Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Bush and Iraq

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by llad12, Mar 21, 2004.

  1. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Bush and Iraq

    In a preview of a CBS 60 Minutes report that will be aired this evening, this information was released:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

    As is now clear, it was Bush and his cronies that called the UN irrelevant; lied and exaggerated about the reasons using faulty intelligence; pressured other nations to join his "coalition of the bribed", and finally perpetrated this conflict upon Iraq and world.

    A year later, Bush has this to say:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568793/

    The world was against this war and and thousands demonstrated against it prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

    Yesterday, thousands demonstrated world-wide again to show their disapproval .

    This conflict has cost thousands of human lives and untold billions of dollars. It has meant little or nothing on the "war on terrorism".

    Bush and his warmongering Neocons started this war and are now attempting to pan off the responsibility on the rest of the world.

    Haven't you had enough of this man and his adminstration?

    Make your vote count in November.
     
  2. Technetium

    Technetium IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    It sounds very damaging. But it appears (at least on your information) to hinge completely on one man's testimony. I think it will be hard to prove, but if he can, he should.
     
  3. gismo

    gismo IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Humm. So I'm supposed to take this guys word over the presidents. Plus Clarke is releasing a book now. Seems to me he is just trying to create press so his book will sell.
     
  4. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    The president doesn't have a sterling track record as far as the truth is concerned. And there is a reason why so many administrations held him over. Maybe...just maybe..he knows what he's talking about unlike so many in the White House? Ever think of that possibility?
     
  5. Satans_Advocate

    Satans_Advocate IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    57
    Politicians in general don't have sterling track records for telling the truth....I think its hilarious how liberals and conservatives alike bash the president that is of their opposing party that happens to be in office for being a liar when th e president they voted for or the one that was in office last time ( clinton, for instance ) was an unabashed liar himself.
     
  6. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    Too bad that when Clinton lied, it was concerning an affair, not a war. There is a vast difference between lying about an affair, and lying about a war. And if you can't distinguish the difference between these two lies, then don't argue anymore.
     
  7. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many ex-employees have nice things to say about their former boss?
     
  8. Carnage-DVS

    Carnage-DVS IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    I doubt he'd make up something like this. How much information do people need before they realize the fact Bush is a disgrace?
     
  9. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,562
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    It appears that was Bush's first mistake in this whole situation. Clinton was great domestically, but his entire policy towards terrorism was:

    1. Wait until attacked.
    2. Go on TV and promise justice.
    3. Let the issue drop.
    4. Goto step 1.

    Of course, Bush left Tenet in too, and we all know how well he does his job, apparently. =P
     
  10. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's a difference between making something up, and manipulating and twisting the facts to make something appear true. Why are you certain that Clarke is telling the truth?
     
  11. Plum

    Plum IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    62
    I'm not much of a fan of Clinton, but his stance on terrorism was far tougher than that of the pre-Sept 11, 2001 version of Bush. Clinton did hold back on retaliation, namely in the case of the Cole bombing if I remember correctly, but the options were still left wide open to Bush. He instead decided to cut the programs that dealt with terrorism and loosen up his general stance on the matter. Doesn't make Bush seem very vigilant, in my opinion.
     
  12. TheAmoeba

    TheAmoeba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Actually, that's more what Bush did then what Clinton did. Here are some stories that may show that the Bush regime knew about the coming attacks (sorry, got em from a book so I don't have links):

    "Special Report: The Secret History" in the August 12, 2002 issue of Time Magazine.

    "Planning for Terror but Failing to Act" in the Dec 30. 2001 issue of The New York Times

    "The 9/10 President" in the March 10, 2003 issue of the New Republic

    "Say Nothing and Do It" in the Jan 19, 2002 Washington Post

    "A Strategy's Cautious Evolution" in the Jan 20 2002 Washington Post

    "Slow-walked and Stonewalled" in the March 1 2003 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (don't know why an article from this would be used)

    "White House Defends its Action on Hijack Warnings" in the May 17, 2002 USA Today issue

    "How Sept. 11 Changed Goals of Justice Dept." in the Feb 28 2002 issue of the New York Times. (showing how Bush et al actually rejected Clinton's counterterrorism measures until the attacks and after adopted almost all of them).

    Feel free to say that the regime didn't know about the attacks if you want. I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Saying that Clinton (who I don't like either) did nothing is a dumb thing to say. Look at some of his old State of the Union addresses. He specifically mentions the 3 countries Bush included in the Axis of Evil. Practically all of Bush's "moves against terrorism" came from the Clinton admin.

    The Amoeba

    Edit: Looks like Plum beat me to it
     
  13. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,562
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    You mean Clinton talked about terrorism? Well, gees, I guess you got me there. :lol:
    Ah, I see now. Clinton was this close to doing something, but he didn't have time during his eight years in office, so he decided to wait for Bush to get into office to do them, right?

    Ahhh, so much sarcasm, so little time.
     
  14. TheAmoeba

    TheAmoeba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2003
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Maybe you should actually read the articles before commenting on them? At least talking about it (as you say) was better than doing nothing until it was too late.

    The Amoeba
     
  15. Satans_Advocate

    Satans_Advocate IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    57

    Are you really naive enough to think that that was the only lie clinton told? Do I need to dig up several dozen more lies Clinton told to the public to get my point across?

    Even if that was the only lie Clinton told, its sorta the principle of the thing, you follow?
     
  16. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,562
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    You mean the ones you don't have links for?
    That's just it. If all you do is talk about it, you are doing nothing.

    And as for Bush, he took action after the first attack during his watch. Clinton had eight years and numerous attacks on US citizens, during which he talked, promised justice, talked some more, met with his PR advisors to make sure he could still look good during the ordeal, promised justice, etc.

    EDIT:

    Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that I believe Clinton's inept handling of the situation was all his fault. The Republicans did such a good job of hounding him on his military status as a draft doger, they basically castrated the poor man whenever it came to deploying the military.
     
  17. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Yes, and make sure they are directly related to foreign affairs and/or terrorism. Don't worry, we'll wait.
     
  18. Steve_Kow

    Steve_Kow Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do they have to be related to either one of those categories?
     
  19. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I have now seen the interview on Sixty Minutes.

    In one segment, George Hadley, who represented the administration, seemed to suggest that the meeting between Bush, Clarke, and others behind closed doors never took place. He was interrupted by Lesley Stahl who indicated that CBS had done some research on this subject and had information from two independent sources that such a meeting, in fact, did take place. One of the sources, she stated, was a witness of the proceedings. Hadley was at a loss of words for a moment ...

    In my humble view, Mr. Hadley lost all credibility at that time. He seemed little more than an attack dog for the administration.

    Of course to the many strong followers in this adminstration, these allegations will make little difference in their beliefs that Bush has followed a true and righteous path for America. To Bush's detractors, it will be simply more justification for his inept handling of the presidency.

    Personally, I find Clarke's story believable. His record of thirty years in government and being a terrorist advisor to the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and current adminstration is impeccable. His knowledge of terrorism abroad is unquestionable. He seemed quite candid in the interview and I am sure that this same information will be testified to, under oath, at the 9/11 panel in the coming week.

    To those of you who are still straddling the fence, heed this man's words.
     
  20. Painman

    Painman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    No fence straddling here, and not just because of this one news bit... but these threads aren't my style, so I'll fade into the background now and get my jollies watching the rest of ya hash it out :D
     

Share This Page