Bush supporters give me a break!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Bush supporters give me a break!
239
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 2:17pm
I have just read through some of the info on the GOP thread and this will be my first time posting a discussion, so here it goes:

I truly feel like whenever I hear a Bush supporter speak, it is like listening to someone with Stolkholm syndrome, THEY ARE COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED!!! I mean, honestly, unless you are living in a cave (without internet, mind you) there is no way that the Bush supporters do not intake the same news that I do.

HE LIED!!! HE LIED!!! Let this serve as a newsflash to anyone who did not know. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IF THERE ARE, HIS DAD SUPPLIED THEM. This is something that they were aware of befor the sent us into Iraq. That is unethical manipulation of your position of power.

For those of you who were just about to argue that we went in for "humanitarian" reasons to collapse the tyranical reign of Saddam, let me just halt you in your tracks. Why are we not in any country in Africa, in which there are civil wars, AIDs epidemics, and feminist repression running rampant due to governmental proceedings? Why are we not in China? Why are we not in Palestine (oh wait, I forgot, we are, sponsering their killing by the Israelis)? Becaus they do not benefit us? So what's the deal, we fight for humanity contigent on how much money we gain from it? Give me a break!

I read another posting about how Republicans are frustrated with the Democrats focus on how George Bush cannot speak. A couple interesting points: It worries us that he cannot speak because you'd think that after a couple years at Yale, the University rated number one on the recently released Princenton Review, that he would be able to process a few words. I guess the fact that he graduated with like a D average just does not count. Additionally, I would just like to call to attention the fact that over and over again science has come to the conclusion that the major difference between humans and the animal kingdom is our ability to speak, and our advanced methods of communication which in turn lead to organization and technology, thus the advancement of the human race. If he cannot speak, then he is getting closer and closer to the animal, right?

Finally, on the GOP thread several posters commented on how although Dems were calling them nervous, they were actually unwaveringly confident. Yeah, I would be too if my party had just rigged the last election!!

People, women, get to the polls!!

Let's make it like father, like son, one term!

Lani

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 2:52pm
Bush relied on erroneous information from his intelligence sources, which included not only our own CIA headed by the Clinton appointee Tenent but also information from British intelligence and from Russia as well. This is part of the 9/11 report. When Bush questioned Tenent about making a claim about Saddam having WMD's his CIA director indicated it was a "slam dunk" according to a book by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post.

Being misinformed by those you trust isn't the same as lying. Bush was if anything misinformed, and guilty of trusting a Clinton apointee. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/index.html

Kerry had access to the same information Bush did, and leaders of Kerry's party questioned the validity of the intelligence. Kerry sat next to Sen. KKK Byrd in the Senate well when Byrd questioned the intelligence. Kerry had a responsibility to check the concerns of his party's membership, to verify for himself as a member of a body capable of allowing war to be engaged by the largest military machine in history... Kerry instead voted yes to war. Thus Kerry is at least as guilty as Bush for going into Iraq, if not moreso as he failed as part of the loyal opposition to verify claims of his own party's leadership.

Here is the text of Bush's address to the nation about the invasion of Iraq ...

"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.


My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her. "

--------------------------------------------

Which are the "lies" you are concerned about in the above?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 3:00pm
Not really a Bush supporter, but I'll respond to a few things...

"HE LIED!!! HE LIED!!! Let this serve as a newsflash to anyone who did not know."

So you're able to prove deliberate, knowingly false statements on his part as opposed to honest decisions made on bad information? I'm intrigued to know how you've established this.

"THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IF THERE ARE, HIS DAD SUPPLIED THEM."

Uh, you just argued both sides of the issue... first, that there are no such weapons. Then, you turned right around and state that if there are such weapons his dad gave them to him.

Which is it?

As for "supplying" WMD's, what the US sold were more accurately known as precursors, chemical and biological agents with honest uses (such as pesticides and vaccines) which could potentially be used in the creation of weapons. And they were sold throughout the 80's, not just during the Bush administration, with restrictions actually being tightened in the late 80's (during the elder Bush administration) to reduce the potential risk presented by them in Iraq.

Furthermore, the US was not the only country to sell Iraq the necessary equipment or chemicals/agents to create WMD's. Both British and German governments (as well as to a lesser degree Japanese, French, and other nationality firms) and/or citizens/companies were involved in transactions of questionable wisdom where chemical or biological weapons were concerned.

So that picture is not nearly as cut-and-dried all-Bush's-fault as you paint it.

"I read another posting about how Republicans are frustrated with the Democrats focus on how George Bush cannot speak."

Formal education and training can help with public speaking, but they don't prevent some individuals from still having problems with it. Either way, it's no indicator of fitness for or against holding office. That, and the rest of your inane commentary on the issue should make any objective party question the reasoning behind such focus.

"Yeah, I would be too if my party had just rigged the last election!!"

You seem to have a thing for melodramatic, unsupported and objectively insupportable claims, and yet you speak of Bush supporters as being brainwashed? Such self-analysis begins at home, shall we say.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 5:33pm
The fact that the CIA intelligence agent said that the case would be like a "slam dunk" is in itself my concern. He actually said that it "looks like" a slam dunk which means that he could make it look like there was a reason for us to be there.

Additionally, you don't find the timing a bit off? Al-Queida attacked us, so "logically" we should attack Iraq, right? I mean we he did "attempt" to ward off the actual terrorists by sending some troops into Afganistan after Osama Bin Laden, just about as many as we had on patrol in Manhatten.

Like I said, in his speech he failed to metion that the "alleged" bunkers that he was attacking were stocked full of war heads provided by his father.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-02-2004
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 5:42pm
Reply:

He should have had better evidence and been more careful on an issue concerning attacking another country. His track record shows that he generally is not careful with decision making (see Condileeza Rice's interview with the 9/11 commision)

Secondly, that is why I said IF, "If they have them, his dad supplied them." If . . .

And no, we are not the only ones, but if you are so concerned with a countries terrible record of terrorism and inhumanity, would you even supply them with precursors??

Additionally, we were the only ones demanding action against Iraq.

The fact that he sounds like a fifth grader who did not study for his presentation beforehand when he speaks may not bother you but as for me, I think a president should be intelligent, yes, but also must be cultured and diplomatic, something that is hard to express when you just keep st-st-stuttering.

Failure to recognize blatent failure, sounds like brainwashing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 5:46pm
lani1130 wrote - "The fact that the CIA intelligence agent said that the case would be like a "slam dunk" is in itself my concern. He actually said that it "looks like" a slam dunk which means that he could make it look like there was a reason for us to be there.

Additionally, you don't find the timing a bit off? Al-Queida attacked us, so "logically" we should attack Iraq, right?"

First, please reread it wasn't a CIA intelligence agent who said it would be a slam dunk... it was the director of the CIA who was apointed by Clinton. Also you omit conformation by British and Russian intelligence. I believe this puts to rest your first nonsense about brainwashed republicans... though later if you'd care to discuss brainwashed democrats... :-)

As to timing... Aq-Queida is in numberous countries, it had contacts and even OBL had even been offered a safe haven in Iraq. Al-Queida and Saddam agreed to cease active hostilities against each other... connections were made... but no planning of the 9/11 attack was done with help from Iraq.

That Iraq had arranged a friendly relationship with Al-Queida, that Ossama had been offered safe haven in Iraq during the period of sanctions, and that Iraq under Saddam had previously used weapons of mass destruction and had previously attempted to obtain nuclear technology to build a bomb are a well documented part of our historical record.

The President could have waited for the relationship to evolve, for a joint attack, perhaps with nuclear bombs... however it appears he elected to improve the situation not only in Iraq but in the middle east by a demonstration of US capability and by liberating a large arab population suffering under one of the worst tyrants in current history.

The demonstration to Syria, Iran, and others has surely demonstrated our seriousness, capabilities, and has assisted in getting greater help from countries which ordinarily aren't helpful. An example, often overlooked by the media, is Libya which has agreed fully to stop supporting terrorism, to pay penalties, and to turn over documents, information and permit full examination by UN and other agencies to assure no residual programs for WMD's. That's great... a terrorist country falls without the need to fire a shot and the lives of the people in Libya with any luck will begin to improve in the near future as it rejoins the nations of the world in peace.

:-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 5:46pm
"Like I said, in his speech he failed to metion that the "alleged" bunkers that he was attacking were stocked full of war heads provided by his father."

That would be false. Bush Sr. provided no artillery shells or other "warheads" to Iraq. Precursors and other items provided by the US and other countries were not in and of themselves weapons.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 5:52pm
Better, less equivocal evidence would have been nice, but he had to work with what he had. And what he had was a mixed bag.

"And no, we are not the only ones, but if you are so concerned with a countries terrible record of terrorism and inhumanity, would you even supply them with precursors??"

Didn't say I would. I merely pointed out that we (among others) provided the components and ingredients in question, not weapons themselves, and that it wasn't just a case of the senior Bush doing so as you claimed.

"Secondly, that is why I said IF, "If they have them, his dad supplied them." If . . ."

You had already said there weren't any, that Bush lied about them. Why declare that there weren't any and then turn around and say that if there were any they came from such-and-such source?

"Additionally, we were the only ones demanding action against Iraq."

Wrong again. The UN had been demanding action on the part of Iraq for a decade, and Iraq refused to comply with it's demands. The US merely undertook enforcement of the conditions the UN put into place at the end of the Gulf War.

"Failure to recognize blatent failure, sounds like brainwashing."

Nope, merely objective analysis of the issues you raised. Sounds like someone has a problem looking outside the partisan box they've built around themselves.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 6:34pm

<>


Your source for this, please.




Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 6:48pm
"HE LIED!!!" President Bush did not lie. He was repeating what Intelligence all over the world had told him. Pretty much the whole world thought Saddam had WMD.

If someone tells you a fact, and you believe it, and you repeat it, are you telling a lie? No, of course not. You are telling the truth as you know it.

"THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION." There certainly were. He used them on his own people. I still have no doubt that WMD existed, and will someday be found, probably in Syria. Saddam knew for months that we were coming. He has plenty of time to hide weapons or destroy them.

We knew that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.

And though this was reported only briefly by the media and then dropped, don't forget that our troops did find artillary shells filled with banned chemical weapons. The Pentagon confirmed that our troops found shells containing Sarin and Mustard. Even just one shell could kill dozens of people.

You mentioned that President Bush cannot speak well. I saw him in person in July, speaking for a full two hours, and he did a fantastic job. Personally I care a lot more about a President's views on issues than I care about how well he can wow an audience. If I just want a smooth talker, any lawyer will do.

How many people can speak in public, with cameras recording your every word, and not stumble over a few words now and then? I'm sure President Bush does better than many of us could.

And then you had to bring up that lame excuse that the GOP "had just rigged the last election!!" In case you haven't heard, many independent recounts were done after the election was over (I recall that one was done by USA Today), and all the independent recounts came to the same conclusion--that President Bush had more votes and WON.



iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-04-2004 - 6:57pm

<>


Whyever would you make that assumption?

Renee ~~~

Pages