Worst president in history?

[Steve]

Ditto Otter

Originally posted by valentino
It seems that to Bush they are friends, and I also know that to an extent they do not agree with what Osama is doing, but Osama has, at least in the past, benefited from monies gained by the Bush's and the Sauds...

To an extent?!? The Bin Laden family is disgusted by Osama's actions. That has been documented for the last decade. Unless you choose to believe it is all a ruse on the part of the Bin Laden family? Osama benefited from the money because he was at one time a respected part of his family, and received the benefit of his family's wealth. However, he chose to use that wealth to fund Al Qaida, to choose a path of terror, to cast aside the general beliefs of his family and adopt those of radical Islam. So that makes all the Bin Ladens equally guilty and suspect? Your argument is without merit, at this point.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nope...

is going to convince them that they should change their ways to be more like the collective us.

#1 is to defang the snake.

IF they choose to take the oportunity, as we all hope, to fight for self determination, all the better. History has shown we will help anyone who is willing to help themselves.

As the problem was the regime, the people of Iraq are now facing a future of choices.

Bush is no idiot and that vain, baseless notion has done nothing but neuter the Democratic party for the last three years and 8 years of Reagan. They both surrounded themselves with highly competent people because they were sure enough of themselves to do so. Wise I call it.

Clinton surrounded himself with smaller people because of his acute insecurities. He's a classic couch case.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Shakezula
You said it's about getting some.

Sure, take it out of context. You learned that liberal scheme I see. But that is all it is, a scheme. Clinton's pre-occupation didn't serve our nation well. Bush was forced to act by the inaction of the past. Why is this so hard for some to see?

 

[valentino]

Steve

I never said all of the bin Ladens were guilty, just that at one point Osama did benefit from the familys wealth. It seems strange to me that the bin Laden family was special enough to be flown out of the country, but I agree that there could be a lynchmob type reaction if people knew who they were related to, even though that of course does not make sense.

Larry

I beg to differ that Bush is not an idiot, he needs those supposed competent people around him to survive. 9/11 testimonies were a shining example.

I agree that Clinton has insecurities, probably why he felt the need to take advantage of his postion with quite a few ladies. I will say though, I was not so worried about terrorism and money when he was in office, but of course 9/11 have not happened yet...

Ken

You see that Bush was forced, I see that he was eager, trying to find a reason to go to war in Iraq as soon as he was put into office.

 

[Voter2002]

Originally posted by valentino

Ken

You see that Bush was forced, I see that he was eager, trying to find a reason to go to war in Iraq as soon as he was put into office.

He didn't need to find a reason....just like Ken said, it was inevitable due to inaction of the previous administration. 9/11 just took it out of the planning stages and pushed it onto the front burner...right after we mopped up the primary Al Qaeda bases in Afganistan.

The Dems love to spout lately that the war is unjust because the 9/11 commission found no direct link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq. However, the commission does not dispute that there are direct links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. THAT's why we are in Iraq today - not because of 9/11, but because Iraq & Hussain supported & harbored Al Qaeda terrorists and it is our mission to wipe out Al Qaeda. Dems need to see the whole picture and not run around wearing blinders.

 

[Larry Gude]

Val...

I beg to differ that Bush is not an idiot

...if that makes you fell better. Guess we have different ideas of what an idiot is.

I was not so worried about terrorism and money when he was in office, but of course 9/11 have not happened yet...

...and you set the table for a discusion of 'idiot' rather nicely.

In 1993, the World Trade Towers were attacked. If successful, one tower would have fallen into the other in a matter of minutes. Over 50,000 people were in the buildings at the time.

Only an idiot, to me, would treat this as a mere crime simply because it didn't work as intended. Not enough people were murdered?

 

[valentino]

Re: Val...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...if that makes you fell better. Guess we have different ideas of what an idiot is.



...and you set the table for a discusion of 'idiot' rather nicely.

In 1993, the World Trade Towers were attacked. If successful, one tower would have fallen into the other in a matter of minutes. Over 50,000 people were in the buildings at the time.

Only an idiot, to me, would treat this as a mere crime simply because it didn't work as intended. Not enough people were murdered?

You are right, more should have been done then as well...not saying that it should not have, just saying that Clinton had more of a feel good presidency...whether he was a better president was not my point.

Yeah, I guess not enough people were murdered, most people care less about that it seems. Now lots of people have been murdered, and we are still where we started or worse.

Voter2002

Don't be so quick to make unfounded accusations. I am actually registered independent and have never really felt that great about any elephant or ass that was running for office.

Both parties seem to share the blind trait at times, seems to be accepted behavior, but I have no idea where or how it started.

I have yet to see major evidence that there was a link between Sadaam and Al Qaida, and while there may have been Al Qaida operatives in Iraq does not mean much. There were operatives in the US, does that mean we were harboring terrorists? I guess it depends on the definition of harboring, and who is telling the story.

Here is a good quote I found...not too funny in my opinion, even though it was most likely meant to be.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would have been a heck of a lot easier, just as long as I'm the dictator!" - George W. Bush

 

[Otter]

Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by valentino

I have yet to see major evidence that there was a link between Sadaam and Al Qaida, and while there may have been Al Qaida operatives in Iraq does not mean much. There were operatives in the US, does that mean we were harboring terrorists? I guess it depends on the definition of harboring, and who is telling the story.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

 

[sleuth]

Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by otter
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

BUUUUURRRRRRRRRRN!!

 

[valentino]

Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by otter
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

That is a 5+ year old story, and of course Sadaam wanted help out a fellow US hater, does not mean there was an actual link or that he was harboring anyone else. Current proof would be more interesting and viable.

Slueth

That was very insightful ...we are trying to have a real discussion here.

 

[sleuth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by valentino
That is a 5+ year old story, and of course Sadaam wanted help out a fellow US hater, does not mean there was an actual link or that he was harboring anyone else. Current proof would be more interesting and viable.

Come on val. Five years ago is still recent history. I was still in my 20s for pete sake.

If Saddam harbored terrorists 5 years ago, what makes you think he suddenly became kindhearted and a hero to the west. History repeats itself. Men don't change. And I think it has been well-documented that as recently as a year ago Saddam was as big a tyrant as he ever was.

If he offered to harbor bin Laden and his buddies back then, you can bet he would probably do the same today, if he were able.

The evening of 9/11, Bush came on tv and said "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" and he pledged that he would go after the terrorists, and any nations who supported and harbored terrorists. Iraq was one of those. And I don't think I heard anyone b!tching back then that Bush was wrong for defending his country.

 

[sleuth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by valentino
Slueth

That was very insightful ...we are trying to have a real discussion here.

Thanks... I sometimes feel the need for comic relief is required.

 

[valentino]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by sleuth
Come on val. Five years ago is still recent history. I was still in my 20s for pete sake.

If Saddam harbored terrorists 5 years ago, what makes you think he suddenly became kindhearted and a hero to the west. History repeats itself. Men don't change. And I think it has been well-documented that as recently as a year ago Saddam was as big a tyrant as he ever was.

If he offered to harbor bin Laden and his buddies back then, you can bet he would probably do the same today, if he were able.

The evening of 9/11, Bush came on tv and said "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" and he pledged that he would go after the terrorists, and any nations who supported and harbored terrorists. Iraq was one of those. And I don't think I heard anyone b!tching back then that Bush was wrong for defending his country.

I do not believe that article said anything about Sadaam actually harboring terrorists, just the offer to do so. Of course that is not a good thing, but it does not prove anything about Sadaam's guilt.

Lots of people were complaining, just secretly at home for fear of being arrested for being a terrorist. I personally saw how bad things were long before 9/11...and that includes both sides. If that makes me a terrorist then I guess I better make sure I never post my address on here...

Comic relief can be good at times, but the issue of war being justified for bad reasons, 850 more Americans dying, countless other innocent Afghans and Iraqis being killed, just because some fat bastards can continue to ride around by themselves in their Hummers without fear of lack of oil.

Just because the people who look different than some of us were the ones who carried out the evil task of 9/11 and other terrorist actions, does not mean that the rest of their country is guilty of their actions, and should be treated like murderers as well. They have families and dreams just like all of us...they are people just the same.

 

[vraiblonde]

Valentino, you are like the wife that walks in on her husband boinking the neighbor, then swears she didn't see a thing.

Nothing will be good enough because you don't want to believe there was any justification for going into Iraq. You do, however, want to believe that Bush is this evil, horrible warmonger and clinically retarded to boot. You also hate Republicans so much that you want to buy into any crazy conspiracy theory that comes down the DU pike.

So go for it. Call it a cat if you want to. You just make yourself look stupid.

 

[Otter]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by valentino
That is a 5+ year old story, and of course Sadaam wanted help out a fellow US hater, does not mean there was an actual link or that he was harboring anyone else. Current proof would be more interesting and viable.

and I believe you said this

Iraq had no connections to Osama, Al Qaida, or the Taliban, only now is there insurgents because of course they want to kill Americans, and it is easier for them to travel over there than to come here and do it.

Offering safe haven 5 yrs ago is not relevant??

Plus I asked you yesterday to back up your statement "but Osama has, at least in the past, benefited from monies gained by the Bush's and the Sauds..." What is that supposed to mean??

 

[valentino]

Vrai

Justification to go to Iraq yes, doing it the way it was done risking so many lives now and the potential of so much more loss later is my problem.

If you think I look stupid, that is fine...I feel the same of most of your posts. This one was not so bad though, not as inconsiderate as many of them.

Otter

I did not say it was not relevant, just that it does not prove that Sadaam harbored terrorists. There may be other evidence that he actually did, not just offer to do so, but that article does not prove it.

Hmm, not sure how to answer that. Most people know that Osama received money from his families dealings, also that his family does not agree with his Al Qaida venture. I was not saying that Bush was in on any of Osama's actions or that his family was either, just that it seems unfair that some people get special privledges in a time of national crisis, just because of who they are. We were all scared of what might happen next and sad about what had already happened to so many of our brothers and sisters directly after 9/11, so I guess many of us would have made rash decisions.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by valentino
Justification to go to Iraq yes, doing it the way it was done risking so many lives now and the potential of so much more loss later is my problem.

Somehow I doubt you will ever pick up a weapon to defend your country, so this ISN'T your problem at all. You're just butting your nose in because you hate George Bush and are looking for any excuse to disparage him. You've been all over the place with your silly conspiracy theories but you choose not to believe history or news or even your own party animal, Bill Clinton.

And if presenting my own opinion based on facts makes me inconsiderate, oh well.

 

[Steve]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Val...

Originally posted by valentino
That is a 5+ year old story, .....

You're right Val, that history has been revised by now.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by valentino
I was not saying that Bush was in on any of Osama's actions or that his family was either, just that it seems unfair that some people get special privledges in a time of national crisis, just because of who they are.

Where is it written down that anything has to be fair in life? Some people got special treatment following 9/11 because of the political implications, be it by action or inaction. And who people are, and what they have achieved, determines the type of treatment they get. A homeless man gets ignored, while a president's family is guarded 24/7. Is that fair? Why should some kid of a world leader get the same treatment as the leader? I don't think its fair that I have to go to work every day while Paris Hilton plays with Nicole Richie in a trailer. Why can't I be rich and play with them too?!

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by Steve
Where is it written down that anything has to be fair in life? Some people got special treatment following 9/11 because of the political implications, be it by action or inaction. And who people are, and what they have achieved, determines the type of treatment they get. A homeless man gets ignored, while a president's family is guarded 24/7. Is that fair? Why should some kid of a world leader get the same treatment as the leader? I don't think its fair that I have to go to work every day while Paris Hilton plays with Nicole Richie in a trailer. Why can't I be rich and play with them too?!