Could Bush Lose It?

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

15 Aug 2003, 06:18 AM
spacecowboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

Look at this thread; you came in along with SC and immediately responded with the Clinton issue and the republicans... I've seen StriderKyo do the same in other threads the moment anyone dares to show hypocrisy or partisanship on the democratic side; but you jump for joy with the Bush hit-pieces... What??? What does that mean, exactly? That Democrats are free from criticism from now till kingdom come? What? Have you ever defended republicans by saying, "Oh look, the democrats did that, so it's nullified!! NEENER NEENER NEENER!"? I think not.

Personally, I'm not letting Democrats off on criticism I may have for them. I've gone off on Democrats before as well. But something about the smugness with which Republicans work just makes them an easier target, especially when they turn out to look like fools. And if I may say, that is the worst way to conduct a rebuttal; asking why we don't pick on the other side as often. Really immature.

Quote:

I don't give a flying fuck about a blue dress ;) , that's your hangup on Clinton. I'm in a post 9-11 world looking at a democratic senator or rep (whatever she was) claiming Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks and knowingly let them happen to make himself popular... The first time the WTC was attacked, did a republican accuse Clinton of knowingly letting it happen? No. But, accusing Bush of knowingly allowing the WTC attack to proceed and hence the death and destruction it caused is way out there. Accusing him of wanting Americans dead is utter bullshit and far worse...

I don't think that is what's going on at all. It's not realistic to assume that Bush wanted people to die to boost his image. But there were breakdowns in procedure that might have prevented 9/11 from happening, if not reducing the number of deaths. People want answers and instead of giving us any or accepting any responsibility, like he has done so many times since, Bush sends us to war with Iraq. It doesn't make sense. People just want the truth and it doesn't help his credibility when they aren't releasing the entire 9/11 report.

Quote:

As for WMDs, lemme ask you, would you like them to be found? Or, would you like them to remain hidden, to make Bush seem more of a liar and thus have less chances of winning?? We can both agree we don't wanna have America's credibility be shot down and have Saddam appear to have been telling the truth all along... See, those that carp on that issue and hate Bush, are objectively counting on WMDs never to be found. The same goes for Bin Laden and Saddam... You can't escape the fact that when you point that out, in order for the criticism to remain valid up until it's time to vote, you need them not to be found... You need the MILITARY to fail in those missions... I have an issue with that... And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with Clinton and the mysterious blue dress... See how that works?

I hope they aren't found because it isn't going to change anything if they are. The only way things are going to get turned around is by bringing them to the front and this bullshit excuse for a war is exactly the way to do it. America's credibility is already shot so I think it would be better for the people to see the truth: There are no secret, hidden weapons of mass-destruction. All that crap about the weapons being 15 min from launch capability was a lie. But no one in the Bush administration wants to take responsibility. It happens with all administrations. As soon as the shit hits the fan, the point the finger at someone else.

Quote:

I'm only looking at those with the axe to grind that are driven by mere hatred of Bush; That didn't have a problem with Clinton bombing Iraq, invading Kosovo/Bosnia etc.; Candidates that voted for this war and now act like they have amnesia all of a sudden... Congress approved this war... It's not "republicans" get to do whatever they want... Don't forget that...

How is this any different from your hatred of liberals? We have a republican president and a republican congress. How is not "republicans get to do whatever they want"?

Quote:

I don't expect them to stay silent, they're not; I would expect them to actually list a solution instead of being the geniuses to point out, "Well, we really got problem here..." If that's all they're gonna do, and that's their message, I'm gonna call 'em on it... Whining is whining... Point out a solution and you'll go alot further. But hey, they get to whine, act like they would've done a better job, and I get to despise 'em for it.

Whining is the perfect word to fit your posts in this thread thus far. Get over it. This is how American politics works. Like they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Grow up.

SC
15 Aug 2003, 09:14 AM
Wolffen

My God, it's rec.games.video.sega all over again. Ok, keep in mind I have no lost love for Bush nor for either political party or their behavior over the last 15 years. BOTH parties havie acted like babies when they weren't in power. The biggest difference is that this is the first time in 10 years that one party has held power in all three areas (president, senate, house).

Both parties have done revolting things over the last few years, post 9-11. Whether you look at the Democrats in Texas and their "camping trips" or the Patriot Act courtesy of Ashcroft and others in Bush's cabinet, the political quality of the country is currently that of potted meat. If you want to hold one piss-ant Democrat crack smoker as the shining light example of the party, that's your perogative. As to people who have reversed their stance on the war, the whole uranium thing and WMD kinda enters into it. Call it whining. Fine. But they will claim that they voted for the war because Bush told them there was a clear and present danger that Sadaam had WMD and was actively (and succesfully) pursuing nuclear weapons capabilty. We're now 3 1/2 months out of war, per Bush. The uranium line of his State speech has been dragged through the mud, and our forces have yet to find the clear and present danger of WMD. Do you find it surprising that some politicians that might have, in good faith, voted for the war might now feel duped? I'd say that maybe a few Republicans feel the same way, but it'd be political suicide to stand up and say so.

Quote:

As for WMDs, lemme ask you, would you like them to be found? Or, would you like them to remain hidden, to make Bush seem more of a liar and thus have less chances of winning??

You repeated this twice now. See, the assumption you're making is that the elusive WMD EXIST. If they exist, then, damn, yes I want them to be found. I don't care if Bush is in office or not. If we don't find them, America provides proof to all the anti-American rhetoric that we're big bullies who do what we want. We would have made ourselves an even bigger target than before. Then it will be the French going "NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!" And no one wants that. :) The problem is, if the weapons don't exist, they will never be found. There might be some politicians who are hoping the weapons are never found. There are probably a lot more who believe they won't be found because they don't exisit.

When people raised the issue of "Bush hasn't found the WMD/Sadaam/Bin Laden" in this thread, it was in regards (at least in my case) to the original poster's question of could Bush lose. If those missing items/persons are not found, it's a big hit on GW's credibilty, as well as our nation's intelligence agencies. If Bin Laden is found, great. The "War on Terror" is getting somewhere. If the WMDs exist and are found, great! America's credibility is back (at least partially). The idea that there is a massive conspiracy where liberals are praying to their deity of choice that terrorists, dictators, and mustard gas bombs remain hidden to help get Bush our of office is as offensive to me as the existence of it in your mind is to you. Granted, I wouldn't put it past some of the slimier Demo candidates to be doing so, but I doubt the majority of the party is doing such.

One last thing: Anyone who believes that, at this point, either party has your best interests at heart needs to turn off Fox, turn off whatever-the-liberal-channel is, step outside, and take a breath or twenty. The best we can hope for right now is to keep a balance like we did with Clinton (Dem Pres, Rep. house and senate, or vice versa), and work on improving the system by voting in people that will work to better the country rather than special interests.
15 Aug 2003, 11:54 AM
Melf

Thank you Wolfen, for saying what I was going to say much better than I ever could. :)
15 Aug 2003, 03:37 PM
Almaci

Hear yee hear yee.
I declare Bush to have a credibility problem, hear yee hear yee.
15 Aug 2003, 08:04 PM
NightWolve

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

America's credibility is already shot so I think it would be better for the people to see the truth: There are no secret, hidden weapons of mass-destruction. All that crap about the weapons being 15 min from launch capability was a lie. But no one in the Bush administration wants to take responsibility. It happens with all administrations. As soon as the shit hits the fan, the point the finger at someone else.

I'm pretty sure the 15-min potential strike was stated by British there, not here. But anyway, the problem with this is you had the UN with the known unaccounted-for biological/chemical weapons. Clinton made definitive statements about biological/chemical/nuclear to justify the 4 day bombing run... I don't think he did that just for the hell of it. Now, ignoring nuclear capability, the proposition you'd have to accept is that what the UN knew Saddam had was destroyed, and therefore he was WMD-free (Saddam was tellling the truth)... So, I dunno... The idea that he still had was unaccounted for didn't come out of a vaccum. If you believe Clinton destroyed them in '98, that's also another possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

How is this any different from your hatred of liberals? We have a republican president and a republican congress. How is not "republicans get to do whatever they want"?

Not sure about your question of liberals... I'm not hiding that I opposed to 'em from ideological standpoint (which can turn to hate depending on the subject). But, as for congress, it takes two-to-tango... Democrats have filibustering power, and they've got the ability to stop any bill from passing till they get what they want by standing firm. There's no supermajority of repubs as far as I know. If repubs were 2/3s in both the house and senate, then I'd agree with you (assuming they were all conservative as well). There's a slim majority of 1 in the senate, but you've had liberal republicans side with dems at time, so it's a sure thing as you say it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Whining is the perfect word to fit your posts in this thread thus far. Get over it. This is how American politics works. Like they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Grow up.

Well, hell, you came in whining about your beloved Clinton; and then Melf stereotyped me as being apart of Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy... WTF was that? As if I had something to do with wanting him impeached. I originally stated was why I hated liberal democrats and why I'll never vote for that party, then you and others went off on why I have no right to angered cause your anger over Clinton far more valued. Shit, I wouldn't have had a reason to respond if you didn't go nuts over it, so telling me to grow up is abit pot, kettle, black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolffen

You repeated this twice now. See, the assumption you're making is that the elusive WMD EXIST. If they exist, then, damn, yes I want them to be found. I don't care if Bush is in office or not. If we don't find them, America provides proof to all the anti-American rhetoric that we're big bullies who do what we want. We would have made ourselves an even bigger target than before. Then it will be the French going "NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!" And no one wants that. :) The problem is, if the weapons don't exist, they will never be found. There might be some politicians who are hoping the weapons are never found. There are probably a lot more who believe they won't be found because they don't exisit.

I didn't repeat it as a direct question; I wanted to see how far the hatred for Bush goes. I wanted an honest answer from him.
15 Aug 2003, 09:27 PM
NightWolve

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

And if I may say, that is the worst way to conduct a rebuttal; asking why we don't pick on the other side as often. Really immature.

No, it's not. Gimme a break SC, they're the conservative party. There's no reason to hide that you're ideologically opposed to them on a wide variety of issues; and hence, you wail on them more and protect the liberal democrat side. I highly doubt it's just the "smugness" ;). I find lots of liberals I know to be arrogant and smug, but there's more to it than that. I have no problem being honest about going after the party that I'm ideologically opposed to more than the one I like, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna block any attempts of criticism. You couldn't possibly be claiming that you're "fair and balanced," are you? :) Heh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

America's credibility is already shot so I think it would be better for the people to see the truth: There are no secret, hidden weapons of mass-destruction. All that crap about the weapons being 15 min from launch capability was a lie. But no one in the Bush administration wants to take responsibility. It happens with all administrations. As soon as the shit hits the fan, the point the finger at someone else.

I think the 15/45-min potential strike was stated by British there, not here (Dunno how they came up with that, but I'd agree with you it's probably bull; no way for me to know though). But anyway, the problem with this is you had the UN with the known unaccounted-for biological/chemical weapons. Clinton made definitive statements about biological/chemical/nuclear to justify the 4 day bombing run... I don't think he did that just for the hell of it. Now, ignoring nuclear capability, the proposition you'd have to accept is that what the UN knew Saddam had between now and '98 was destroyed, and therefore he was WMD-free (Saddam was tellling the truth)... So, I dunno... The idea that he still had what was unaccounted-for didn't come out of a vacuum (we're in the agreement with the UN here, but they wanted inspections to continue). He was never certified as being WMD-free, hence why the sanctions were still in place. But if you believe Clinton destroyed them in '98, that's also another possibility. Only things left are Saddam became a changed man and decided his WMD stash was causing him too much trouble so he destroyed them himself or they're well hidden ;). Even worse is our intel has been wrong for years... Well, I dunno what happened, but I can wait. I don't think the idea was to intentionally destroy our credibility worldwide. Whatever the case, I'd like for them to be found unlike you.

Oh yeah, don't take my word for it :).
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ton.iraq.sotu/
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/l...20030731.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Clinton

There was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for in Iraq. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'

People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.

Since Clinton was brought up and defended, this came to mind :p.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

How is this any different from your hatred of liberals? We have a republican president and a republican congress. How is not "republicans get to do whatever they want"?

Not sure about your question of liberals... I'm not hiding that I opposed to 'em from ideological standpoint (which can turn to hate depending on the subject). But, as for congress, it takes two-to-tango... Democrats have filibustering power which they're leveraging on other matters. There's a slim majority of 1 in the senate, but you've had liberal republicans side with dems at times, so it's not a sure thing as you say it is. The tax cut started off at ~720 billion, but due to compromises with dems went down to 300 billion (whatever, somethin' like that). Like it or not, both parties have had to compromise with each other, so it's not like repubs can steam roll any bill thru. But, if we were to get 60 seats in the senate, then I'd agree with you ;).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Whining is the perfect word to fit your posts in this thread thus far. Get over it. This is how American politics works. Like they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Grow up.

Well, hell, you came in whining about your beloved Clinton; and then Melf stereotyped me as being apart of Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy... WTF was that? As if I had something to do with wanting him impeached. I originally stated why I hated liberal democrats and why I'll never vote for that party, I explained further due to Kyo, then you and others went off on why I have no right to be angered cause your anger over Clinton is far more valued (or that situation simply nullifies everything that's happened since 9-11). Shit, I wouldn't have had a reason to respond if you didn't go nuts over it, so telling me to grow up is abit pot, kettle, black. Get over your boy Clinton, then we'll talk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolffen

You repeated this twice now. See, the assumption you're making is that the elusive WMD EXIST. If they exist, then, damn, yes I want them to be found. I don't care if Bush is in office or not. If we don't find them, America provides proof to all the anti-American rhetoric that we're big bullies who do what we want. We would have made ourselves an even bigger target than before. Then it will be the French going "NEENER NEENER NEEEENER!" And no one wants that. :) The problem is, if the weapons don't exist, they will never be found. There might be some politicians who are hoping the weapons are never found. There are probably a lot more who believe they won't be found because they don't exisit.

I didn't repeat it as a direct question; I wanted to see how far the hatred for Bush goes. I wanted an honest answer from him. And, I don't have a problem with your stated position as it's reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolffen

The idea that there is a massive conspiracy where liberals are praying to their deity of choice that terrorists, dictators, and mustard gas bombs remain hidden to help get Bush our of office is as offensive to me as the existence of it in your mind is to you.

I did not state a "massive conspiracy," I tried to be specific. And I was being snide with the use of "pray," hope would be more like it. But, the fact is, if your platform is "Bush can't find Laden/Saddam/WMDs and I'm not Bush," then you need our intelligence services and military to fail in those missions for that criticism to remain valid from now to election time, as well as by liberals in media that press the issue and don't want Bush reelected... At best case, they're taking a political gamble, worst case they're hoping... I find it egregious either way. And I don't find it less egregious simply because Clinton and the blue dress somehow factor into it. If say for Bin Laden, they stated they're willing to send troops over into Pakistan unlike Bush (something, anything that they would've done differently), then I'd be less inclined to attack 'em for it.
15 Aug 2003, 09:38 PM
Gutsman

It could be that all this liberal backlash against Bush is simply "revenge" for the attempt to impeach Clinton.

Then once the Democrats regain the white house, it will be the repub's turn to have their revenge for all the Bush bashing, etc etc and so on and so forth...it'll never end.
15 Aug 2003, 11:13 PM
Melf

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightWolve

and then Melf stereotyped me as being apart of Hilary's vast right-wing conspiracy... WTF was that? As if I had something to do with wanting him impeached

I'm sorry. After reading your broad generalizations of the left, I thought you'd be able to see a generalization about the right. :)

I wasn't referring to you in particular nor any "right wing conspiracy." Hell, even Hilalry Clinton admits she fucked up on that one.

I was referring to how you criticize Democrats for complaining about Bush, when Republicans are guilty of whining over things far more trivial over the last decade.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page