' are the ones too willing to give the government more power over their lives. Just disgraceful.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

How can you say that such country like the Islamic republic of Iran not to be representative of Islam.

How could one be so ignorant and arrogant at the same time to assume it does?
There are 30something different branches of Islam.
Does the pope represent Christianity as a whole?
The Iranian pres isn't even a religious leader.

You are either being intentionally hebetudinous or a complete idiot.

Originally Posted by surasak

Funny how the other people here who call themselves 'conservatives' are the ones too willing to give the government more power over their lives. Just disgraceful.

I find this odd also.


And, also a sign of ignorance.


People should go back to the good 'ol Constitution.


Because there isn't much of it left.....

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

How can you say that such country like the Islamic republic of Iran not to be representative of Islam.

How could one be so ignorant and arrogant at the same time to assume it does?
There are 30something different branches of Islam.
Does the pope represent Christianity as a whole?
The Iranian pres isn't even a religious leader.

You are either being intentionally hebetudinous or a complete idiot.

Ahmadinejad is the Mullahs puppet. He was one of the leaders in the invasion of the US embassy in Tehran in 1978.
Why do you suppose so many iranian trained insurgents are turning up in Iraq along with iranian sourced explosives and weapons.
Yet you still deny Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorist or Islamic extremism.
That erroneous denial is your only basis for saying that GWB is such a terrible leader.
If you can't see how the Islamic extremism which emanates from Iran is focal to the conflicts in the ME right now is only due to your preconceived
hatred.

As far as the current situation with the TSA in the USA right now, few abuses if any have been recorded despite the power they wield.

Far more people are loosing their human rights at the hands of iranian supplied and funded terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Somalia, to name a few.

Yes GWB is the worst US president ever because he is first one to have the balls to confront this menace.
You and Butterfly can bend over for them if you want to.

(The following was not written by a liberal or an appeaser, but by a true patriot, a realist and genuine conservative columnist named Pat Buchanan)

"This war," said Bush, "is an ideological struggle... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us." But the "conditions" that drove those 19 men "to come to kill us" is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies, and Israel.
They were over here because we are over there.

Originally Posted by floorpotato

(The following was not written by a liberal or an appeaser, but by a true patriot, a realist and genuine conservative columnist named Pat Buchanan)

"This war," said Bush, "is an ideological struggle... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us." But the "conditions" that drove those 19 men "to come to kill us" is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies, and Israel.
They were over here because we are over there.

Thank you for your very astute observation Mr Chamberlain

^ If, God forbid, a Saudi-financed and/or Pakistani-manufactured WMD is ever detonated in the USA, then it will be Bush who will go down in history as Neville Chamberlain. Invading Iraq in 2003 was the equivalent of Franklin Roosevelt attacking Mongolia after Pearl harbor. If Bush chooses to meddle in that part of the world, he should at least have the brains and balls to address the real threats - Saudi money and the Pakistani secret services and their nuclear technology. Bush is appallingly stupid and corrupt.

He has been just a puppet for the neocon conspirators.

Mr. Earl and Booners can bend over for them if they want to...

Originally Posted by floorpotato

. Invading Iraq in 2003 was the equivalent of Franklin Roosevelt attacking Mongolia after Pearl harbor..

I hope it didn't strain your intellect to come up with that apt analogy.
Iraq is very central to what was and is happening.
Alqueada had well established links in Iraq.
Just because you don't wish to trouble your mind over such things doesn't change the fact that Saddam was indeed a significant supporter of terrorists along with his history of aggression.
Mongolia!!!
Iraq is hardly Mongolia.

"The new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Alqaeda.... For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men." (Martin Van Creveld, Professor at Hebrew University and one of the world's foremost military historians. He is required reading at America's military academies. Bush supporters should spend more time reading their history and less time trying to think up clever one-liners to defend the indefensible.)

Nice post, Floorpotato, but again we have Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same sentence. One of the biggest lies spun by the current US administration is to link Iraq and Al Qaeda thereby linking Iraq with the events of 9/11.

I know your post is a quote but I would have expected better from a 'foremost military historian'.

Originally Posted by Wallace

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Alqueada had well established links in Iraq.

Where's your source for this information? Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues did not operate out of Iraq, and as far as I know, the last gulf war resulted in most Iraqis being unable to get a decent drink of fresh water. Their ability to wage war or terrorise anyone other than their own citizens was severely curtailed. As for a history of aggression, the US has proven to be one of the most aggressive and suppressive nations in history.

The 9/11 commission established numerous contacts between Iraqi officials and Alqueada took place. The media has "cherry picked" the conclusion that no direct link between Saddam and 9/11 could be made. Alqueada had a presence there before 9/11 and that is established.

^
No, the intelligence pointing at a link had been cherrypicked and exaggerated by the warmongers who wanted to implement the plan of the PNAC.

Originally Posted by floorpotato

"The new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Alqaeda.... For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men." (Martin Van Creveld, Professor at Hebrew University and one of the world's foremost military historians. He is required reading at America's military academies. Bush supporters should spend more time reading their history and less time trying to think up clever one-liners to defend the indefensible.)

So you don't believe in crocodiles do you! Even after it's bitten your leg off?
No because even though the croc is happily chewing on your leg he can't possibly exist because he hasn't existed before....in your mind....anyway!

Me on the other hand I believe crocodiles exist. Why? because I see them happily chewing on your leg.

Originally Posted by stroller

^
No, the intelligence pointing at a link had been cherrypicked and exaggerated by the warmongers who wanted to implement the plan of the PNAC.

But can't deny the link existed can you.

For most people who smell smoke they can safely deduce the source of that smoke is fire.

Unless the world you live in is governed by different laws of physics the rest of us aren't privy too?

But this argument is pointless. The Americans are simply using it as an excuse. Al Qaeda are also connected to Saudi Arabia. So why don't the US invade that country? It has no democracy, suppresses human rights, and has one of the most insidious regimes in the world. Oh, but they own half of America, so that wouldn't be good for business.

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, the country was on its knees. It couldn't have mounted a military campaign against a small tropical island with no population if its life had depended on it.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Wallace

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Alqueada had well established links in Iraq.

Where's your source for this information? Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues did not operate out of Iraq, and as far as I know, the last gulf war resulted in most Iraqis being unable to get a decent drink of fresh water. Their ability to wage war or terrorise anyone other than their own citizens was severely curtailed. As for a history of aggression, the US has proven to be one of the most aggressive and suppressive nations in history.

The 9/11 commission established numerous contacts between Iraqi officials and Alqueada took place. The media has "cherry picked" the conclusion that no direct link between Saddam and 9/11 could be made. Alqueada had a presence there before 9/11 and that is established.

This is technically correct but never did anything come of it. In short, no cooperation and no coordination in developing or assisting in any attacks against U.S. targets by Iraq. Simply put, though both sides hated the United States neither Bin Laden nor Saddam were willing to assist the other or could trust the other in planning any attack against U.S. targets.

Originally Posted by Wallace

But this argument is pointless. The Americans are simply using it as an excuse. Al Qaeda are also connected to Saudi Arabia. So why don't the US invade that country? It has no democracy, suppresses human rights, and has one of the most insidious regimes in the world. Oh, but they own half of America, so that wouldn't be good for business.

more than just connected to Saudi as well.It prolly remains one of the main recruiting grounds for AQ.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The rest of the article here: washingtonpost.com: Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

For anyone who hasn't read the report this is what it said:

1. Saddam was the most anti-Islamist leader of any Arab nation. In fact, he was the most secular and was not one to want to ally or cooperate with terrorists.

2. Bin Laden was against Saddam for his perceived opposition to fundamentalist objectives (Saddam claimed to speak for Muslims but in reality was as anti-Islam as any Middle Eastern leader could be save for the PM of Israel). In fact Bin Laden sponsored anti-Saddam terrorists in the Iraqi portion of Kurdistan.

3. The Iraqis had problems with the Kurds. The Kurds also were causing problems for AQ in Iraq. Saddam and AQ only had this common ground: they may have cooperated loosely in fighting the Kurds but no further.

4. AQ wanted a safe haven and places to train. Bin Laden approached Iraq about this but never got a response. Subsequently the Taliban offered support and AQ/Bin Laden went to Afghanistan. Saddam was more concerned with rebuilding relations with neighbors and wanted nothing to do with AQ/Bin Laden.

5. There is no evidence AQ/Iraq/Saddam collaborated or planned any attacks against the U.S.

6. The reported meetings between the 9-11 mastermind and Iraqi agents are false and conclusively never took place.

^Determining "levels" of cooperation is a fairly subjective enterprise.
Carping on and on about 20/20 hindsight is hardly constructive and leaves the proponents of such carping in abject denial to the reality of the threat of Islamic extremism.
This has been going for over 80 years but it was only after the advent of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 has it become a focused attack on western civilization.
You can thank Jimmy Carter now!
9/11 was the "day of infamy" which polarized the world. All terrorist supporters were put on the hit list.
GWB happened to be the poor slug who had to deal with it.
He has risen to the occasion and learned from Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, GHB, and Clinton mistakes.
While he certainly isn't perfect he is far from the worst President ever. No other President has been presented with such a threat with dire consequences.
The only way around it is to say 9/11 was made up, exaggerated, or non existent.
The jig is up for Islamic extremism around the world. It seems to be only anti-american leftist rhetoricians who would like to appease them.
I think we learned in 1939 what trying to appease fanatics is all about.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Carping on and on about 20/20 hindsight

It may be "hindsight" for you, but myself and much of the rest of the world have been saying the same thing for several years now.
Time to save face, admit to yourself you were wrong and adjust your views accordingly.