It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush didn't lie. He was listening to Dems.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:18 PM
Ah, there's nothing wrong with Bush!

He's just retarded, and the Republicans and conservatives love retards.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:01 PM
Ok let's say Bush is retarded. What does that make ALGORE and Kerry that ran and lost to him? What does that make the Democratic party who nominated these two losers?

It's so much fun to collect quotes of politicians and then wait a year or two and review them. Especially Democrats!

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:26 PM

As it turns out, Bush, Clinton, and I were all wrong about whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We all thought he did, and it appears now that he didn't.

But that's really beside the point. Bush didn't just suggest that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He said that we should invade Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

I said then, and I still say now, that possession of weapons of mass destruction is NOT sufficient cause to start a war. And no, Clinton did not say the same thing as Bush did. He never called on the U.S. to start a war with Iraq.

Another thing Clinton didn't say, which Bush did, was that Saddam Hussein was less than a year away from acquiring nuclear weapons. I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt with regard to chemical weapons. After all, we gave those to Saddam in the first place, so we know damned well he had them at one time, and the idea that he still did could easily be an honest mistake. (I made the same mistake, after all.)

But he was nowhere near getting nukes, and Bush knew that. He had to have known. And so -- yes, he lied.

If Clinton would have done his job, I doubt the the 9/11 attacks would have happened.

So . . . you're saying Clinton should have proactively invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and engaged in a manhunt for Osama bin Ladin before 9/11?

Setting aside the fact that such a move would have been politically impossible, what does it have to do with Iraq? Don't you need to have a separate topic?

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 09:28 AM
I am reminded of the plaque on President Truman's desk in his Oval Office. It said
"The buck stops here". The responsibility for what happens lies with the President, he's the leader of our nation and Commander in Chief of our nation's military. And the military tradition is that if it happens on your watch, you're responsible and will be held accountable.

Carseller, what is your point? That the Dems are the evil ones? It's a tired old argument that you've bought into. Both parties are responsible for the mess we're in, it's been going on for a long time. I think you might do better to focus on the more important problem - what do we do now to get ourselves out of this mess?

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:14 AM
I believe his main point is that the President is not at fault because he is not the leader. The Republicans don't control the House or the Senate, nor do they have a Majority on the Supreme Court so they are not at fault.

Oh wait... Republicans do have the Majority in both the House and the Senate, and in the Supreme Court. The President is a republican, with all his people in control of the Government, who do what he says, so how is this not Bush's fault?

Also, Carseller, you do know Bush was President on 9/11 right? ANd saying Clinton should have invaded and killed everyone in Afganistan so 9/11 never would have happened, well, maybe Bush Senior Shouldn't have trained and put OBL in power in the first place!!!!!!! Also, how the hell was Clinton supposed to invade Afganistan? Go "Well, uh, they have WMDs!" No wait that's what Bush did with Iraq, uh, was he supposed to go "God told me to!" Wait Bush did that with Iraq...

So Carseller, how was Clinton supposed to invade Afganistan with no reason? It would be like attacking Canada or SOuth Africa just to do it.

P.S. DOn't all you people love Carseller? Wake up in the morning and get a good laugh knowing people like this just aren't on TV, like MAnn Coulter or Druggie Rush, but in real life?

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:11 PM
First of all, conservatives blame Clinton for everything because he is to blame for so much. My mom used to have the same problem- I was always the good kid and my brother Eric was always the bad one, so when she had to scold me, she would sometimes accidentally call me by my brother's name out of habbit.

Secondly, just because Clinton is to blame for a lot of stuff I could do with out doesn't make an honest man out of Bush. There's not much room for equivocation here, though I understand the title of this thread to be in jest (i hope!). Either Bush made the claims or he didn't and if he did then either they were true or they were false, and if they were false either he knew that before or he didn't.

Besides, does anybody expect me to believe that Bush listens to the democrats? He doesn't listen to most of his constituents on some issues, but he listened to the people who made his name synonymous with "chimp"?

I love this thread. I can insult Bush and Clinton and neither one is off topic!

Speaking of making an honest man out of Bush... I have an idea. Let's send him to Camp X-ray and let Lyndie England get some answers out of him.

Edit to add: Who said Republicans love retards? A few years ago Republicans were the big bad wolves because they supported the death penalty for the mentally challenged. Heck it even became one of the highlights of a Robin Williams act.

Yeah, Republicans love retards... deep fried and served with ketchup. Which is it?

[edit on 15-7-2006 by The Vagabond]

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:46 PM
No No Vag, deep frying Retards is wrong! You have to grill them, coal only no propane, with a tartar sauce! And yes, but they were trying to kill the mentally handicapped so Bush would be the smartest retard of them all!

And good point, why would Bush listen to Democrats? He doesn't even listen to republicans, just does what Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld tell him to do. Of and what COndi tells him, and what the Saudi Arabians tell him to do.

He is not a chimp, chimps only throw feces not give it an award when it screws up. "Doin a Heck of a job Brownie."

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:09 AM
A solid majority of liberals, moderates, and even conservatives say they will vote Democrat for Congress next time around!

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:05 AM
Send a stronger message next elections (should there be one) and DONT VOTE AT ALL.

LET the NWO pick and chose and we will be sending a clear message that we know our votes dont count worth #.

Democrats/Republicans- all the same.

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:49 AM

Originally posted by dgtempe
Send a stronger message next elections (should there be one) and DONT VOTE AT ALL.

LET the NWO pick and chose and we will be sending a clear message that we know our votes dont count worth #.

Democrats/Republicans- all the same.

Or Vote Hillary 2008 !

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 09:48 AM
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Hillary was right to vote for the war. Her backtracking has already started. It is going to be funny to see this continue.

As President you don't have the luzury of "changing your mind."

But if you are John Kerry you can "Vote for it, before voting against it!"


posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 01:20 PM
holy god the democrats and liberals on this thread totally dumbed it down a few notches, the whole point of this thread for those who want to close their eyes and ears is the hypocracy of the democrats and how fake those big government tax to the max policy makers are. bush did something clinton never did and that was act on the information presented before him.

I also suggest searching information about george e. sada and his experience as an iraqi air force general.

it shows no moral substance to to commit to something which congress did when we invaded iraq and then completly undermine the campaign for political gain. these are the same people who are for bigger government and outsourcing and higher taxes on company profit along with people. liberal / socialist agenda ' take care of me government wa wa wa wa' =[.

this whole thread was filled with the agenda driven taking something and twisting it playing the ' blame game ' attempting to divert from the actual point which is the hypocracy and the lack of moral substance and common sense on the parts of the dems.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Carseller4

Bill Clinton got info from Bush in 1998?

This could have been taken care of in 1998 when Saddam kicked out the inspectors. Clinton as usual did nothing. If Clinton would have done his job, I doubt the the 9/11 attacks would have happened.

[edit on 6-11-2005 by Carseller4]

I just thought I'd point something out that I don't see anyone arguing here. There has never been any proven connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and 9/11! I know this might be hard to swallow, since 9/11 was the given reason to go to war with Iraq, but there is NOTHING connecting the two! Even Bush admits this now. So when we are discussing the war in Iraq, leave 9/11 out of it as it is simply a propaganda tool used by the administration to make you support the war on terror...

They try to get around this embarrasing fact by claiming that Iraq supported terror and therefore is just as bad as the rest, whoever the rest may be... We should perhaps look further into what kind of terror Iraq alegedly supported before reaching for our guns? Sure it's bad if they're killing eachother, but that really isn't good enough reason to go to war with them. It's funny how the news now report that there's a civil war in Iraq, and they are more occupied with killing eachother than they are fighting the coalition. Wouldn't this suggest that they're NOT out to destroy the US? Terrorists lurking in caves plotting destruction can never be dealt with by going to war with any country if you ask me...

I think Clinton did the right thing not invading Iraq. Sure he bombed the balkan a lot, I mean those weapons can't be stockpiled forever, right? They have to use them before they expire
But a full scale invasion of any country (even if the only WMD they have is rocks) is going to take a heavy toll on soldiers, equipment, and public opinion. It's the 21st century for crying out loud! Is war still the only way we can deal with our problems?


posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:47 PM
well it's obvious those statements are not very well thought out if you dont think hussein sponsored terror.

this is for starters

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 03:48 PM
the Bush administration already had their PNAC document for foreign policy already laid out before 9/11. In it it stated that we would invade any country that we even thought might threaten us. It also contained the statement about "we need another Pearl Harbor attack" to get the people riled up enough to go to war. This was all written way before 9/11 and it was our official foreign policy.

Fact: Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq. This has been proven by memos to him that were leaked. Also, he did know about 9/11 happening before it happened. This has also been proven by leaked memos. O'Neill was on 60 Minutes several years ago, tellling his story.

"And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Bush et al had already planned to go to war with Iraq well before 9/11. We know this because Paul O'Neil, Bush's former Treasury Secretary, came out and said it.
When you put just those facts together, it is clear that we had no business going into Iraq. and that it was Bush who made these decisions, not Clinton. Clinton's no saint, but Bush isn't either and he had an Iraq invasion planned all along.

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 04:06 PM

If you look at all of the suspicion surrounding Saddam, and all of the stuff mentioned in the link provided by the poster before you, wouldn't it seem that Bush was right? Wasn't Saddam a bad person who really did need to be stopped?

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 05:31 PM
And we have a president that his trigger war happy mentality should have been stopped before he took our nation into the nightmare that is facing now.

Saddam was a tyrant to his own people, bush is trying to terrorized the entire middle east.

I am glad that the American people understood after 6 years and now perhaps it will be a stop to his madness.


posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 06:11 PM
why do the majority of middle eastern nations support the US aside from US support for israel? marg?

it's called a business interest, especially for weapons and protection.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:18 PM
Wow guys, I mean big time, serious, awestruck WOW. You've totally pegged the needle on my partisanturdfling-o-meter.

Ape, this thread may be about slagging democrats as hypocrites, but that doesn't obligate all posts within to agree with the premise, and given the title, it's hardly off topic to respond to the ridiculous notion that Bush didn't lie.
"Tax to the max" on the other hand, is to this thread as the sleeping habits of colorless green ideas are to the average life expectancy of a duckbilled platypus.

Yes, Saddam was a tyrant. Yes he tortured people. Yes he provided aid and comfort to some terrorists. No they weren't the terrorists we had most cause to be concerned about. He paid for suicide bombings, he harbored certain groups which were useful to him against traditional enemies such as Israel and Iran, but Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq, nor was any infrastructure of use to Bin Laden.

Bin Laden was in Pakistan, creating problems in the only nuclear state with a majority muslim population, but we wouldn't do anything about it because US troops crawling all over Afghanistan and Pakistan might have destabilized Musharaff (kind of circular logic if you ask me- We don't want to destabilize Pakistan so we can't go there to attack a radical, destabilizing terrorist group which is gaining credibility there at our expense).

Democrats: You were in many regards, though not necessarily all, right about this war. The elected officials whom you support weren't willing to burn any political capital backing you up a month before an election though. How did the Democratic voters respond to that? They gave the senate seat of a murdered war opponent to a Republican! Paul Wellstone would roll over in his grave.
The Democratic Party went below and beneath the call of decency by not only failing to exercise the party discipline necessary to stop the war, but by letting so many of their people go that it virtually gave the war a mandate. No amount of Bush being a liar changes the fact that a slim Democratic majority gave him an overwhelming go ahead. The fact that 9/11 and Iraq weren't linked is nice, but that's the kind of thing that I want my representatives to figure out BEFORE we vote on a policy. You're going to have to live with the fact that your party acted that stupidly and you didn't send a clear message at the polls a month later.

Republicans: Just Hillary Clinton turned out to be a duplicitous hawk hiding behind a slightly butch liberal aura doesn't mean that your people are off the hook. Your president belonged to the people who wanted this war long before 9/11. What were his priorities on 9/11?
1. Read children's books.
2. Ground air traffic.
3. Exempt wealthy arabs from #2.
4. Issue orders to start drawing a list of targets, saying "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Related and not."
5. Figure out how to get Afghanistan out of the way as fast as possible, regardless of how ineffective the strategy might be, so that we can "sweep it all up. related and not." instead of spending too much time on doing the primary job right and getting Bin Laden.

He lied. Period. If what Bill Clinton did was close enough to be called sex, then what Bush did was certainly close enough to be called a lie. Gettin' your chain pulled is sex, and pulling the American people's chain is lying, end of story.

This finger pointing is ridiculous. Neither partisan side has a leg to stand on. One can only stand in awe of the way that both Republicans and Democrats fiddled while American foreign policy burned to the ground, then BOTH had the audacity to try and blame one another and spin the facts this way and that.

Both parties tollerated Saddam for far too long. There was a time for dealing with Saddam: 1992. Shame on B41 and to a lesser extent shame on Clinton for not correcting the mistake.
When they got around to doing to little too late, they did it in the most ridiculously inept way imaginable, with both sides lying, pretending to believe lies, and concealing inconvenient facts to make it happen.

The way I see it, it shouldn't be Republicans and Democrats who are most at odds over all of this stuff- it should be all of us at odds with our leaders. Afterall, I don't see a tremendous amount of defense being played here, just a lot of unspoken acceptance of accusations, quickly followed by counter accusations. So implicitly, there seems to be a concensus that both parties did their Rex Grossman impression (for those of you who don't watch football, that is to say they dropped the ball).

OK, I'm done ranting. Let me get my fire extinguisher and you can all come after me.

posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 08:36 AM

Originally posted by The Vagabond

The way I see it, it shouldn't be Republicans and Democrats who are most at odds over all of this stuff- it should be all of us at odds with our leaders.

Exactly, Vagabond, I couldn't agree more. I agree with the rest of your post, too. They're all one party now and the American people need to band together if we are going to get any changes made and get our country back to where it should be.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in