world

Bush defends his record of using military might

89 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

89 Comments
Login to comment

Mods/Editors,

You forgot the word "poorly" in the headline.

On Tuesday, recounting the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush again tied Iraq to the Sept 11 terrorist attacks. Independent reviews have long discredited any such link.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AP reporting= Absolutely Poor reporting, but no harm reading and forgetting like tabloid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Bush Doctrine will from now on be used as scholar example of disastrous foreign policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Bush doctrine of Pre-emptive strikes, based on faulty intelligence and ignorance has been a disaster for the whole world. It has the same rsonance of the European crusades of the middle ages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The history text books of year 2200 will read Hitler as XX century murderer and Bush as XXI century murderer something.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Woe nellie. It just astounds the senses this character still spouts garbage like this. What, only 60 more days left? Thank the heavens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unlike Tojo or Hitler, this aggressor will walk free.

Isn't it nice to be evil and win the war?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The president declared that today’s military is “stronger, more agile and better prepared” than the one he inherited in 2001.

With both feet stuck in the quicksand of a two front violently resisted occupation, I am going to have laugh at the idea of the military being more agile.

He kept quiet during the long election season, mainly to avoid stepping on the message of Republican John McCain. That’s over now.

But he still should have kept quiet. He just going to get more richly deserved criticism and hate by opening his mouth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thousands of American soldiers dead. tens of thousands of Iraqi people dead (only a small portion of whom were actual combatants), economy-crippling debt, record numbers of jobless, etc. etc. Still no sight of Bin Laden, and now even more potential terrorists want to bomb the U.S.

Yeah, I can see how Bush would feel that is a record to be proud of. I just don't see it though. Hopefully there will be a War Crimes Tribunal for Bush, but I won't hold my breath.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"On Tuesday, recounting the run-up to the Iraq war, Bush again tied Iraq to the Sept 11 terrorist attacks. Independent reviews have long discredited any such link."

Bush is still trying to make himself look like less of an a$$, bless his wee little frozen heart, but of course repeating the lies he made way back when to launch the illegal invasion doesn't help that one little bit. This is simply more bombast to cover the fact that a week or so ago he came out of the closet to say that he regrets his decisions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush legacy is excessive spending for unpredictable outcomes for wars & terrorists. There is no proper funding arrangements or exit strategies.Irag and Afaghan wars are longer than second world war & budgets have already blown out. Congress needed to pass the trillions of dollars for his incompetence.

Economy is crippling & debts are soaing. He is mainly responsible for making USA broke. He is also responsible for unacceptable casualities. History will judge he was the worst performing president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When your enemies perceive that you have long since taken the fight to them and when that is one of the principle reasons that they are fighting back, "taking the fight to [them]" strikes an odd note. What it looks like in practical terms is the savaging of two countries, countless civilian deaths, political instability and massive US debt. There are many ways to fight an enemy. I'm not sure that Bush's choice was the wisest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush defends his record of using military might

And a Chickenhawk to boot!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Bush is a true visionary. I mean, how many people had the idea of establishing a freely elected government in place of an awful dictatorship in the Middle East, giving people there hope instead of continuing to let them wallow in despair?

"Chickenhawk"

Derogatory term used for anyone not in the active duty military who supports military action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are many ways to fight an enemy. I'm not sure that Bush's choice was the wisest.

I'm sure that it was not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chickenhawk - An alternative definition would be somebody who shirks their own responsibilities regarding military duty (ie., educational deferments or going AWOL) while actively beating the drums of war (encouraging military action in which someone else's kids end up dying).

While such attitudes are not the sole perserve of one political philosophy, the current administration has had its fair share of armchair warriors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beware Obama will have to do something similar to rid the world of Somalian Pirates!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“to take the fight to our enemies across the world.” If off the issue of Iraq, that is a good strategy.

The president declared that today’s military is “stronger, more agile and better prepared” than the one he inherited in 2001." I don't believe any of us here are in the position or have the correct knowledge to aggree or disagree even if you are in the military now. I however I believe the military is not stronger as there are thousands of military people walking around high on some PTSD drugs or disabled.

It was a defense against criticism that Bush has stretched the military to dangerous levels with wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan." Is the criticism saying the US can't fight a war on two fronts? If so, I don't think the US should be considered a world military power. I am sure China or Russia could.. Bush sacked Rumsfeld midway through his second term." oh, he fired him? I thought the guy quit.

The policy became known as the Bush Doctrine. It says that the U.S. treats those who harbor terrorists the same as terrorists; that threats must be confronted before they are carried out; and that freedom, if promoted, can counter ideologies of hate." I don't see anything wrong with considering those who harbor your enemies, even if we are talking about a street gang or a bad marriage, as your enemies. They certainly are not your friends.

“After seeing the destruction of September 11th, we concluded that America could not afford to allow a regime with such a threatening and violent record to remain in the heart of the Middle East,” Bush said. He said a coalition of nations acted to liberate Iraq." Ok, now I am going to say he is dead wrong. We should not have liberated Iraq, we should have made the guy an ally and asked for his help. Seeing the so called liberated Iraq now, I say they really don't know how to accept being liberated.

Bush said that terrorists have been “severely weakened” during his tenure, citing the disruption of plots against the U.S. and the capture of key al-Qaida operatives." Nope, they have grown and about half of the US and the world are in more ways than none, in the back of their minds, want them to crush the US, so long as those guys don't go to their countries.

Yet seven years after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, al-Qaida’s leader, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. So does his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal area of Pakistan on the border of Afghanistan." They are not in some barren area, they are probably making those videos right there in Hollywood. I am serious.

Without mentioning them by name, Bush said of the two al-Qaida’s leaders: “The day will come—the day will come—when they receive the justice they deserve.” No, and definitely not now. The repubs had AQ and Terrorism to use as a tool to get Americans together. The dems now have the economy. Terrorism is going to hve to take back seat to the economy, global warming, and Wal Mart law suits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder's alternative definition of chickenhawk certainly would not apply to anyone in the current administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge,

Except for bush and cheney that is. But yeah, Barney the dog...totally non-chickenhawk.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "President Bush is a true visionary. I mean, how many people had the idea of establishing a freely elected government in place of an awful dictatorship in the Middle East, giving people there hope instead of continuing to let them wallow in despair?"

How about North Korea, sarge? Heaps of people have had the idea of bringing the country into the 21st century. It's not 'vision' to rush illegally into war to achieve it, it's plain idiocy, and has failed outright. It has increased terrorism world-wide, strengthened the cause for those who would commit terrorism... and all this from the chickenhawk bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka - as a keen advocate of canine rights, I am shocked that you would dare put "Chickenhawk" in the same sentence as "Barney the Dog." For those of you who don't know, Barney is a veteran of some rather vicious combat with the Whitehouse Press Corp. Indeed, you could probably argue that the first Canine has more guts than his master.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All I'm gonna say on this topic is that a good leader's record stands on its own, no "defending" necessary. That bush feels he needs to "defend" his record confirms without doubt or debate that he is a failure as Commander-in-Chief. Goodbye, Mr. bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is about as visionary as proctologist. They share the same views on a daily basis. As my esteemed colleague Smithinjapan point out, what about North Korea? Surely the despot in Pyongyang、one Kim Jong Presley, is as deserving of the noose as one Saddam Hussein.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Timor,

Indeed, you could probably argue that the first Canine has more guts than his master.

More brains too. Although the debate over who drools more is a push. ;-)

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As my esteemed colleague Smithinjapan point out, what about North Korea?

What about it? Did Bush personally create the Stalinist state of N Korea?

You are like children, demanding he personally fix the world you visit via a web browser.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The man started his presidency as a fool, continued as a fool and at least he is finishing his term consistently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "What about it? Did Bush personally create the Stalinist state of N Korea?"

Did bush personally create the dictatorship of Iraq? Nope, and yet you guys still come on here and declare his 'liberation' of Iraq as a blessing to the world and the main reason for invading. If it were, better get working on the list of other dictatorships he didn't create.

As it is, we all know better, TooFarGone... bush is a moron, and his legacy will be deservedly only this: "Worst president in American history".

The faces of some past presidents have appeared on money, and if bush's ever appears on paper I just hope it's two-ply.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting that he's two term President.

Doesn't say much for the average voters intelligence, at least not according to the posters here.

But at least they voted for "change" this time around. Hope Gates can continue more than one year as SECDEF.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did bush personally create the dictatorship of Iraq?

Apparently, for geographically-challenged "progressives" this "argument" is supposed to be a knockout.

Try again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are like children, demanding he personally fix the world you visit via a web browser.

Yeah, you guys. It's like, you want the man to show accountability or something. Geez, what is with you?

And you cowards! You only rant and rave over the internet. It's not like you were there; like you've actually did anything to further the cause you believe in. Did any of you actually participate in a protest. You are nothing like my boy, toofargone, a multiple tour combat veteran. you tell them toofargone! you 'da man, you combat vet you.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about it? Did Bush personally create the Stalinist state of N Korea?

To ask as more pertinent question, who created and supported Uncle Saddam? I seem to remember a video of a certain former Secretary of Defense welcoming his good friend Saddam back in the mid-1980s. Rummy, you old card you...

In the eyes of the US, Saddam put himself in the noose when he threatened the elites of the Middle East, and thus threatened the US oil supply. Like Noreiga with drugs, however, before Saddam blotted his copybook he was one of the United States' 'bestist' buddies in the region. "Secular with none of that muslim fundamentalist baggage. It is said that Saddam only got religion when he was under the hammer, whether that hammer was being wielded by the US or the Iranians, it didn't really matter. And thus we come to the cusp of the war in Iraq. Saddam's biggest sin in the eyes of GW was Saddam's attempts to knock off Bush senior (back in the mid-90s in Kuwait). Does anybody remember GW's throw-away line about the reason Saddam was now persona non-grata? "He tried to kill my dad." What a lame excuse for a war. Don't get wrong, I am fully in favor of the war on terrorism. However, this is not a war that originally was happening in Iraq. Saddam had the fundamentalist nutjobs under control until the US destablized the region. And what has the US brought to Iraq, democracy? That is a thoroughly alien notion in the region. If Bush were serious about weeding out terrorism in the region, he would be occupying Saudia Arabia and not Iraq.

Anyway, Bush is about to go off into the sunset like some bad B grade movie. History will condemn him and his neo-con cabal as nothing more than a mistake. Let's hope that the new president puts things right and, in addition to prosecuting the War on Terrorism, President-elect Obama should pursue a War on Errorism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To ask as more pertinent question, who created and supported Uncle Saddam?

Nobody created Saddam he achieved power just like Stalin or Hitler or any other dictator thru pure ruthlessness.

Supported him though? His Air Force came from France and his SCUDS and T-72 tanks were from the Soviet Union, along with the AK-47's.

You might want to do some research about his arsenal and where it came from.

Google USS Stark Exocet would be a good place to start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka313:

It's not like you were there; like you've actually did anything to further the cause you believe in. Did any of you actually participate in a protest. You are nothing like my boy, toofargone, a multiple tour combat veteran. you tell them toofargone! you 'da man, you combat vet you.

I support fire safety and fire hazard awareness in my neighborhood. Am I supposed to become a firefighter?

The 'chickenhawk' argument really is one of the least effective of the emotional blackmail techniques the ranks of the sentimental empaths on the Left have come up with. Honestly, after nearly six years you guys can't do better than that?

Were you there?Were you in Iraq? If you disagreed with the liberation, why support it?

Mine is, yes, limited to what I post on this site. Like your ridiculous cyber-condolences to families of accident victims what I post becomes insignificant and miniscule bits filed away in the vastness of cyberspace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You are like children, demanding he personally fix the world you visit via a web browser.

Actually, I would have been far happier if, with clear exception of attacking al-Quaida and pushing the Taliban roughly aside to do so, he would have basically left the world alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka313: "sarge, Except for bush and cheney that is"

Hey, speaking of Dick Cheney, I think you should salute President Bush for choosing a fine vice president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting that he's two term President. Doesn't say much for the average voters intelligence, at least not according to the posters here.

I smell a trap!!! Don't fall for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Supported him though? His Air Force came from France and his SCUDS and T-72 tanks were from the Soviet Union, along with the AK-47's.

You might want to do some research about his arsenal and where it came from.

Here is some: Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George H.W. Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became, and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Actually it is not so much the question of where Saddam's weapons came from, with the exception of the chemical ones. More than that I would question where the money came from (probably oil sales mostly, but what about the gift money?) More than that though its a question of who supported him and then completely and suddenly changed their minds, and then went on complete overkill to remove him and his no longer existent weapons. U.S. policy and action is all over the place. That is a problem.

And as for the British, who is the greater fool, the one who leads or the one who follows?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "The 'chickenhawk' argument really is one of the least effective of the emotional blackmail techniques the ranks of the sentimental empaths on the Left have come up with."

Still a chickenhawk. It's funny to watch guys like you huff and puff about who to kill and maim, then when asked to go serve the cause you say, "No way! It's DANGEROUS over there!" So long as it's someone else, eh my friend?

sailwind: "the US did not create Saddam..."

No kidding, sherlock! The question as to who 'created' Saddam was in response to TooLongGone's, "We never created NK's Stalinist dictatorship, why should we clean it up?", in response to why, in his opinion, Iraq was good to liberate because it rid the world of an evil dictator.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq was good to liberate because it rid the world of an evil dictator.

Oil became a weapon of mass destruction. The UN had been corrupted. Our democratically elected Congress approved the war. I have literally dozens of reasons for supporting the liberation of Iraq.

N Korea, you'll notice - should you bother to look - has China, Russia and Japan for its neigbors.

Whole different kettle.

And it seems to me that anyone making the chickenhawk allegations really ought be doing do in person, to the face of the accused. Otherwise, by your own silly logic, you are a chickenhawk...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "And it seems to me that anyone making the chickenhawk allegations really ought be doing do in person, to the face of the accused. Otherwise, by your own silly logic, you are a chickenhawk..."

Hahaha... why, so you can 'see action' in Iraq? How would it make said people less of a chickenhawk if said to their faces? Besides, you see, the people like myself who call the armchair warriors who absolutely stand behind Americans dying in foreign countries, the innocents being trampled on and murdered, etc., 'chickenhawks' are people who don't like war... so how is it we should go do something we don't believe in?

In other words, your anger at being called what you in fact are does not in any way infer that the people calling you the name are themselves. Just the opposite, in fact. Furthermore, how could anyone call the people who love war these things if the latter refuse to get up from their chairs to rise up to the challenge they 'fight' for (until it actually involves them)?

"N Korea, you'll notice - should you bother to look - has China, Russia and Japan for its neigbors."

You still haven't answered how that justifies the sole criteria you guys have been arguing for years; that the Iraq invasion 'rid the world of an evil dictator'. So I say again, there are plenty of other 'evil dictators' who should not be where they are, so where is bush on that? Why the sudden diplomacy? Are you admitting full-out that bush's rationale for war was based on oil?

Bush has been a complete failure as a human being, let alone as a so-called 'leader'. The man's dog would have done a better job. He didn't go off to war himself thanks to daddy, but wanted to be known as the 'war president' and even BRAGGED about it! He's a disgusting human being who has admitted himself he regrets going to war; now he's trying to backtrack and say AGAIN that Iraq had links to AQ before the invasion?? Sounds like early onset Alzheimer's... that, or the batteries for the brick on his back stopped working again and he had to try and speak on his own.

Fortunately, the whole world and almost all Americans know that bush has been the worst US president in the country's not so long history. Good riddance to bad rubbish. His legacy will be that he is always remembered as the loser he was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More than that though its a question of who supported him and then completely and suddenly changed their minds,

Yes, when you invade Kuwait and try to concentrate 20 percent of the worlds oil supply in your mitts it does tend to make a sudden change of the minds with all the countries in the West......Desert Storm you do remember that little event don't you? Saddam, it would seem was a pretty ungrateful for all the "help" he recieved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: i like your sarcastic humor. On thing you could say about Sadam while he was a dictator he kept those tribes in check that are causing troubles these days, And the country that really has WMD's and harbors terrorists is just waiting for the us to leave irak. (hint the country next to irak(only change the last letter))

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush went so far as to essentially spell out an agenda for his successor, Democrat Barack Obama.

I almost posted, I can't believe the audacity of george bush, but then I stopped just a second and rethought that statement.

george bush can and will defend his record until the day he dies. I for one will continue to call him a damn liar. he and his right hand traitor of the United States dick cheney.

they can say all they want. Doesn't change how people see them both. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, when you invade Kuwait and try to concentrate 20 percent of the worlds oil supply in your mitts it does tend to make a sudden change of the minds with all the countries in the West

But he was our buddy in control of all that oil. And it seems that the U.S. could have prevented that invasion with a word. We knew it was coming. But nobody said anything to Saddam. He thought he was clear. Did the gov just miss the oil reserve percentages pre-invasion?

Desert Storm you do remember that little event don't you? Saddam, it would seem was a pretty ungrateful for all the "help" he recieved.

You think? I seriously doubt you ever even heard of Kuwait until Saddam invaded it. Its not like Kuwait was key to anything to do with the U.S. I am still not really sure why the U.S. jumped up for the little country of Kuwait like that. Saddam had even better reasons for attacking Kuwait than he did Iran it would seem.

So Iraq uses chemical weapons against its Kurdish population killing tens of thousands and the U.S. supports them. Iraq attacks and uses chemical weapons against Iran and the U.S. supports them. Iraq invades the small country of Kuwait and the U.S. says "WHAT! You can't do that!". Over a decade of brutal sanctions follow and then the U.S. storms in because...here is where it really gets confusing...was it regime change or chemical weapons that he could not possibly have had or wild rumors of an al-Quaida connection? Actually, I am thinking it was just another bush supporting his buddies and their cash flow by making another unnecessary war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is exactly one force in this world that can stop genocide, wars of naked conquest, Islamofascism, and two bit thugs like Milosovec on Europe's door step.

It ain't the UN.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But he was our buddy in control of all that oil. And it seems that the U.S. could have prevented that invasion with a word. We knew it was coming. But nobody said anything to Saddam. He thought he was clear. Did the gov just miss the oil reserve percentages pre-invasion?

Brilliant one sided analysis of history and world events, very U.S centric as if the world only has one player. I suppose you do remember Saddam had invaded Iran and during the "tanker war" the between the two countries the U.S re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers to offer our protection to protect the WEST's oil flow.

You know countries like Japan and most of Europe our traditional allies depend on that oil flow to keep their economies running...Still do by the way.

They sure didn't have any heartburn when the U.S stepped up to the plate to keep it flowing during the Iraq and Iran war. Oh yeah, you also forgot in your post to include something called the Soviet Union and the COLD WAR. They had set up shop in Afghanistan and were poised to increase their influence in the region if the war between Iraq and Iran become a wider conflict. The U.S naval presence in the region during that time helped to keep them on their side of the Iron curtian.

I could on but it would useless with your U.S centric view of history but the bottom line is you benefited mightly from U.S military might and power during the 80's, 90's and today......Keep the oil flowing to power the juice to your puter and comfy lifestyle while you grew up so you can post "Bush Bad".

I have two deployments to the Gulf to keep your oil flowing 1992 and 2002.

Your Welcome and I'd do it again. The right to post "Bush Bad" didn't come without a price.... Think about that for a moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And it seems to me that anyone making the chickenhawk allegations really ought be doing do in person, to the face of the accused. Otherwise, by your own silly logic, you are a chickenhawk...

You seem to have lost the plot. One has to actually vocally support the war while refusing to fight it to be a chickenhawk. Bush opted out of Vietnam while supporting it. He is a chickenhawk. To be a chickenhawk in the fashion you state means one has to declare that accusations always be made in person and then do it only on the board. I don't recall anyone saying that. And I would not want anyone's address to do so. It can all be said here, and the truth of it determined here. Anything else is just looking for a fight (and I am pretty sick of those who think fighting is the answer. Double for those who think so but refuse to fight themselves.)

I will however take responsibility myself for not duly protesting bush junior's ridiculous war in the form of a march. Believe me though, I was plenty vocal about it. Trouble is I was surrounded in a conservative redneck area with people making dreamy eyed speeches about nuking the desert into a sheet of glass. I sort of gave up trying to convince people. Came close to blows a few times. I hope I never make the mistake of not protesting such a thing again. I know now I need to seek out like minded people and just ditch those who like violence for the sake of violence and have a million excuses and mantras for it. They don't even have half a concept of how they are used like disposable toys by people like the bush clan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could on but it would useless with your U.S centric view of history

Well, that is not fair. I am not writing a book here. I appreciate your view of history and details even if I am failing to see relationships.

For example: your discussion of the U.S. helping out the Kuwaitis during the cold war has what to do with helping them out after the cold war was over?

And did you imagine that Saddam, our man, was going to cut off oil supplies to us??? I mean, if its all about preserving the flow of oil, who better than our old buddy Saddam?

There might be a good case for redundancy, as in having several suppliers is better than just one. You might even cite U.S.- Kuwaiti ties made during the cold war. Other than that I see no cold war relationship to Gulf War round one.

I have two deployments to the Gulf to keep your oil flowing 1992 and 2002.

It still would have flowed, just at higher prices. I have no problem with that even if it hurt the economy. In fact, I welcome it! I know a lot of people put economy before lives, but I am not one of those people.

And like I say, the invasion of Kuwait could have been averted.

Your Welcome and I'd do it again. The right to post "Bush Bad" didn't come without a price.... Think about that for a moment.

Neither Gulf War one nor two had anything to do with protecting my freedom of speech, nor did the cheap oil gleaned from those actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For example: your discussion of the U.S. helping out the Kuwaitis during the cold war has what to do with helping them out after the cold war was over?

Ummm...They were invaded? Besides it wasn't just the U.S that helped them it was the U.N with about darn near every country pitching in, including the Russians. Nobody really complained about that action I should know since I was actually there at the time.

And did you imagine that Saddam, our man, was going to cut off oil supplies to us??? I mean, if its all about preserving the flow of oil, who better than our old buddy Saddam?

Mentioned it before you must of missed it. Saddam controlling 20 percent of the worlds oil supply was considered a pretty bad idea by darn near everybody.....See Gulf War 1 "compliants".

Neither Gulf War one nor two had anything to do with protecting my freedom of speech, nor did the cheap oil gleaned from those actions.

Might be true, might not, it's really just conjecture on your part. If reality the worlds oil supplies were in a constant state of disruption and the inevitable wars between nation states that will follow to secure vital resources. It's the basic reason all nations go to war with each other.

I'll bet you that the world would be a very less free place for all of us if that were to have come to pass. That is the lesson History has always taught us if we listen, it was the reason for World War 2

The bottom line you might not be spoiled.......But most folks are and your the exception rather than the rule in that case. As as long as they are the U.S for better or worse has had the role as the last remaining superpower to see that they stay that way and that includes you. Like it or not you benefited from our M.E policy the past 30 years and even under Bush for most of his term except for recent times with the economic meltdown.

The oil kept flowing and it still does today.......That is what this has been and will be all about until we finally in the West say enough of our dependence on the black gunk.

Now that gas has once again dropped to less than 2 bucks a gallon once again that day is farther off then ever once again.

Might be true

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush defends his record of using military might

What many Westerners don't know or even suspect is the full scope of the militant Mohammedan threat.

I believe Bush does.

If nothing else half a million servicemen and women through Iraq means tens of thousands returning to each state in the union from firsthand experience of life in the crucible of the Mohammedan world.

This guarantees no chance America will go down the suicidal path that Europe has taken, with unfettered immigration from regions home to a creed that historically created their most implacable enemy.

In this regard, the 'liberal' media did the country a huge favor, though they undoubtedly regret showcasing the violence and fratricide these still tribal nations are capable of, doubly so since we won the war despite their efforts.

The weak link for us is probably Canada.A declining birthrate, suicidal 'multiculturalism' as a salve for the national inferiority complex, a general sort of Euro-wannabe stance, and an entrenched bureaucracy emasculating the country from within and intent on raising these last the twenty years or so the most effete sort of male possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "There is exactly one force in this world that can stop genocide"

You surely don't mean the country YOU stand for, because you've clearly stated you aren't against the idea of Muslim genocide, since 1.4 billion of the world's population are all terrorists and must be stopped (your thinking, not mine). Well, okay, you haven't quite said you want them dead, like some others on here, but every time I've asked you about it you have never protested.

So... do tell... how that same nation (in your eyes) would 'stop' genocide.

sailwind: "I'll bet you that the world would be a very less free place for all of us if that were to have come to pass."

No... I bet you you're wrong, and the idea that my betting you are wrong is conjecture is pretty stupid, considering the fact that your entire argument is nothing but conjecture itself.

How things have played out in the ME in the last thirty years has absolutely NOTHING to do with my freedoms... nada! Particularly during the last EIGHT years under the bush regime (which tries to control the world). In fact, bush has taken away freedoms and rights, and told you guys it need be done to preserve 'democracy' (a word whose meaning he single-handedly destroyed). You bought it hook, line, and sinker. He can detain you for arguing against him... indefinitely! citing only that you are a potential terrorist. The world is now FAR less safe than before he took office. 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq part II, Mumbai (not directly linked to bush, but they WERE seeking out Americans and Brits. due to their relationship with Iraq, Israel, etc.), etc. NONE of those things had occured before bush jr. took office and made the world a worse place for it, and you're trying to tell me I can come on here and post messages against bush because these among other things happened through him?

Lame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "What many Westerners don't know or even suspect is the full scope of the militant Mohammedan threat. I believe Bush does."

Bush, and the people like you who support his warring, are the real threat, since you are no better than the militants you pretend to hate but instead embrace. The only difference is that you have better weapons, and people like yourself can sit in their chairs and don't have to get invovled in the causes you stand for. Again, see 'chickenhawk' above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: Oh, please! Every time I've come on here chiding you guys for wanting the deaths of 1.4 billion you never bat an eye, but defend yourself outright without denying it. Desperation falls to those who support the dufus who's been at the helm for the past eight years. History has proven that already, and will heretofore.

If I'm wrong, go ahead and say I'm wrong and that you don't want it as a solution to any sort of Muslim problem. I'll gladly apologize if I'm wrong. Of course, you can't add conditions like, "I don't want them dead if they convert to Christianity and/or simply drop Islam". Most supporters of Islam are deeply religious and would not give it up for anything.

Moderator: Stay on topic please. This thread is not about Islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I'm wrong, go ahead and say I'm wrong and that you don't want it as a solution to any sort of Muslim problem.

For the last time - I'm the one who supported the liberation of Iraq. Would someone who "wanted all Muslims dead" have supported spilling US blood to see a portion of them freed from a totalitarian ideology imported from 1930's Europe?

Think!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who cares what bush does any longer.

He's leaving office a lame duck and a miserable failure. It's kind of a pity he doesn't post on JT where his two remaining supporters reside...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "For the last time - I'm the one who supported the liberation of Iraq. Would someone who "wanted all Muslims dead" have supported spilling US blood to see a portion of them freed from a totalitarian ideology imported from 1930's Europe?"

Well, to be fair, you're not the ONLY one who supported the debacle in Iraq, but I get your point. As promised, if I was wrong, then I'm sorry.

Moderator: Readers, this thread is not about Muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "He's leaving office a lame duck and a miserable failure. It's kind of a pity he doesn't post on JT where his two remaining supporters reside..."

Very true...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You should spend some time in the US military. Bush has more than two supporters left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is exactly one force in this world that can stop genocide, wars of naked conquest, Islamofascism, and two bit thugs like Milosovec on Europe's door step.

It ain't the UN.

It ain't the US either.

It's possible that there may be a force that can do these things, but it hasn't been created yet. The solution of these problems is not know to have ever happened in human history--and if it did it obviously wasn't a permanent fix.

I wouldn't want to argue against Gandhi's proposition that "to believe what has not occurred in history will not occur at all, is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man." It would be somewhat ironic though if the Gandhi-esque dream were fullfilled by pilots guiding predator drones from Las Vegas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush has more than two supporters left."

Heh, make that three...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SArge is actually STILL defending Bush....ROFL!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You should spend some time in the US military. Bush has more than two supporters left."

Barney his dog makes 4.

Thank God bush is heading for the door.

What an abject and total failure the Idiot in Chief has been.

Business majors will study the failure-soaked Bush years as lessons on how not to run a government.

From that perspective, bush will at least have done something useful.

The rest of his 'legacy' will be useful as toilet paper.

President-elect Obama actually can look at Bush's errors, misteps, bungles and failures as one of the key reason he will soon become president.

Americans just got fed up and it's now very clear that only the last remaining blind dregs of his supporters are still croaking their support for Bush. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many of Bush’s critics say his military approach has had disastrous consequences for the U.S., embroiling the U.S. in war, angering allies and running up enormous debt.

yehh.. allies pissed off alright mate.

dont let the door hit you on the way out BUSH.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi: "SArge is actually STILL defending Bush....ROFL!!!"

Well, now that the majority of Americans rightfully sided with Obama against sarge's predictions of a McCain win, sargie-boy is no longer conflicted by supporting a man who distanced himself from his hero, bush, the chickenhawk. That election sure must have messed with sarge's head. We should be happy he's back down to one hero again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the DemoComs are busy selling Senate seats while G.W. is fixing this financial mess and wrapping-up his Office.

Pelosi, Franks, and P-E Obama nod in unison to all the hard work G.W. has done. -but now they can't just complain anymore, they will finally be expected to actually do something (besides complaining) for once.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What President Bush, Barack Obama and other world leaders have not considered is the law of God that says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Pre-emptive strikes makes the whole world unstable and certainly cannot lead to peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll just repeat, dont let the door hit you on the way out bush.

< :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What does someone say when accused of a crime even if guilty? "Not guilty."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I recently saw the movie Frost/Nixon which recreates David Frost's famous interview with Tricky Dick. How the world has changed; one captures a glimpse into Nixon's tortured soul and comes to the conclusion he will be in some state of self-purgatory for the rest of his life.

GWB, by contrast, informs Charlie Gibson "every day has been joyous" in response to a question about he found surprising about life in the White House. He assumes the passive voice in discussing Iraq and regrets being snookered by the "intelligence failure along with tons of other people," a recollection at odds with his active role in promoting dubious intelligence.

GWB comes across sort of like the kid in the cartoon who, when asked by his mother to explain how the lamp ended up in unusable shape replies, "It broke." He concedes he doesn't pay any attention to commentary on his presidency and doesn't concern himself with "long-term history" either, since he "won't be around to read it" as he observes jokingly. Such a cavalier attitude is quite at odds with the responsibilities that come with the most important job in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush will end up the being regarded as the worse modern president and in the top three loser presidential category since the country started. I have challenged Sarge and others in the winger community to come up with one thing bush did right. Never get a reply because there is not one thing that they can point to as a success. Not one.

Bush's only talent is for failure, and that is 100% perfect. Rove put him in the white house and bush ended up destroying his party as a result, yet another failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium I totally agree. george bush has done nothing for this country that will help average Americans in the future. he's done a lot though to help the ultra rich.

I can't find anything that george bush has done to help average Americans besides more opportunities to join the military to die for their country. (he could have served his country honorably also but he decided to quit like a high school drop out)

I'd like to see a list of george bush accomplishes also. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is one of the most fiscally liberal Presidents we've had in 50 years. Completely irresponsible, he makes Bill Clinton look brilliant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for Iraq, Bush has always made it clear that image is more important than substance. He knows Iraq is wrong, but he doesn't want to do more harm by admitting it. Quite a "dilemma" he's got himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zucronium: While I am not one to discount the mighty failure bush is and has been, I think it only fair to point out that he has played a pretty vital role in the increase in funding for AIDS research, etc. in Africa. That pales very greatly in comparison to his failures, but it's SOMEthing.

I can't believe I'm even recognizing something he helped do well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan,

the whole africa campaign has been wrapped in a christian fantasy about a just say no sex policy. Bush does not support condom use due to his christian winger chorus. So while the effort to do something about AIDS is positive, the way it was carried out was not. And he never met his original pledge in terms of funding for Africa from several years ago.

So, no, this also was not a success. Wait till Obama takes over and addresses Africa. It will be like night and day from bush to obama.

Note that there is nothing once again from sarge or any of the bush is great crowd. They know just how bad bush has been but will never admit it on this site. Its a part of the bush worship they have been touting for 8 years of abject failure.

Moderator: Readers, AIDS is not relevant to this discussion. Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anybody else remember the two stated aims of Bin Laden?

1) The removal of non-muslim armies from the holy sites of Mecca and Medina (Accomplished, coincidentally, the day before the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech);

2) Destruction of the USA, not by military might (he realised that was impossible), but by causing its bankruptcy. Read the news lately?

On top of this, Bush's pre-emptive war "principle" has proven to be the single greatest factor in the radicalisation of countless young muslim men. Bin Laden himself couldn't have chosen a better recruitment campaign.

Utter disaster. I hope against hope that Bush will be held accountable for his actions. He makes Mugabe look like an amateur.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The day will come—the day will come—when they receive the justice they deserve.”

If there's any truth in the Christianity Bush espouses when it suits him (although he tends to skip the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" bit), the day will come when he receives the justice he deserves. And there's going to be a spot of brimstone and teeth-gnashing about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

not that anyone needs more evidence of the massive failure that is the bush administration but in todays news, there is more. After the boy blunderer is out of office I am sure there will be a cascade of additional documention of the worse president in our times.

BAGHDAD — An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny. The best 'defense' of Bush's use of military might comes from Obama, who has retained Robert M Gates as Sec of Defense.

Liken' that change, suckers?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What can you say when confronting this vile man justifying his vile? Except that this criminal is a liar to the bitter end. In a just society he would be in prison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Liken' that change, suckers?

You bet! Gates, for the first time in his career as SecDef, finally has a competent CnC! Sweet!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is using Gates as the puppet to get the US out of Iraq. Its obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The president declared that today’s military is “stronger, more agile and better prepared” than the one he inherited in 2001.

It has to be if your going to illegal invade a foreign state, but try telling that to the thousands of US soldiers that died for nothing.

As somebody put it a few comments up, Bush is an utter failure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There hasn't been a terrorist attack carried out on American soil since 9/11. That's the only positive thing I can see being warped into his history in the future that I can think of at the moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually there have been plenty of terrorist attacks since 911 (Anthrax, the sniper,etc..), just not foreign ones. On both counts (foreign and domestic) we're actually par for course either way. It's easy to forget that 911 was the second attack to the World Trade Tower, and that happened on Bush's watch. Not that it really has much to do with counter-terrorism efforts - it has more to do with Al Qaeda's current goals of sending a message.

Bin Ladin actually got what he wanted. We got the message and left Saudi Arabia, and our nation is going bankrupt. Not that both wouldn't have happened eventually no matter what happened. We should never have stayed in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War - the House of Saud is a dictator surrounded by an angry mob, of course it's a losing proposition for us.

On the other hand, even experts at the White House acknowledge that Al Qaeda is stronger today than when we invaded Iraq. I don't completely blame Bush, but the problem for me is he just has his fingers in his ears and eyes closed for the last 7 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, Bush let 9-11 happen. He did not even bother to read intelligence reports warning of an OBL attack using planes. He did nothing and 3000 people died. And they he invaded Iraq and a million people died.

Bush is up there with the major leaders who have killed millions, right up there with Stalin and Mao. Saddam-Bush, no difference really. Just that Bush had more firepower and Saddam only had WMDs that did not exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush is a damned liar. he defends his record of lieing to the American people.

But, I'm the leftist who for no good reason at all shows his contempt for a murderer. What a crock. < :-)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium, george bush knew of a possible attack by planes and never released the information. The attacks on the WTC was assisted by george bush's silence. But he got his war in Iraq.

Don't lose this link. < :-)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=August_6%2C_2001%2C_President's_Daily_Briefing_Memo

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites