Bush's Veteran's Day Speech: What did you think of it?

[avatar]

Why would they report good stuff?

Americans want to have fuel for their anti war feeling's. Reporting goood news would counter against what many americans want to hear. It would be like showing Farhenheit 9-11 to a hardcore bush supporter. He would just turn it off.

My feeling on this war is not nearly as passionate as some of you guys. I can picture Spodaddy vein popping in his neck and MrBobb punching his computer. LOL.

Is Bush to blame for this war. Yes and No. Did he lie. Who knows? Calliander said it best. The lie is perfect. You can't disprove nor prove it. For 3 years we are going to bitch about this war until Bush is gone.

However they're are some things that piss me off. These are mostly general things.
1) Please stop comparing Bush to Hitler. It's unfair to Bush and Hitler.
2) Couldn't the WMD's just been moved out? Or stored in a diferent country? I never really understood the logic that WMD's must be in Iraq to be used by Iraq.
3) Kerry sucked. He really fucking sucked. Just beuase I don't like the current pres. doesn't mean I'm going skip to my lou and suck the cock of any bastard you nominate against him. Jesus. If they do this again I'm not voting.
4) Though no one said it yet. This will not be the fall of america. It seems everywhere I go whenever Bush is mentioned one S.O.B pretends 1984 has come now

[Calliander]

The lie is perfect. You can't disprove nor prove it.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

But O.J. still did it.

[SpoDaddy]

Ah, I see. The only credible source on the site is the one you used.

John Dickerson is a columnist and White House correspondent for Time Magazine. Hardly a "poly sci major." Comments like that only undermine your position even more, Spo.

I didn't say John Dickerson wasn't credible, I said he's a joke compared to Christopher Hitchens. I don't understand why you compared him to Hitchens in the first place, what does his article have to do with anything?

[SpoDaddy]

Why would they report good stuff?

Americans want to have fuel for their anti war feeling's. Reporting goood news would counter against what many americans want to hear. It would be like showing Farhenheit 9-11 to a hardcore bush supporter. He would just turn it off.

The difference being that F-9/11 is propagandist bullshit wheras reporting the truth in Iraq would be, well, the truth.

However they're are some things that piss me off. These are mostly general things.
1) Please stop comparing Bush to Hitler. It's unfair to Bush and Hitler.

Ever see the moveon.org anti-Bush ad where Bush and Hitler morph into each other? Pretty stupid shit.

2) Couldn't the WMD's just been moved out? Or stored in a diferent country? I never really understood the logic that WMD's must be in Iraq to be used by Iraq.

Almost certainly that's exactly what happened; Saddam turned moving WMD's into an art form during UN inspections.

3) Kerry sucked. He really fucking sucked. Just beuase I don't like the current pres. doesn't mean I'm going skip to my lou and suck the cock of any bastard you nominate against him. Jesus. If they do this again I'm not voting.

Kerry continues to suck. It's funny; the first time Bush answers back against all these bullshit accusations publicly he's demonizing people and playing dirty politics. Is there a contagious mental block going around over the fact that Kerry ran a presidential campaign on the platform "Bush is Satan"?

4) Though no one said it yet. This will not be the fall of america. It seems everywhere I go whenever Bush is mentioned one S.O.B pretends 1984 has come now

Visit your local college campus, you'll hear it said ad nauseum. America used to be great, in America we used to have civil rights. I've yet to hear one of the people equating the Patriot Act with shredding the Bill of Rights correctly state what the Patriot Act actually is.

OMFGNinjas, it'd be awesome if you'd relay some of the positive experiences you've had in Iraq. The other day on Bill Maher's show (I like to hear the left wing propaganda firsthand) the token evil conservative was talking about how we're building schools, infrastructure, establishing freedom in Iraq; Eve Ensler flapped her gash in response "That's a lie, I've been to Iraq mister, we aren't building anything, just killing innocents".

Eve Ensler's a walking twat infection but it seems the anti-war movement generally accepts this notion that it's a Mad Max movie over there. Bill Clinton's pulling a Jane Fonda, the anti-military left has lost it's mind.

Keep up the good fight Ninjas, back home not all of us are running like babies at the sight of the future, cowering into the fetal position pretending it's Sept 10th.

[avatar]

The difference being that F-9/11 is propagandist bullshit wheras reporting the truth in Iraq would be, well, the truth.

The thing is people have selective reading. For example A lot of people complain about lack of good happy news at 10 or 11. The truth is their is a lot of good news most nights. People refuse to acknowledge them so they can continue bitching.

For example CNN(I think) is having a newscast about the good things that have happened since Katina. I have heard no talk about this special. However I can gurantee if the same news station decided to rip into someone at FEMA or whatever live on-air then It would be a heavily talked about and anticipated show.

News Stations notice stuff like this and have realized that good news is wasted on the masses. People want to complain so give them shit to complain about. This whole "Spread the truth" stuff is nonsense when ratings come in. Hell didn't that one CBS guy just outright lie a few months back about Bush?

Ever see the moveon.org anti-Bush ad where Bush and Hitler morph into each other? Pretty stupid shit.

Moveon.org is the home of crappy comedians that haven't learned that their 15 minutes are up.

[Melf]

I didn't say John Dickerson wasn't credible, I said he's a joke compared to Christopher Hitchens. I don't understand why you compared him to Hitchens in the first place, what does his article have to do with anything?

You said:

John Dickerson might as well be Ted Kennedy's press secretary or a clueless poly sci major writing from a dorm building named after Che Guevara.

...and that's not an attack on his credibility? Moreover, I wasn't the one who compared him, it was you who put them side-by-side, mentioning Chomsky and such. I simply posted a link of an article he did which discusses just how two-faced the administration's handling of Iraq (pre and post war) has been.

Almost certainly that's exactly what happened; Saddam turned moving WMD's into an art form during UN inspections.

There's about as much evidence of this as there was of WMDs even being there in the first place.

Kerry continues to suck. It's funny; the first time Bush answers back against all these bullshit accusations publicly he's demonizing people and playing dirty politics. Is there a contagious mental block going around over the fact that Kerry ran a presidential campaign on the platform "Bush is Satan"?

Could that be the same one blocking the right's memories of all those blatantly false Swift Boat ads? Probably.

Eve Ensler's a walking twat infection but it seems the anti-war movement generally accepts this notion that it's a Mad Max movie over there. Bill Clinton's pulling a Jane Fonda, the anti-military left has lost it's mind.

Well, you'd think that since Bush won the war with Clinton's army, he'd have adopted the dozen's of studies and recommendations about what to do after it was won. I'm not there, however, and I refuse to believe that nothing good has been done. To deny that things are improving, slow or not, is simply stupid.

[SpoDaddy]

...and that's not an attack on his credibility? Moreover, I wasn't the one who compared him, it was you who put them side-by-side, mentioning Chomsky and such. I simply posted a link of an article he did which discusses just how two-faced the administration's handling of Iraq (pre and post war) has been. .

Heh, here's another article from that same site that tells a different story, focusing on the deceptions of Dick "I know something you don't know" Cheney..

You implied the comparison right there. I guess I was attacking his credibility in comparing him to Hitchens, you're right.

There's about as much evidence of this as there was of WMDs even being there in the first place.

There's ironclad evidence he had WMD's, the UN resolutions were that he DISarm, meaning get rid of the stuff he HAD. He used chemical and biological weapons on his own people several times, you can't use WMD's you don't have. Are you trying to say you agree with me that he moved the WMD's?

Could that be the same one blocking the right's memories of all those blatantly false Swift Boat ads? Probably.

I don't know that the Swift Boat ads were "blatantly false", if you have any evidence of that please share it. I'd be happy to show you all the lies and falsehoods in F-9/11 if you'd like. Also, there wasn't a mainstream anti-Kerry movement based on the assertions of the Swift Boat ads, the anti-Kerry movement was based on his voting record, flip flopping positions on key issues and things he said himself before congress in the early 70's. You had several leading Republicans like John McCain denouncing the swift boat ads in defense of Kerry, where were the prominent Democrats denouncing F-9/11? Most of the anti-Bush bile is still the asinine "Bush lied to get us into a war for oil" load that Moore heralded in F-9/11.

Well, you'd think that since Bush won the war with Clinton's army, he'd have adopted the dozen's of studies and recommendations about what to do after it was won. I'm not there, however, and I refuse to believe that nothing good has been done. To deny that things are improving, slow or not, is simply stupid.

So we're winning the war with Clinton's army but we're unjustly there in the first place because of Clinton's CIA? I'm having trouble keeping up with the liberal logic. Also, I'd love to see Clinton's brilliant exit strategy that you're referencing.

[bbobb]

I don't know that the Swift Boat ads were "blatantly false", if you have any evidence of that please share it.

Go to the local library and pick up the new Al Franken book. He dovotes an entire chapter on that load of crap.

And it's worth noting that those Bush lackeys did the same crap to McCain as well, which is also bullshit.

[SpoDaddy]

Go to the local library and pick up the new Al Franken book. He dovotes an entire chapter on that load of crap.

And it's worth noting that those Bush lackeys did the same crap to McCain as well, which is also bullshit.

Any source that's more credible than Al Franken? He's essentially a skinnier. smarter, much less entertaining version of Michael Moore. You wouldn't want me to start citing Ann Coulter books as sources would you?

As for McCain, we're in complete agreement. I supported McCain heavily in the 2000 election and when Bush smeared him out of contention with all the "he's crazy" nonsense I refused to vote for Bush. I still hate Bush for that, but my personal feelings aren't as important as bigger issues.

[Melf]

There's ironclad evidence he had WMD's, the UN resolutions were that he DISarm, meaning get rid of the stuff he HAD. He used chemical and biological weapons on his own people several times, you can't use WMD's you don't have. Are you trying to say you agree with me that he moved the WMD's?

Just about all of the U.N. sanctions dealt with Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors to enter and search. Could it have been because he was moving his WMDs around? Perhaps. Was he able to hold them off long enough to move the weapons out of Iraq? Maybe. That's all speculation and heresay, and we can debate about it all night. Where would he have put them though? In arch enemy Iran? U.S.-friendly Turkey or Jordan? Kuwait? Surely not Bush buddy Saudi Arabia! The only option is Syria, and what has the government done in the last two years to check? Like I said, there's no "ironclad" evidence that anything was moved.

After we put him on a short leash in 1991, allowing him to gas and kill his own people - which we did on purpose, as Colin Powell so candidly wrote in his autobography - Clinton took out what was left of Saddam's known weapons. Don't believe me? Check the Duelfer Report, written by Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors.

You had several leading Republicans like John McCain denouncing the swift boat ads in defense of Kerry, where were the prominent Democrats denouncing F-9/11? Most of the anti-Bush bile is still the asinine "Bush lied to get us into a war for oil" load that Moore heralded in F-9/11.

I agree with you 100% on the left's silence about this. That's one of the things I respect most about McCain: his ability to rise above partisan politics and bluntly state the truth. Had more Democrats been like him, the campaign wouldn't have been as ugly.

So we're winning the war with Clinton's army but we're unjustly there in the first place because of Clinton's CIA? I'm having trouble keeping up with the liberal logic. Also, I'd love to see Clinton's brilliant exit strategy that you're referencing.

Were unjustly there because of this administration's obsession since before 9/11[/url]. Several former members of the Bush administration, including former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, have since come forward to reveal the singular mentality with regards to Iraq since 2000. The latest to step forward has been Powell's own former chief of staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.

The exit strategy I referenced wasn't Clinton's. It was drawn up by Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who said that several hundred thousand troops were needed for a successful post-war operation (he was promptly countered by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and fired). Colin Powell was also aware that things were going to go to shit after the invasion, which is most likely why he's not the Secretary of State anymore. The British were also wary of what would happen afterward, as detailed by Blair's own foreign policy advisor David Manning.

So it wasn't Clinton who knew the aftermath would be a major SNAFU; it was the entire world.

Any source that's more credible than Al Franken? He's essentially a skinnier. smarter, much less entertaining version of Michael Moore. You wouldn't want me to start citing Ann Coulter books as sources would you?

Actually, the book bbobb mentions is about as fact-laden as you can get. Fox News sued Franken and was promptly laughed out of court because his facts were so straight. Ironically, the book points out several glaring inconsistancies and lies in Coulter's own book.

Call him a liberal whatever, but his shit is straight. No one has debunked anything he's laid out in Lies, And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and the book has been out for several years already.

And trust me, he's no Michael Moore. The world can only stand one crazy fatass as it is.