Shouldn't he regret sending our men to war to die and kill based on his administrations lies that were planned in advance?

 

If that is his form of Christianity....I want nothing to do with it!!!

I'm as liberal as the next, but enough. If you're going to make these kind of claims you really need to factually back them up and make a more cogent argument, otherwise you really aren't helping or adding anything constructive to the dialogue.

I'm as liberal as the next, but enough. If you're going to make these kind of claims you really need to factually back them up and make a more cogent argument, otherwise you really aren't helping or adding anything constructive to the dialogue.

 

I didn't even consider the post worthy of a response.

The rhetoric may be harsh (ironic given the topic, no?), and it doesn't need to be conflated with the ongoing "he lied/didn't lie" debate, certainly, but there is still an important point here.

 

The President's concession that his "Bring 'Em On!" taunt to Iraqi insurgents was "misinterpreted" is as close as we are goint to get to him admitting that the cowboy rhetoric was dangerous and reckless. And in truth, I don't believe it was "misinterpreted" by the insurgents at all. They did in fact "bring it on," and a dangerous enemy was fueled and spurred on with lethal consequences for our soldiers and countless Iraqi innnocents.

 

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. President, because you just might get it.

 

As for the concessions regarding the shame that is Abu Ghraib, at least the paraphrased coverage I've read sounds like Bush actually flirted with the notion of some top-down culpability. Much too little much too late, naturally, but still perhaps the closest our reality-challenged POTUS has come to the truth in some time.

He also said he regretted Osama: Wanted Dead or Alive. I wish he would have regretted saying "I just don't spend much time on that.{Osama Bin Laden}" six months later.

I'm not sure as much he said he regretted it as he said it was misinterpreted. Small detail, but I might as well point it out.

 

'Q: Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?

 

PRESIDENT BUSH: It sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here. (Scattered laughter.) Saying "Bring it on." Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. That I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk.

 

I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned -- I learned from that.

 

And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice; they've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted. '

I'm as liberal as the next, but enough. If you're going to make these kind of claims you really need to factually back them up and make a more cogent argument, otherwise you really aren't helping or adding anything constructive to the dialogue.

 

Here ya go...how he and Tony pre-planned this WAR. I think it is your responsiblity to research these things as an American. However, too many rely on the MSM...which all they pump out of that tube is entertainment and not many facts. I am so sick of that Duke thing...give me substance.

 

Downing Street Documents

Edited May 26, 200619 yr by IggyD

Here ya go...how he and Tony pre-planned this WAR. I think it is your responsiblity to research these things as an American. However, too many rely on the MSM...which all they pump out of that tube is entertainment and not many facts. I am so sick of that Duke thing...give me substance.

 

Downing Street Documents

I know about those. I was not the one, however, making arguments without facts and references to support my argument, and that was what I was commenting on about your post.

Hmm, the Downing Street Documents, all tied in with a 9/11 conspiracy. That makes an argument good. :rolly

Hmm, the Downing Street Documents, all tied in with a 9/11 conspiracy. That makes an argument good. :rolly

The sad thing is that there's actually some substance to the DSM (who knows how much until more documents are released, which may happen soon), but then you get people like these who get their hands on them and say "See, Bush caused 9/11 to invade Iraq!" and suddenly any story that could be told from those British memos becomes just a conspiracy theory. They're taking everyone who even remotely agrees with them down with them.

Shouldn't he regret sending our men to war to die and kill based on his administrations lies that were planned in advance?

 

If that is his form of Christianity....I want nothing to do with it!!!

 

 

So your theory is that Bush Killed 3,000 Americans just so he could start a war in Iraq that would kill another 3,000+ people could die? Wow is all I can say

So your theory is that Bush Killed 3,000 Americans just so he could start a war in Iraq that would kill another 3,000+ people could die? Wow is all I can say

 

Your total fatality count in Iraq is 3,000+ people, and Iraq civilians don't rate a mention? Wow is all I can say.

Your total fatality count in Iraq is 3,000+ people, and Iraq civilians don't rate a mention? Wow is all I can say.

 

 

The point I was trying to make was an American President would not purposly kill hundred's of thousands of people.

 

The people who believe that also believe Kennedy was shot 20 times from all over by everyone, Pearl Harbor was bombed by Roosevelt instead of Japan. I have heard these wacko theories all the time and none of them actually took place.

The sad thing is that there's actually some substance to the DSM (who knows how much until more documents are released, which may happen soon), but then you get people like these who get their hands on them and say "See, Bush caused 9/11 to invade Iraq!" and suddenly any story that could be told from those British memos becomes just a conspiracy theory. They're taking everyone who even remotely agrees with them down with them.

 

Where in this area do you see me make that referance to 9-11? However..this member " Michael Meacher" of british parliment does see parallels.

 

Remember Bush's and the 911 Commission excuse of why 911 happened..they said..."WE DID NOT CONNECT THE DOTS" if they don't we should.....

Edited May 27, 200619 yr by IggyD

The point I was trying to make was an American President would not purposly kill hundred's of thousands of people.

 

The people who believe that also believe Kennedy was shot 20 times from all over by everyone, Pearl Harbor was bombed by Roosevelt instead of Japan. I have heard these wacko theories all the time and none of them actually took place.

 

Point taken. In regard to 9-11. In regard to the Iraq conflict, the President is too willing to see blood spilled on both sides for an unattainable goal.

Point taken. In regard to 9-11. In regard to the Iraq conflict, the President is too willing to see blood spilled on both sides for an unattainable goal.

 

 

What "unattainable" goal is that? A democratic government in Iraq? OOPS!!! I guess it wasn't so unattainable after all.

What "unattainable" goal is that? A democratic government in Iraq? OOPS!!! I guess it wasn't so unattainable after all.

Thankfully, they've democratically decided to kill people for wearing shorts.

Thankfully, they've democratically decided to kill people for wearing shorts.

 

 

They were "democratically" killed by the same terrorist savages the government is trying to stop.

I thought the goal was peace in the Middle East.

 

Not "democracy" in the Middle East. Seeing as Hitler was elected, its the people not the system of govt that mean something.

Edited May 28, 200619 yr by Soxbadger

I thought the goal was peace in the Middle East.

 

Not "democracy" in the Middle East. Seeing as Hitler was elected, its the people not the system of govt that mean something.

 

 

If the goal is peace in the Middle East then that is truly unattainable. I think the real goal is not so much peace but replacing the current assholes with OUR assholes.

I think the real goal is not so much peace but replacing the current assholes with OUR assholes.

Which has worked so well in the past.

I thought the goal was peace in the Middle East.

 

Not "democracy" in the Middle East. Seeing as Hitler was elected, its the people not the system of govt that mean something.

Hitler and the Nazis never actually won an election.

Hitler and the Nazis never actually won an election.

 

The NSDAP did however win a plurality in the Bundestag two or three times. I think it's comparing two different things when comparing an Electoral College system like ours, and a proportional representation system that the Weimar Republic used. That being said, I've never understood the analogies of Hitler and Bush. If you want to call Bush a fascist according to Dr.(?) Lawrence Britt's examination of prior fascist regimes, you can certainly argue it, but to refer to him indirectly to a dictator is, well, idiotic to put it rosy.

Edited May 29, 200619 yr by Cerbaho-WG

Here is a little reminder for Mr. Bush of his mistakes...click here...good job by this guy...IMHO