Bush at 36%, how low can he go?

[Sylvester McBean]

I've never said "tough crap." I said "blame the terrorists."

the terrorists that flew the planes into the building weren't Iraqi, Joe. they were Saudi's.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Cheney, definately. Bush's income is tied directly to the UAE.

Cheney -- not at all for a fact. His deferred compensation is a flat amount guaranteed by insurance contracts. Any appreciation on stock options go directly to a charitable trust.

Haliburton does not effect Bush. The UAE, apparently some connections.

To say that President and Cheney liberated Iraq for the reason of profiteering is unfounded.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

the terrorists that flew the planes into the building weren't Iraqi, Joe. they were Saudi's.

I know.

Terrorists are the one's killing Iraqi's. We are in Iraq fighting terrorists as part of the war on terror. Saddam was a terrorist supporter.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

I know.

Terrorists are the one's killing Iraqi's. We are in Iraq fighting terrorists as part of the war on terror. Saddam was a terrorist supporter.

terrorists that wouldn't have infiltrated Iraq if we hadn't invaded Islamic soil.

 

[LuvDuke]

To say we are not supposed to care is nonsense. Those who preferred that Iraqi's stay under Saddam's rule are the ones who seem not to care.

There you go again: Bearing false witness against your neighbor.

 

[LuvDuke]

I know.

Terrorists are the one's killing Iraqi's. We are in Iraq fighting terrorists as part of the war on terror. Saddam was a terrorist supporter.

There are only 1200-3000 foreign terrorists in Iraq. The American military is trading shots with both sides in the ongoing civil war.

Now, you can delude yourself that "we're fighting terrorist in Iraq", but that does not change the facts.

However, it does reinforce the postion that Bush's support now consists of the ill-informed, the delusional, the very rich, the "woman sit down/shut up, I'm controlling your ovaries now" crowd, and those who know better, but can't let go of the image they have of Bush.

 

[LuvDuke]

terrorists that wouldn't have infiltrated Iraq if we hadn't invaded Islamic soil.

And at that there are only about 1200-3000 terrorists who've infiltrated Iraq.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

The "noble cause" Bush claims the military is fighting for in Iraq is keeping the Iraqis from killing each other in a civil war.

 

[dcentity2000]

Hans Blix: War in Iraq has Made Terrorism Worse, 'It has Failed Miserably'

The war in Iraq has put neither Iran nor North Korea off the idea of nuclear weapons and has "stimulated terrorism", Hans Blix, the former United Nations chief arms inspector in Iraq, said.

"You wouldn't expect any government to admit that they were wrong," Blix told BBC radio. "I think, like everybody else, that it is good that Saddam (Hussein) is gone. The world is better off without Saddam.

"But the world is not any safer. If this was meant to be a signal to terrorists to stop their activities, it has failed miserably, it has stimulated terrorism.

"And it doesn't stop proliferation. The Iranians and North Koreans, if they are up to that, they are not stopped by it.

"So I don't think that any of the aims, except getting rid of Saddam himself, have succeeded."

Blix poured scorn on British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for justifying the invasion of Iraq, originally based on the premise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, on a now watered-down reason that Saddam had the intention of producing such weaponry.

The chief US weapons hunter, Charles Duelfer, found in his 1,000-page Iraq Survey Group report published last week that Saddam had destroyed most of his chemical and biological weapons after his 1991 Gulf War defeat and that his nuclear program had "progressively decayed".

But he said the Iraqi leader had hoped to renew his weapons quest if sanctions were lifted.

"When you read Duelfer's report now you really wonder how dangerous he was," Blix, a former Swedish foreign minister who led the UN hunt for banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, told the BBC.

"OK, he claimed that there were programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. But he also takes a step back from this and says there were no documented programs.

"What he has got out of interrogation of various people who worked with Saddam was rather that 'well he wanted to, that was probably his intention' etc, but these are straws I think for Jack Straw to cling to."

Blix has previously criticized British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government for "hyping" pre-war intelligence about Iraq and denounced US President George W. Bush's war as boosting terrorism and causing more suffering than Saddam's dictatorial regime had.

Blair admitted in a Labour party speech earlier this month that pre-war claims about Saddam's threat were wrong, but he and his closest ally Bush have staunchly defended taking Iraq to war.

Accoding to recent polls, a comfortable majority of Americans - and Britons - fully agree with Hans Bl.ix in the assessment that the war has made the threat of terrorism "worse".

One of the biggest polling exercises ever conducted has uncovered an overwhelming belief that the Iraq war has increased rather than decreased the chances of terrorist attacks.

The survey of 41,856 people in 35 countries, commissioned by the BBC World Service and published today, found about 60% of those polled shared this view. Only 12% thought the war had reduced the chances of an attack, with 15% saying it had no effect either way. In Britain, 77% of those questioned thought the terrorist threat had risen since the 2003 invasion.

You can't deny that it makes sense - if you invade any country, there will be a fierce rebuttal in force by people looking for an excuse to rise up in arms. Many "borderline" terrorists were tipped over the edge by the western world's "interfering" in Iraq and the laughable handling of the pre-war intelligence further fueled this.

Basically, results of the Iraq war:

• GOOD - Saddam deposed
• BAD - Terrorism worse
• BAD - Area destabilised
• BAD - The usual myriad of problems caused by any war, including a huge surge in crime and lawlessness, widespread deaths due to military action and partisan fighters
• BAD - reputation of invading countries dashed on the back of information being "sexed up"

Rich::

 

[lw49033]

I know.

Terrorists are the one's killing Iraqi's. We are in Iraq fighting terrorists as part of the war on terror. Saddam was a terrorist supporter.

Saddam did not support al-Qaeda, as is well known.

 

[cardaway]

I know.

Terrorists are the one's killing Iraqi's. We are in Iraq fighting terrorists as part of the war on terror. Saddam was a terrorist supporter.

Except the "terrorists" are actually just more Iraqi's. Some people would like to limit the term to only those who support the US, but that simply isn't accurate.

 

[Teejay32]

I'll take that as an "I can't find the story to confirm the Iraqi boast of shooting down a drone and just hoped you wouldn't notice". I did and so did the rest of the peanut gallery.

Btw, this little exchange is symptomatic as to why Bush and his party are in trouble. Truth is not on their side. Unless the truth is stretched to the nth degree, their assertions, propoganda, and policies just don't add up.

You and the peanut gallery can google "pentagon Iraq spy plane," same as I did, but here's a few:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/08/27/iraq.shootdown/index.html

http://www.boston.com/news/packages...12/Iraq_claims_2d_US_spy_plane_downing+.shtml

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200110/11/eng20011011_82009.html (Iraqi TV shows wreckage of US plane)

 

[LuvDuke]

You and the peanut gallery can google "pentagon Iraq spy plane," same as I did, but here's a few:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/08/27/iraq.shootdown/index.html

http://www.boston.com/news/packages...12/Iraq_claims_2d_US_spy_plane_downing+.shtml

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200110/11/eng20011011_82009.html (Iraqi TV shows wreckage of US plane)

This just gets better and better. So now you come up with 3 websites that all say the same thing ....... drones went down in Iraq. Gee, no kidding. You don't say!

Now, I'm sure what's left of Bush's support is really impressed and will make the "leap of faith" that the Iraqis did it. Sorry if the rest of us are looking for a bit more than Iraqi propoganda and the Pentagon's "six steps and connect the dots" game.

Btw, you can try googling "Pentagon confirmation Iraq downed spy drone" and see if you can come up with anything.

FYI, no one is disputing a few drones went down. You can come up with all the websites you want, but you cannot come up with anything confirming the drones were downed by the Iraqis other than from the Iraqis and innuendo from Rumsfeld.

And one more thing: I did google "pentagon Iraq spy plane" and here's the first thing tha popped up:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/08/world/main535781.shtml

This story contained such pearls as:

"Iraq has been increasingly aggressive in its attempts to shoot down U.S. or British planes, but no pilots have been lost in the more than 350,000 sorties flown over the Iraqi no-fly zones in the past 10 years, according to Pentagon officials.

"According to U.S. officials, Iraqi air defenses fired on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the zones almost 500 times last year, but have never shot down a piloted plane since the war. "

And I stand corrected. In the 12 years of the no-fly zone, the Pentagon confirmed Iraq shot down one drone.

"After Iraq brought down a Predator on Dec. 23, U.S. officials called it a "lucky shot" and did not treat it as a significant hostile act."

 

[lw49033]

Except the "terrorists" are actually just more Iraqi's. Some people would like to limit the term to only those who support the US, but that simply isn't accurate.

Yeah, if, Allah forbid, an Iraqi wants Iraqis running Iraq, he's not a "real" Iraqi. But if he wants an American puppet regime, he's a patriot, according to the neocons

 

[Teejay32]

This just gets better and better. So now you come up with 3 websites that all say the same thing ....... drones went down in Iraq. Gee, no kidding. You don't say!

Now, I'm sure what's left of Bush's support is really impressed and will make the "leap of faith" that the Iraqis did it. Sorry if the rest of us are looking for a bit more than Iraqi propoganda and the Pentagon's "six steps and connect the dots" game.

Btw, you can try googling "Pentagon confirmation Iraq downed spy drone" and see if you can come up with anything.

FYI, no one is disputing a few drones went down. You can come up with all the websites you want, but you cannot come up with anything confirming the drones were downed by the Iraqis other than from the Iraqis and innuendo from Rumsfeld.

And one more thing: I did google "pentagon Iraq spy plane" and here's the first thing tha popped up:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/08/world/main535781.shtml

This story contained such pearls as:

"Iraq has been increasingly aggressive in its attempts to shoot down U.S. or British planes, but no pilots have been lost in the more than 350,000 sorties flown over the Iraqi no-fly zones in the past 10 years, according to Pentagon officials.

"According to U.S. officials, Iraqi air defenses fired on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the zones almost 500 times last year, but have never shot down a piloted plane since the war. "

And I stand corrected. In the 12 years of the no-fly zone, the Pentagon confirmed Iraq shot down one drone.

"After Iraq brought down a Predator on Dec. 23, U.S. officials called it a "lucky shot" and did not treat it as a significant hostile act."

oh, "hostile acts." That's different.

U.S. to retaliate for Iraqi attack on spy plane
July 27, 2001 Posted: 1:34 PM EDT (1734 GMT)


The pilot of a U-2 like this one said he felt shockwaves from a missile explosion.

By Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is planning a military response to Tuesday's attempted downing of a U-2 spy plane over Iraq's southern no-fly zone, Pentagon sources tell CNN.

So, next time say they never shot down "pilots" and you'll be right, although we don't need to lose a pilot for it to be a hostile act, obviously....

I think I now get how people say with a straight face that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[DawnCt1]

oh, "hostile acts." That's different.




So, next time say they never shot down "pilots" and you'll be right, although we don't need to lose a pilot for it to be a hostile act, obviously....

I think I now get how people say with a straight face that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism.

As long as they are smiling when they shoot it down, how can it be hostile?

 

[dcentity2000]

I'm watching Bush right now on the 10 o' clock news. It's weird. In relation to his appearance:

• His voice seems a tad higher?
• Just as with ANY political leader, he looks so much older now, disproportionately
• He said he "didn't want war", which is at odds with official documentation sourced from the international wing of Downing Street
• He didn't deny that "every" given reason to the Iraq war was a lie, but that could just be the way that the interview was sliced and diced for the news
• Why do all political leaders have such rubbish backdrops for announcements/debates? The blue curtain thing looks suspect, the Queen's backdrop is stuffy, the Downing Street "just another plush room" is too distracting and so on.

Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm watching Bush right now on the 10 o' clock news. It's weird. In relation to his appearance:

• His voice seems a tad higher?
• Just as with ANY political leader, he looks so much older now, disproportionately
• He said he "didn't want war", which is at odds with official documentation sourced from the international wing of Downing Street
• He didn't deny that "every" given reason to the Iraq war was a lie, but that could just be the way that the interview was sliced and diced for the news
• Why do all political leaders have such rubbish backdrops for announcements/debates? The blue curtain thing looks suspect, the Queen's backdrop is stuffy, the Downing Street "just another plush room" is too distracting and so on
  
  
  Rich::

• 
  
  I thought he did a terrific job at the press conference. You are sounding like a 'conspiracy theorist", to put it nicely.

 

[dcentity2000]

I thought he did a terrific job at the press conference. You are sounding like a 'conspiracy theorist", to put it nicely.

What conspiracy? I said that he seems older, that his voice sounds higher and that the blue backdrop is ooooolllllddd.

I stand by it



Rich::

 

[lw49033]

I thought he did a terrific job at the press conference. You are sounding like a 'conspiracy theorist", to put it nicely.

If you are talking about the Downing Street Memo, a public government document reported in every major news outlet is not a conspiracy theory.

 

[DawnCt1]

If you are talking about the Downing Street Memo, a public government document reported in every major news outlet is not a conspiracy theory.

It also doesn't mean that is accurate.