# Should President Bush by impeached?



## RGrphc2 (Oct 6, 2004)

I'm watching Farenheit 9/11 right as we post this message.  From the looks of it Bush and his family have ties to the Saudi goverment and the Bin Ladens (same dumbass who attacked us) oil money. With the recent New's on apple.netscape.com Saddam was not trying to secure WMDs.  

Bush lied to us about WMD's in Iraq.
Bush lied to us about the ties between Iraq and Al-Queda.
Bush knew about Osama's plan to attack america on 9/11.
Yet he still refuses to admit he was wrong.

Clinton admited he was wrong.

Who thinks Bush should be impeached?

If he manages to get re-elected or elected for real this time.  I will be down in Washington D.C. on January 20th i will be down there throwing eggs at his limo, or throwing paintballs too.


----------



## markceltic (Oct 6, 2004)

Sure what the hay they impeached Clinton for less.


----------



## DanTekGeek (Oct 6, 2004)

impeachment is not what is needed. to be impeached, a president must have commited treason or another high crime or misdemeanor, unfortunatly, bush is to stupid to commit any of those. he is a horrible person, and a liar, but can not be impeached.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 6, 2004)

DanTekGeek said:
			
		

> impeachment is not what is needed. to be impeached, a president must have commited treason or another high crime or misdemeanor, unfortunatly, bush is to stupid to commit any of those. he is a horrible person, and a liar, but can not be impeached.




You mean to attack a country without help or backing up of the U.N. is not Treason?!? or to get the American People to live in fear of Iraq attacking us without any Weapons?  Going to War with Iraq (over Oil) and Not accomplishing anything but killing over 1,000 US soliders and over 2000 innocent Iraqis not a high crime.

EDIT OCTOBER 7th : EDIT : I'm sorry for going off on this little rant here.  But sending troops to fight a meaningless war (Vietnam sound familar?) with no support sounds to me like treason, thats why we have the U.N.
We live in a World Economy, it's like the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory (sort of), one little thing happens in Europe's economy it effects us here.


----------



## DanTekGeek (Oct 6, 2004)

listen, i hate bush as much as the next guy, im just telling you wht the constitution says.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 6, 2004)

Let's wait and see; hopefully we can just vote him out in a nice, legal, above-board election, with no hanging chads.

If that fails, then I'm all ears.  Round up the lawyers, write to your congressmen.  But bear in mind, it would require a majority (2/3?) vote of Congress to impeach, and right now there's NO chance of that.

If he gets (re?)elected, I may start a petition to replace "Hail To The Chief" with John Williams'  "Imperial March" for the next 4 years.


----------



## quiksan (Oct 6, 2004)

easy on the propaganda there RGrphc2 - just keep in mind that had Michael Moore been a Bush supporter, he could do what he does to paint John Kerry in a bad light as well.  Everyone's got stuff that can haunt them, and twisted with the right amount of spin, can be made to look however one desires.
I'm just saying to take everything with a grain of salt.

Check out factcheck.org to get true and unbiased details on both candidates.



			
				DanTekGeek said:
			
		

> impeachment is not what is needed. to be impeached, a president must have commited treason or another high crime or misdemeanor, unfortunatly, bush is to stupid to commit any of those. he is a horrible person, and a liar, but can not be impeached.


Dan - I'm confused how you mean: [he's] too stupid to commit any of those...
don't you mean too smart/evasive/sly/etc?

I'm not trying to get political one way or the other (heaven knows I don't have a decent clue!), just trying to solidify facts.  make an educated decision off the facts surrounding all the issues, not the mud-slinging and propaganda being spewed (as it is every election year).


----------



## DanTekGeek (Oct 6, 2004)

by too stupid i mean that he does not have the inteligance to carry out such a complex task. if there is any confusion on what it takes to impeach, check the constitution, i belive its article 2 that adresses impeachment.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 6, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Let's wait and see; hopefully we can just vote him out in a nice, legal, above-board election, with no hanging chads.
> 
> If that fails, then I'm all ears.  Round up the lawyers, write to your congressmen.  But bear in mind, it would require a majority (2/3?) vote of Congress to impeach, and right now there's NO chance of that.
> 
> If he gets (re?)elected, I may start a petition to replace "Hail To The Chief" with John Williams'  "Imperial March" for the next 4 years.




Actually it takes one congress man to start the vote, but no-one has wants to start the vote.  Just like the re-count in florida, many people protested and shown that Gore was the winner, and well not a single congressman wanted to sign off on.

I know it seems to me like proganda but doesnt it strike you as odd as Clinton lied, apologized and he got impeached yet, Bush lied, still lies, and he hasn't gotten impeached.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 6, 2004)

> I know it seems to me like proganda but doesnt it strike you as odd as Clinton lied, apologized and he got impeached yet, Bush lied, still lies, and he hasn't gotten impeached.



The moral of the story: NEVER apologize...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 6, 2004)

Hehe... if you think what Bush did was "impeachable" and horrible, then you should pick up a history book and have a read.  What Bush did pales in comparison to the United State's past actions.

Clinton was impeached, but being impeached does not carry with it an admission of guilt.  In actuality, Clinton was impeached (which is just a fancy word for "charged with a crime") but was found not guilty ultimately.  Many, many people believe that being impeached means being removed from office, which it most definitely does not.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
(read the last paragraph on that page right before Clinton's quote)

Also, if anyone ever tries to impeach Bush, they'd be going after the wrong person.  Bush doesn't say a damn word that he's not told to say, and if you think Bush had any influence into whether we invaded Iraq or not, well, my friend, you've got some backward facts.  Bush is the message-carrier, and had little say in what we did in Iraq.  He simply conveyed it to the American people -- kind of like a scapegoat.

I, personally, find politics very interesting and stimulating to discuss, but rarely find a person that will agree that the information, once trickled down through the government, then the press, then word of mouth, is severely distorted.  In the end, discussing politics becomes something like discussing the latest episode of "The Real World" -- mixed up, distorted and edited for content.

I highly recommend downloading the (free) 2004 First Presidential Debate from the iTMS.  It's a good listen, despite being heavily scripted and restricted in a sense.

Believe me, I'm no Bush supporter, but I firmly believe that Michael Moore has an amazing gift for distorting facts just like the rest of the media.  Farenheit 911 is a decent movie, but should be taken with *several* grains of salt.


----------



## Jeffo (Oct 7, 2004)

I cannot believe you would rather have a LIAR and two faced person like kerry as the man instead!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 7, 2004)

Hey hey, I never said I was a Kerry supporter, either.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 7, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> ...but I firmly believe that Michael Moore has an amazing gift for distorting facts just like the rest of the media.  Farenheit 911 is a decent movie, but should be taken with *several* grains of salt.


I couldn't agree more.  It's a propaganda film, nothing more nothing less.  It could have EASILY been switched around to bash Kerry.

I personally don't like either of the candidates, so right now it comes down to whom I believe is the lesser of the two evils.  The problem is trying to figure out who that actually is.  Both have good & bad things on my list right now.

Bush is too religious for my liking.  Kerry has flip-flopped way too much on certain issues.  It would be nice to be able to mix and match them...say 60% of one and 40% of the other, but that's just wishful thinking.  My vote will go towards whomever will best protect our country and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 7, 2004)

I know I'm gonna get my head chopped off for this, but I kind of wish that Gore was elected so we could see how this whole 9/11 thing would have gone down without the influence of Halliburton, Cheney and Bush.  It would be nice to see what an Apple board member would have done with this tragedy!

But, we should feel good for Bush.  He's making a lot of money off of this deal, and hey -- why own one country when you can invade and own two?!  Especially a natural-resource-rich country like Iraq!

As for Bush being too religious -- I can see how someone would see that in him.  We are, without a doubt, whether you believe it or not, "One Nation under God," but I think Bush takes that a little far.  Beliefs and invading Iraw have nothing to do with each other, yet Bush makes the American people feel guilty by interjecting God and religion into his agenda.  He makes it seem like it's a higher power that's calling the shots and he's just doing right by that word, which is BS.  It's a scare tactic -- it's more propaganda.  It's playing with peoples' beliefs to support his own agenda, which is NOT cool.

At any rate, neither Bush nor Kerry will be getting my vote this year.  I am a firm supporter of the Chango ticket: http://www.votechango.com


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 7, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> But, we should feel good for Bush.  He's making a lot of money off of this deal, and hey -- why own one country when you can invade and own two?!  Especially a natural-resource-rich country like Iraq!




sorry about before it just ticks me off that still is happening about everything.    Iraq - Oil, Bush makes his money with oil concidence??  espically with no WMDs found in iraq.  This is my first presidental election i can participate in and i did take Farenheit 9/11 with salt and well i everything i didn't believe i checked and double checked on the web.  i even watched the 9/11 Commission as well.  

It just sickens me that Bush has friends in Clear Channel (idiots), Enron, and is connected to the Saudi Goverment and all that.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 8, 2004)

Yup, it's VERY sickening, and it's even more pathetic that he's been able to fool at least half of the United States into believing all that BS.  He's a spinster, alright.

Ooh, and don't ever say, "I verified everything on the web."  The web is not a great place to verify facts, since any idiot can put information out there.  I would take a monkey's word over the word on the web anyday -- even sites like CNN.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 8, 2004)

And Fox News, who's president is friends with Bush as well.  If Jeb ever runs for president there is no god.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 8, 2004)

I want to know what would happen if another huge hurricane hit Florida on election day.  

It emerged recently that the constitution has NO provision for rescheduling the presidential election FOR ANY REASON.  

(This came out as part of a debate about delaying the election if there was a terror attack - answer: no can do, unless the constitution was amended.)


----------



## Viro (Oct 8, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Yup, it's VERY sickening, and it's even more pathetic that he's been able to fool at least half of the United States into believing all that BS.  *He's a spinster, alright.*
> 
> Ooh, and don't ever say, "I verified everything on the web."  The web is not a great place to verify facts, since any idiot can put information out there.  I would take a monkey's word over the word on the web anyday -- even sites like CNN.



He may be a lot of things, but he's most definitely not a spinster. In fact, it's physically impossible for him to ever be a spinster.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 8, 2004)

> it's physically impossible for him to ever be a spinster.



I think he meant that Bush puts a lot of "spin" on things, not that he's an old, unmarried woman...


----------



## chevy (Oct 8, 2004)

I don't want to give democracy lesson to anybody, but instead of speaking about impeachment for things that have nothing to do with treason... if you don't like your president don't elect him on the next occasion, if you like him (or his job) elect him. That's what a democracy is: you have election times to tell who will lead you, and then let him do his job as he can.... it's up to you to elect the right one.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 8, 2004)

> instead of speaking about impeachment for things that have nothing to do with treason... if you don't like your president don't elect him on the next occasion



I'd planned to do both.  Is that ok?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 8, 2004)

I don't want to give an English lesson to anyone, but...

You don't have to commit an act of treason to be impeached.  You just have to do something illegal.  Actually, you don't have to do anything illegal at all -- impeaching someone is simply accusing them of something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impeach

Many people mistakenly believe that impeaching someone is throwing them out of office.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  "Impeach" is almost synonymous with "accuse."  It doesn't mean that they're guilty, nor does it mean they've committed a high crime, nor does it mean that they'll be thrown out of office, nor does it mean that being thrown out of office is even a threat to them.


----------



## chevy (Oct 8, 2004)

Very go point ElDiabloConCaca... I learned something today.


----------



## Cat (Oct 11, 2004)

As I have not followed the american news regarding Kerry previously to this election, could some please point out (shortly) what exactly is meant by this flip-flopping thing? I am not sure I've understood the problem ... I mean, I can understand not voting for Bush because he illegally invaded a country for false reasons which he changed repeatedly ("Saddam has ties with Al-quaeda" - "Saddam has WMD" - "Saddam was a ruthless dictator", the first two of which have been proven false.), but I don't see the same kind of thing with Kerry. What are his flip-flops? Are they on the same level, or, as far as I could understand, do they just merely refer to a certain interpretation of his voting history? As many regard the flip-flop thing as a major issue, I am interested in understanding more fully what is meant.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 11, 2004)

What most people mean by "flip-flopping" is that Kerry has changed his stance on some issues (or seemed to) and they try to infer from this that Kerry is indecisive or hypocritical.

Kerry voted to give the President the right to invade Iraq (hoping, like most Americans, that Bush would only exercise this right as an absolute last resort, and even then based on solid, reliable, factual information.)  Kerry now believes it was a bad idea to invade Iraq - and this is termed flip-flopping by some of Bush's supporters.  

Kerry also voted to approve the Patriot Act, which he also now opposes.  While I detest Bush, I do fault Kerry - and most of the rest of Congress - for this.  Few of them more than glanced at the Act before voting it in, and none asked for more time to study it before voting.  

This too has been called flip-flopping, with perhaps a bit more justification, but I disagree.  It feel it is not so much an example of indecisiveness as it is a failure to exercise proper diligence before voting for a new law - _a failure of which most of Congress is guilty._   Still, it is a failure that is not too surprising in the emotional context of post 9/11 America.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 11, 2004)

He's changed his stance numerous times on certain issues, which by itself doesn't necessarily qualify as a flip-flop to me.

However, when he changes that stance multiple times on the same issue for no rhyme or reason, that's a flip-flop.  He's been well know to say:  "I'm for it." then "I'm against it." then "I'm for it." then "We need to look at that matter more." about the same issue over time, or something like that.  It's also a flip-flop when he specifically states he's going to do or not do something, then turns around and doesn't or does do it.



> Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, were going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that. (Fox News Special Report, 10/23/03)
> 
> Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty. (MSNBCs News Live, 7/31/03)
> 
> ...



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/perkins/20040312-9999_mz1e12perkin.html
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439 (This list goes way back and actually provides sources for the info)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/p...ex=1393909200&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all
http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=Defensor&static=295385
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040307-104357-9446r.htm


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 11, 2004)

Before you go slandering and smearing the leader of our country (the country many of you live in, and enjoy the freedom it provides), lets all make sure that we are speaking in an intelligent manner (at least typing in an intelligent manner, with spell checking! For God's sake, you started the thread with a typo in the title!). Keep in mind that the one of the infallible truths to ANY government (up to and including the United States of America) is that the public WILL NOT know EVERYTHING that goes on. In terms of the safety and defense of the country, consider yourselves on a "Need To Know" basis. And we as general public, DO NOT NEED TO KNOW. Just know that the safety and defense that we expect from our government is entrusted to those we elect. Sometimes the result of an election is not what we wanted, it happens. But know that the system of checks and balances in place ensures that a madman is neither asleep at the wheel, nor white-knuckle driving us into oblivion. Trust the system, cast your vote, and accept the consequences (the same way you accept your freedom to sleep in peace w/o bombs dropping on your head, or other atrocities accepted in most of the world). Everyone speaks of this upcoming election as if it is the last step on solid ground before boarding Charon's boat across the River Styx. Whichever way the election goes, it IS NOT THE END OF THE COUNTRY. Life will go on, the United States of America will go on. If you don't feel that way, and like to think of this as the end of the world, then place your pennies on your eyes, pay the boatman, and tell him to have a nice day. But before you drink your special Kool-Aid and pray to the angels behind the comet to sweep you away in your Nike's, cast your vote, be part of the system, instead of slandering it and sleeping comfortably in your little beds...


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 11, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> I want to know what would happen if another huge hurricane hit Florida on election day.
> 
> It emerged recently that the constitution has NO provision for rescheduling the presidential election FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> (This came out as part of a debate about delaying the election if there was a terror attack - answer: no can do, unless the constitution was amended.)




Don't even begin to wish things like that dude, I just went through a category 4 hurricane, my city is in ruins, people are dead. Not to mention the central part of the state got a double barrel shotgun blast a few weeks ago. Not a wound you would want to throw salt on at this point.


----------



## MDLarson (Oct 11, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Yup, it's VERY sickening, and it's even more pathetic that he's been able to fool at least half of the United States into believing all that BS.  He's a spinster, alright.


What an incredibly small-minded and insulting thing to say.  _Nevermind_ the principaled reasons I am voting for Bush.

Let's start with the "Bush lied" thing.  I am SICK of this.  What SPECIFICALLY is it that Bush lied about?  Keep in mind the actual meaning of a "lie."

WMDs?  *Everybody's* best intelligence (including France's) believed Saddam had WMDs.  There was no reason for Bush to doubt it, given the fact that Saddam had thrown out the UN weapons inspectors and was generally extremely antagonistic.  Now was Bush lying, or was he simply mistaken?  I've heard some liberals say that Bush, as president, should be held to a higher standard.  But sadly, the White House does NOT include some magical palantir where the President can gaze into Saddam's eyes and see the stockpiles in the mad man...

Bah...  Please don't insult 1/2 of America.  I don't categorically pass off liberals as easily as you do republicans.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 11, 2004)

I'm not categorizing Republicans at all -- just Bush.  I disapprove of Bush's presidency as strongly as you support it -- that's politics.  You probably get sick when Kerry opens his flip-flopping mouth, and I can't stand it when Bush talks about Iraq -- that's our right.

I didn't mean to offend half the United States -- what I said was a harsh comment about what I think about Bush, and others share that view along with me -- just as others share your view.  I don't know what else to say, but I'm part of the anti-Bush crowd, and you're part of the pro-Bush crowd, neither of us being in the wrong.

I have reasons for not supporting Bush, and, I must say, I do not wish him re-elected.  I apologize for my comment, and I'll rephrase it, "I do not support Bush and I don't like it when he talks -- I do not believe him to be genuinely truthful, and I think many people share my view (which doesn't make it any more right or wrong)."


----------



## Ricky (Oct 12, 2004)

*DON'T* even get me started about Bush.


----------



## adambyte (Oct 12, 2004)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Let's start with the "Bush lied" thing.  I am SICK of this.  What SPECIFICALLY is it that Bush lied about?  Keep in mind the actual meaning of a "lie."
> 
> WMDs?  *Everybody's* best intelligence (including France's) believed Saddam had WMDs.



Go watch "Uncovered: The Truth About The Iraq War." There's plenty of experts testifying about Iraq's lack of WMD's, and whatnot.

So, really, all Bush had was a bunch of half-ass information that his administration TWISTED into being evidence for their war agenda. 

So, alright, maybe Bush didn't lie, because he was simply BELIEVING WHAT HE WANTED TO BELIEVE.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 12, 2004)

> Don't even begin to wish things like that dude,



No, no, I _don't_ wish it - I have family and friends in Florida, and I would never wish such a thing on them. 

I was thinking hypothetically, but on reflection perhaps it was bad taste.   My condolences to all Floridians.


----------



## Cat (Oct 12, 2004)

So the main flip-floppings I have read about on the previous page refer to changes in his positions occurring over 5-6 or more years and specifically him advocating no death penalty for terrorists before 9-11 and approving of death penalty for terrorists after 9-11 (which is disagreeable but understandable). Interesting that such a high and long degree of consistency is required from a candidate, while the president in office changed his mind a dozen times or so about the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Off the top of my head, it all started with "Iraq harbors terrorists" then "Iraq is not complying with UN sanctions", then when Iraq gave in to the inspectors returning  it was "Iraq has WMD", for which there was no evidence, then again "Iraq bought Uranium from Nigeria", which was soon proven false and fabricated, then "Iraq will give WMD to terrorists", which was irrational as the terrorists being referred to were religious fundamentalists while Iraq had a secular regime (you do know what "secular means", right?), then the climax about the ultra-fast deployment of unspecified WMD, which resulted to be battlefield weapons and not ICBM's, and also up to now have not surfaced. In the end the argument became "Saddam is a ruthless dictator", which is true, but not sufficient reason to lay waste the whole of Iraq.

If you want to claim that Bush didn't lie, then you have at least to concede that he is either undecided or heavily misinformed. In either case this is a blame that hits the whole administration, military and intelligence. If you do not have enough information or no accurate information you should be very cautious to start a war. A hothead as president is not a good thing IMO.

As Kerry personally partecipated in a war, nevermind the whole pro and anti war discussion, he knows what it is like to be a soldier in combat, in enemy territory. Bush did not have this experience, nevermind the details of his record. If I were an american and I had to choose which candidate would be the best in a situation of war, I would honestly prefer the veteran soldier to the trained but unproven. Kerry knows what's it like to shoot and kill and be shot at, Bush not. A veteran soldier will be more cautious and not rush into battle: this is not cowardice or lack of determination. Caution and calm judgement are better that fanaticism. 

If there is one thing I suppose all can agree on it is that Iraq right now is a complete mess. Bush put us (it affects us all) in this mess, but can he pull us out? Can Kerry pull us out? I don't know, but I would be reluctant to let Bush carry on since he is responsible for the whole thing.


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 12, 2004)

Again I will state that we as the public are not, and will not, ever be privy to the same information that the administration and military officials have. We should not expect to have this information. Bush made these decisions based on information provided to him. 

Do you honestly think they would tell the public if they ever, or already have, caught Bin Laden?? He has people here in this country just waiting for those words and images to flash on CNN and Fox for their time to strike. These sleeper cells will lash out at the very moment he is made a martyr. Think about it. We may have gotten him months or even years ago, but they can drag it out in a bit of mis-information in order to root out these cells before they can strike. Look at what happened in Iraq, much of the violence shot up AFTER we had caught Hussein. He had laid down with his fellow regime conspirators and said: When I get captured, make them pay. It is the last effort of a desparate man and his ideals. 

And as for Kerry, he renounced his military medals and sold out on his fellow soldiers, so I don't count his "military time" as credible at all. He is a coward and a sell out. That little snake in the grass and his teenage sidekick should not be given the keys to the country.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 12, 2004)

The war on Terror as well it's bull,it's not going to stop.  If american does manage to stop terrorists now (2004-2008), guess what, the children in Iraq and Afganastan are going to hate american for what it did now.  Terrorism is not going to stop and Bush is an idiot for thinking we can police the world.  

Iraq, there was no reason to goto war with that country, there were no WMD's.  Saddam had nothing but oil and that's how Bush made his money.  Partnerships with the Saudi Goverment, and even the Bin Ladens.  Disturbing but true.

If he paid attention and did his job, he would have known about Osama's attack, and well he knew Osama attacked, then why did he let his Family out of the country???  Because Bush made money with them.

I'd hate to bring up another very touchy subject, but when authorites learned of Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing, did we let his family out of the Country?  No, we stopped his family and asked.  

Money that's what it all boils down to, Bush is a Greedy son-of-a-*, thats all he cared about, he's making money off this war, and we all know it.


----------



## MDLarson (Oct 12, 2004)

Politics as usual.  Not interested.  [unsubscribes from thread]


----------



## RGrphc2 (Oct 12, 2004)

i'm afraid of what i've started...i cant believe what i have started by asking a simple question.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 12, 2004)

As more than one journalist has noted, it's rapidly becoming impossible to have a civil conversation about politics in this country.  

With the highly-emotionally-charged tenor of today's political discourse, when I saw your subject line about impeaching Bush, I knew the fur would fly.

From my earlier posts, it should be clear that I don't like Bush, but I see little to be gained by hurling insults and profanities.  Anyone who writes  a passionate political post is probably NOT a 'swing voter', and will not be persuaded by my arguments, nor I by theirs.  

I believe that this country is sharply divided -- about George Bush.  I don't think I have heard anyone get very worked up one way or the other about Kerry; everyone is passionate about Bush - either practically idolizing him or calling him the antichrist.  I admit it, I am no different.

Yet whoever wins, about half the people you know will have voted differently from you.  There's nothing to be gained by alienating all of them, so my advice is for us all to just to cast our votes and be polite about it.

Everyone: If you can vote in the US, DO IT.  Please.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 12, 2004)

delsoljb32 said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think they would tell the public if they ever, or already have, caught Bin Laden??.



I hope that was a joke... the first thing this President would do is shout it at the top of his lungs.  This whole thing started with Bin Laden, and Presidents dont start "The War on _________" if they don't see an end in sight.  Now, whether or not the end ever comes is a different story (remember Reagan's War On Drugs?), and is irrelevent, but no end to any "War On _________" has ever been in sight -- until now.

Capturing Bin Laden would be advertised around the world, and would end Bush's War On Terrorism.  It wouldn't really end it, but it would in Bush's mind.


----------



## mdnky (Oct 12, 2004)

If you think about it the incumbent candidates are the ones who you'll hear the most outrage for or against, it must be something in human nature or just the way we think that causes this.  

I also think it has a bit to do with the party a specific person is associated with.  Republicans generally are conservatives, democrats generally are liberals.

If you consider the meaning of those words, you'll see they fit.  Democrats are very well known for voicing their opinion against someone or something with ease, where Republicans are usually more reserved.  That's not to say it doesn't happen the other way, it can.  But usually it doesn't.  There could be numerous reasons behind this, but in the end I think it boils down to the mindset of the people involved.

I have meet quite a few anti-Kerry people.  A good amount of them are/were military personnel at that.  The most adamant is my cousin's wife, who's active Navy stateside.  Her MOS is intelligence, and she was stationed at the pentagon during 911.  Part of her reasons are due to benefits and other lifestyle reasons, but the largest was due to the war and security.

The vast majority of anti-Kerry people I've meet are very reserved in their feelings and expressions.  They might have a bumper sticker or yard sign, but other than they they focus their energies on their families and their lives instead of raving about a candidate they don't like.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 12, 2004)

Before members of this forum stop respecting each other because of political views (as is evident in this thread -- we're all biased in one way or another, and feel strongly about different things), I think we should take a minute to put things in perspective.

It seems a common thought in this thread is that Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally different and share very different views -- but in light of the rest of the world, Republicans and Democrats are fundamentally the same.  They both want peace.  They both want good health care.  They both want to do the best for the citizens of the US.  Compare that to some countries that teeter between dictatorship and anarchy.  Compare that to the supporters of the communist and socialist parties and the democratic parties.  Comparatively on a world scale, our division of government is relatively non-existant.

It's undeniable that Bush spoke some non-truths to the public -- whether it was due to ignorance, arrogance, misinformation or a lack of information, it's undeniable.  I understand that the government cannot reveal every little secret and plan that they have underway, but for something as publicly impacting as 9/11 and the War on Iraq (which, somehow, the division between those two got really diluted along the way), the intentions and goings-about of the government should be divulged to the public.  We don't need a detailed report, but we do need some sort of truth and honesty.

Can a Republican deliver that truth?  Can a Democrat?  Does party affiliation even have anything to do with the ability to divulge the truth?  Is Kerry any more likely to be truthful about the US's intentions in foreign countries?

I really doubt that is what party affiliation is all about.  For example, whether we reform health care by cutting taxes or increasing taxes, the ultimate goal is to get better health care to the people.  Whether we invade a country because of WMDs or because terrorists are known to pass through that country from time to time, the ultimate goal is to alleviate the threat.  The differences are subtle compared to other parts of the world.

I don't like Bush because of Bush, not because he's Republican.  I wouldn't like him if he were Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or colored pink, either.  I do believe a better job can be done.


----------



## brianleahy (Oct 13, 2004)

A friend just sent me this article, by a Rebublican ex-congressman.  Interesting.

Conservatives unhappy with Bush article 

Does anyone relate?  Any thoughts?


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 13, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> I hope that was a joke...



No it wasn't. Bush would want nothing more than to shout it at the top of his lungs, you are right. But as for what would actually happen? Nothing. Not a whisper. This is because as much as we view Bush as the leader, he is a figurehead of the entire government, NOT the ultimate decision maker. Bush is a representative of the government WE have elected. The powers that be (government or military officials) will dicate exactly what information is disseminated. Only when the government and military decide that it is safe for the public to know this information, they will ok what he says to us. We would like nothing more than to place blame on whomever we so see fit to take the fall for errors. But this simply is not possible. I know it seems that I am crusading for Bush, but I am defending the system. The system that we abide by, and trust to take care of us. I know Bush has made some mistakes, we are all human. Hell, someone has to take the fall for the fact that the economy tanked and when I graduated college, there were no jobs to be had. That is still quite a sore spot with me and I would want nothing more than to say "He did it! He's the one! I hate him!" (Though I vehemently place blame on Bill Gates and Micro$oft for the tech sector fallout, more on that later if you want my theories... )But placing blame is not how problems are solved. Solutions must be presented and followed through. 

RGrphc2,  the opinions expressed here were partly brought on I believe because you started the thread based on facts you gleaned from a MOVIE regarding true events. That is what got me going. You CANNOT take any FACT from movies, let alone movies that are completely one sided like F. 9/11. As someone stated earlier, if it were done from the other angle, the views would be completely different. If this were they way we got our facts, we'd all be on some NOAA website forum discussing why the government isn't doing anything about global warming and how we don't want the events of "The Day After Tomorrow" to come true.   

While we are on the subject of truthful material, ANY INFORMATION YOU DO NOT HEAR OR SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES AND EARS IS "HEARSAY" OR "SECOND HAND". No matter the source or credibility of the person/news channel/newspaper/neighbor's dog, it is still an interpretation of what they heard. Just like Homer's Odyssey was told as fireside stories for centuries before being written down, things change the more ears they pass thru. Remember the Telephone game from childhood?


----------



## habilis (Oct 15, 2004)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Bush lied to us about WMD's in Iraq.
> Bush lied to us about the ties between Iraq and Al-Queda.
> Bush knew about Osama's plan to attack america on 9/11.
> Yet he still refuses to admit he was wrong.



I'm coming in way late and I don't have time to read the whole thread, but Bush was only acting on the same exact intel that every other country had and acknowledged as fact. The straw man tactics only get you so far RG.

I don't mean to sound presumptuous but were you under the hooked impression that politicians tell the truth? Man did you ever take the blue pill...  You think your boy Kerry is gonna tell you the _truth_? Well, that's exactly what they want you to think.

Bush was most likely considering an Iraq invasion before 9/11, after all, Saddam plotted to assasinate a US president, who happened to be his father - wouldn't you be pissed too? Be real about it - shelf your ego. Bush Jr. used the 9/11 attacks as leverage for the invasion, wouldn't you? Even your boy Kerry is quoted as saying "Saddam is an international threat... ...possesing weapons of mass destruction..." etc, etc, etc.

I said this here way before the war even began, but really consider this possibility, because it's not just possible, it's probable:

The freedom that you have on a daily bases and take for granted is an incredibly powerful force of positivity to the truly oppressed(you can't understand the oppressed mindset - don't try) that, over the course of a few decades, will slowly push it's way across the face of the Middle East and extinguish "terror" as we know it today. I don't have time to get into specifics - take the red pill and use your imagination.  In 30 years, the free people of the Middle East will remember GW as the man who set the ball in motionJust as Regan brought to an end the oppression of nearly a billion people in the former USSR, Bush will bring an end to the self-induced dark ages still in full swing in the ME.

Don't let the matrix take hold of you. The "Bush Lied" mentality is pure blue-pill knee-jerk market fodder rabble... Connect the dots man.


This is a very mediocre civilization. Atlantis, at least, was spectacular...

It's all just a 3D hologram anyway...


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 17, 2004)

Amen habilis, agree totally. 'Bout time we "unplugged these people/machines" don't you think?


----------



## fryke (Oct 17, 2004)

George W. Bush destroyed the image of the USA in the world. He dropped good connections to important countries. He neglected the urge of people around the world (even in the USA) towards peace and instead brought war. In order to pursue his path of hatred, he changed the reasoning behind it several times. About 50 percent of US citizens do either not see that or do not want to see that. I'm at a loss here.


----------



## habilis (Oct 18, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> George W. Bush destroyed the image of the USA in the world. He dropped good connections to important countries.


 So the "world", your world, doesn't think we Americans have had enough pain yet to be let into the club. After all we've had it so easy... 

 Anti-American sentiment, like the views you and many islamofascists espouse, isn't new. It's been running rampant long before Bush Jr. assumed command.

 It's lonely at the top, and we're hated at the top, especially when Bush put the importance of defending our homeland over the left-wing concerns of European coutries, half a planet away. We don't expect you to remember, but we were the ones who had 3,500 innocent lives extinguished forever on a sunny morning in September.

   Should we start asking you if it's OK to wipe our buts too? 

 Newsflash: European intellectual elites do not command America. When it comes to being popular in Switzerland or protecting our childrens lives and futures, we'll take a rain check on the Fondue.

 We're hated like the guy who keeps winning a card game over and over. You guys just want a cut like everybody else, like France's dirty deals in the Oil for Food scandal. It was France who had a deal with Saddam to coerce the UN to keep us out of there so he could keep building taller and taller palaces as the millions starved. Who are the real killers here, France? Follow the Money my fellow thinkers. In 50 years, that will be Old Europe's insulting legacy to the free Middle East; They kept Saddam in power for cheap oil, in effect actually generating the oppression that leads to terrorism, generating the hatred that you have been fooled into thinking GW is responsible for. Break the chains and connect the real dots.

 I must admit though it is quite an effective, self-replicating web of deception. Look at all the lemmings lined up still believing. The truth: No blood for oil... more like No Oil for Blood...


----------



## powermac (Oct 18, 2004)

Not that I am a Bush supporter, but I read an article about parallels between Bush and Lincoln. In short, both stretched the powers of the presidency during unusual times. Both were not popular, and both mildly restricted some rights of people, Lincoln more so. The point of the article suggests that history judged Lincoln well, it will take years to judge Bush. Just another perspective!


----------



## fryke (Oct 18, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> It's lonely at the top, and we're hated at the top, especially when Bush put the importance of defending our homeland over the left-wing concerns of European coutries, half a planet away. We don't expect you to remember, but we were the ones who had 3,500 innocent lives extinguished forever on a sunny morning in September. ... Should we start asking you if it's OK to wipe our buts too?



You see, Iraq is half a planet away, too. Actually, I _do_ remember 9/11 to which you seem to be referring. It was terrible. I'm sure it must have been worse for an American (of course!). But let's just talk about good and bad for a moment. (Bush likes simple, so let's stay within his system of thinking.) I heard G.W.B. was a Christian. Yet I don't see that in his path of evil. 3'500 innocent lives? Do you _really_ want to start counting on both sides? Let's keep it simple, shall we. War is bad. Bringin' war to the world is bad.

Let's say you offend me. How would you think of me if I then started to offend not only you but your family, your neighbours and then start to kill your cats and dogs? That's how I see Bush's reaction to 9/11. And I just don't understand (read the post you've 'answered' again) how Bush could do that to the USA.


----------



## delsoljb32 (Oct 18, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> Let's say you offend me. How would you think of me if I then started to offend not only you but your family, your neighbours and then start to kill your cats and dogs? That's how I see Bush's reaction to 9/11. And I just don't understand (read the post you've 'answered' again) how Bush could do that to the USA.



DO NOT for one second compare taking "offense" to taking lives. We did the right thing. Action had to be taken in the wake of 9/11. You don't maintain the level of security and safety by slapping people on the hand when they do something wrong. You do it by dropping 500lb laser guided bombs on their little caves and mud brick houses. I agree that the actions of countries affects the world, but don't for one second consider yourself to be sympathetic to the trauma that was inflicted on America that day. We all lost someone that day. We lost countrymen. We lost patriots.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 18, 2004)

Right -- but Saddam Hussein didn't live in a cave.  His governmental people didn't live in mud houses.  This all started with the "hunt for bin Laden" and ended up being "let's take over Iraq and oust Hussein."

9/11 didn't happen because the people of Iraq lived under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.  It happened because Osama bin Laden has some beef with the US.  Two different people, and as far as intelligence tells us, they have little to no ties between them.

Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because Osama bin Laden and his "group" hated Americans because of their freedom... then what happens?  We invade Iraq with the intentions of bringing to them our freedom, the exact thing that Bush says they hate, and imposing it upon them!  How hypocritical is that?  I'm not saying that the "new Iraq" is any better or worse than the "old Iraq," but hell -- we've been given a handful of reasons for going after Iraq, and not one of them was completely truthful... WMDs, freedom, crimes against humanity, hunting for bin Laden... the reasons keep changing.  And the answer to that isn't "well, it's ALL of those reasons."  It may very well be, NOW, that the answer is "well, it's ALL of those reasons," but at the time, it was not.

We went in looking for bin Laden, and came out with an unrelated figurehead: Hussein.  While some good may have been done in Iraq, the reasons have changed and our goals have changed since we first went in.  Sure, we'll ALWAYS be hunting for bin Laden, but you don't hear much of him anymore, do ya?  It's all about Hussein and "freeing" Iraq.  Will capturing Hussein and "freeing" Iraq somehow complete a puzzle piece in the war on terror?  Does it make it any harder now that Iraq is democratic for bin Laden to attack again?  Was Iraq a threat to us, since we know now that Hussein destroyed his stockpiles of far-from-complete WMDs in the 90s, and is it less of a threat now?  Does taking over Iraq somehow lessen the likelihood of another terror attack?  Do all terrorists live in Iraq?!  Does taking Hussein away from the terrorists maken them more complacent, and less likely to continue attacks against the US?

Did we accomplish, or is it forseeable in the future to have accomplished the goal of lessening the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the US now that we have brought "freedom" to Iraq?  I don't think so.  Iraq didn't attack us, and I think that converting Iraq into a democratic nation has done nothing to progress the "war on terror."


----------



## chevy (Oct 18, 2004)

delsoljb32 said:
			
		

> DO NOT for one second compare taking "offense" to taking lives. We did the right thing. Action had to be taken in the wake of 9/11. You don't maintain the level of security and safety by slapping people on the hand when they do something wrong. You do it by dropping 500lb laser guided bombs on their little caves and mud brick houses. I agree that the actions of countries affects the world, but don't for one second consider yourself to be sympathetic to the trauma that was inflicted on America that day. We all lost someone that day. We lost countrymen. We lost patriots.



That's exactly what Islamic extremists think you (general "you", nothing personal) did to them attacking Iraq...


----------



## Cat (Oct 18, 2004)

> Just as Regan brought to an end the oppression of nearly a billion people in the former USSR, Bush will bring an end to the self-induced dark ages still in full swing in the ME.


The USA and the erstwhile USSR were in an arms race, they were burning money like mad, and the USA simply had more money than the USSR, so the uSSR went backrupt, the system blew and we know the rest. That is not a personal achievement of the late Ronald Reagan.

The Middle East is the cradle of civilisation as we know it. When you are told that Greek philosophy wrought the world as it is today you must not forget that most of it came to us through Arab scientists and philosophers. It was their work that lifted Europe out of the Middle Ages. Most major discoveries in the fields of medicine, chemistry and mathematics come from the Middle East. Many ME countries might not have the same worldview as the "American Dream" of personal freedom and responsibility, but to call them backwards and "in the middle ages" is simply wrong. It is very difficult to claim that a culture is better or worse than yours: mostly it is simply different. 

The Islam is not so different from Judaism and Christianity. All are monotheistic and believe in a omnipotent, omniscient God, who is the Lord and Judge of the world and of mankind. God is the ultimate justice, wisdom and knowledge to all three of the religions and god wants peace and prosperity for his people. What does Jesus say again? "Turn the other cheek", "love your neighbour as yourself", "love your enemy". When will the self professed religious conservative right start to practice religion instead of just preaching it?

The invasion of Iraq cost 13.000 Iraqi lives up to now. These are the civilian casualties, not those of "enemy combatants". More American soldiers have given their lives that have been taken on 9-11. What has all this accomplished? and at what horrendous price? I do not want to question the sacrifices that have been made by the US in their pursuit of the war on terror, but I do question whether they would have paid it gladly knowing what we know now: that Osama would not have been caught after three years, that Iraq would come close to becoming another Vietnam (not in the number of casualties, but in the kind of war), that Afghanistan would still be very insecure and on the brink of civil war, that the US would be left with lower employment, skyrocketing debts and a steadily, inexorably growing oil price. Would you make the same choices now as you did then? In other words are you sure you would vote for Bush again (if you did in 2000) if you consider what his presidency brought you?


----------



## chevy (Oct 18, 2004)

Religion is the seed of most wars. Iraq is just fanatic Christian against Islam, as was Afghanistan that was in a conflict between Afghan before that, like was in Eire, (but between Christian), like many European wars in the middle age... like the war in Israel... religion never bought peace. In this meaning Communism and Nazism can be understood as religions too.

We need more philosophy, more ethics... and less religion.


----------



## Cat (Oct 18, 2004)

> We need more philosophy, more ethics... and less religion.


I'd subscribe to that call both out of compassion and altruism as well as for purely egoistical and professional reasons ...


----------



## fryke (Oct 18, 2004)

delsoljb32 said:
			
		

> We did the right thing. Action had to be taken in the wake of 9/11. ... You do it by dropping 500lb laser guided bombs on their little caves and mud brick houses. ... We all lost someone that day. We lost countrymen. We lost patriots.



That's exactly the sound of words I don't want to hear after 1945.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 18, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> That's exactly the sound of words I don't want to hear after 1945.



I agree.  We lost patriots and countrymen on 9/11.  So what did we do?  We invaded Iraq and killed Iraqi patriots and countrymen.  The majority of people killed in Iraq were not our enemies.  Sure, we got some of the enemy along with the innocent, and "that's a cost of war" is not an excuse.

The point is that the biggest threat to the US is still on the loose.  We haven't been targeting bin Laden -- we've been targeting Iraq -- otherwise, what delsoljb32 said would have happened: we would be targeting mud houses and caves on the outskirts of Iraq and into Afghanistan.  We aren't doing that.  We're targeting Baghdad -- we're targeting major metropolitan areas of Iraq.

We are no longer searching for bin Laden -- we are now just randomly bombing suspected areas of "activity" until everyone who opposes the US in Iraq is either dead or surrenderred.  You see, there's no hope for the Iraqis to keep any of their former-known lives: it is now "support the US" or "die" for them.  Sad.

Bush is a great pep-rally leader.  He, no doubt, gets people riled and fired up in support of our troops and our nation -- but this just pulls our attention away from what's really happening in Iraq.

I wonder if the outcome of 9/11 and the war in Iraq would be the same if so much money from the Iraqi takeover wasn't being funnelled into the hands of major governmental figureheads.


----------



## habilis (Oct 18, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> The USA and the erstwhile USSR were in an arms race, they were burning money like mad, and the USA simply had more money than the USSR, so the uSSR went backrupt, the system blew and we know the rest. That is not a personal achievement of the late Ronald Reagan.


 [brief digression]
 Maybe not 100% his achievement, but certainly around 85%. Cat, you can't tell me that if a liberal were in power for those 8 years, the USSR would have come to the same end. Reagan made it his mission to defeat them and then spent them out of existance. there's no way a liberal would have spent so vigorously on defense. It was his personal crusade, a war  in his view  of good against evil. Capitalism against communism. Communism crumbled because the system is critically faulted at its philosophical core. He is hugely responsible for it. The wall came down and the darkness lifted.
 [/brief digression]

 You guys are talking a lot about missing Bin Laden, taking our eye off the real target, changing reasons for being there, etc. But the war on terror encompasses all those that support, harbor, or defend terrorists in any way. I'm sure you all remember when Saddam was shilling out $25,000 American dollars(this value would translate roughly to paying an American $500,000) for anyone brave enough to run a successful suicide bombing mission in Israel.

 Saddam was one of the biggest, most brutal terrorists that ever lived.

 He had his chance to surrender peacefully. The bribed and coerced UN was Saddams puppet.

 The collateral deaths are on *his* hands and history will prove this.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 18, 2004)

habilis said:
			
		

> I'm sure you all remember when Saddam was shilling out $25,000 American dollars(this value would translate roughly to paying an American $500,000) for anyone brave enough to run a successful suicide bombing mission in Israel.



Hehe... that reminds me of the scene in "Biloxi Blues" where they're all sitting around at night comparing their best "what would you do if you knew you were going to die in a week," and that one guy says, "I'd pork 7 rich women and get them all to give me $1,000,000 each -- that way, at the end of the week, I'd have $7,000,000!  I'd be rich!"

To which one replied, "Yeah, but it's your LAST WEEK alive, dumbass, you'd be rich but DEAD!"


----------



## fryke (Oct 18, 2004)

Dead people can do good with their money. This just as a side note. ;-) [For those who don't get this one: You can die and still leave money to your family or to some other cause. And I guess suicide killers _want_ the money for just that: A good cause in their eyes, for example their family.]

habilis also said: "But the war on terror encompasses all those that support, harbor, or defend terrorists in any way." - Which could make matters _very_ difficult. For example, there are still some terrorists in the USA. They're using loopholes to even _get_ there today. Now with the USA harbouring terrorists... You see out here (outside of the USA) people feel that with G.W. Bush as president, the USA can turn every which way they want under the flag of the war on terror. When journalists asked children in Switzerland last year what they were most afraid of, it was the USA attacking Switzerland. While this might at first seem a fear without reason, I _do_ understand why they answered the question like that...


----------



## Cat (Oct 19, 2004)

> I'm sure you all remember when Saddam was shilling out $25,000 American dollars(this value would translate roughly to paying an American $500,000) for anyone brave enough to run a successful suicide bombing mission in Israel.


I'm sure you all remember when the USA were shilling out millions to Osama bin Laden to run successful terrorist attacks against the USSR in Afghanistan.

I'm sure you all remember that the USA is shilling out billions to Israel to buy state-of-the-art weaponry to conduct (terrorist IMO) attacks against Palestinian refugee camps.

By this reasoning the USA are no better. Saddam and the USA both payed others to do their dirty work. By this reasoning the ~3000 deaths from 9-11 were just "collateral damage". Bin Laden didn't want to hit "the free democratic West", he wanted to hit the American military/economic empire. What does Bush want? To bring war and destruction just like his opponents or to bring peace and democracy? I've seen to much of the former to believe in the latter.


----------



## habilis (Oct 20, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> I'm sure you all remember when the USA were shilling out millions to Osama bin Laden to run successful terrorist attacks against the USSR in Afghanistan.


 Well, c'mon now lets not make it sound like we were shilling out cash for terror attacks against civillian targets. Play nice. We shilled out cash for stinger missiles to blow those infernal Soviet attack helicopters out of the sky. They were our enemy, that was during the Cold War and we didn't want the reds attaining an ME staging zone - they could have possibly ended up controlling 50% of the worlds oil reserves. We evened up the playing field a little. The Soviets were losing those expensive helicopters and a lot of personnel. They were already having cash problems at home so they cut and ran.



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> ...the ~3000 deaths from 9-11 were just "collateral damage". Bin Laden didn't want to hit "the free democratic West", he wanted to hit the American military/economic empire.


 Cat, your rhetoric doesn't stand the reality test here; bin Lauden could have destroyed those buildings just the same in the middle of the night when no civillians were around. He could have announced the battle plan 10 minutes in to the mission so the innocents could have gotten out. He could have struck all the same targets on a Sunday when no one would have been in those towers. He would have accomplished the same level of economic devastation. By the way I'm glad to hear a left winger finally admit that there was a huge economic impact left by the devastation of 9/11, thus proving the inextricable link between terrorism and economy - this, and the tech bubble burst that began 6 months before Bush took office is what caused all the job loss and econmic recession of the last 4 years, NOT the Bush administration. Anyway, the point is, bin Lauden knew exactly when to hit us - when the most civillians would be in the towers. 

 Bin Lauden wanted to kill American People because they hate us for being a religion that is not Muslim. This hatemongering viewpoint is taking grip in the oppressed Muslim world at an alarming rate - that is why Bush removed Saddam and the Taliban - to reduce oppression is to reduce global terrorism - are we connecting the dots yet? To deny this is insane.

 It's not entirely your fault; The dominating force of liberal mainstream media has acted as a left-wing brainwashing machine at conspiatorial levels(take the forged Bush memo for example - it was a conspiracy in the most classic sense). This mainstream press and media, swinging for the last 40 years, is coming to an end with the advent of alternative media outlets such as news blogs, internet news services, Fox News, and talk radio - which is primarily reality based(conservative). The word of reality is getting out.

 When Bush said "War" on Terror, he damn well meant it, and the last time I checked, war wasn't nice and tidy, wasn't fun, didn't make people feel great, and things don't always go according to plan, but it's the dirty job that someone brave has to do so the world can be better for our children - and that's the real truth that Dan Rather won't tell you. 

 It's very simple - if you really care about the world, and the future, and lasting world Peace and prosperity, you'll vote for Bush on Nov. 2.

 However, some of you, understandingly, want to put your head in the sand and hide from reality. This is the grave danger of the Kerry mindset; the mindset that 9/11 was just a managable nuisance. 

 So if you want to send a message to the terrorists that as soon as the going gets a little tough, you cut and run and give up, in effect handing terrorism a total vitory and emboldening terrorists to do another 9/11 again and again, you go vote for Kerry. Ask yourself the hard question of what president the terrorists want in office.

  The red pill is hard to swallow but you know what's really out there...


----------



## fryke (Oct 21, 2004)

So you really think you've eaten the truth pill?


----------



## Tetano (Oct 21, 2004)

> bin Lauden could have destroyed those buildings just the same in the middle of the night when no civillians were around. He could have announced the battle plan 10 minutes in to the mission so the innocents could have gotten out. He could have struck all the same targets on a Sunday when no one would have been in those towers.



either Bush could phone home the family (father, mother and their 4 sons) just before bombing their house at falluja to hit al Zarqawi... how many innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Somalia has been killed by U.S. bombs having done no error except being in the wrong place at the wrong time? do you think they're so different from the ~3000 ppl of the Twin Towers?


----------



## Cat (Oct 22, 2004)

> Anyway, the point is, bin Lauden knew exactly when to hit us - when the most civillians would be in the towers.


 That is not true. The towers were not completely full, or else the victims would have been rather in the 10.000 range. 90% of all the people below impact came out/ The goal was to hit the american economy and american imperialism. If he wanted to kill as much people as possible he could have caused far more damage by getting the plane between the skyscrapers and on the ground. Imagine an crashlanding on a major shopping district street packed with people: casualties could have gone up in the tens of thousands.



> Bin Lauden wanted to kill American People because they hate us for being a religion that is not Muslim. This hatemongering viewpoint is taking grip in the oppressed Muslim world at an alarming rate - that is why Bush removed Saddam and the Taliban - to reduce oppression is to reduce global terrorism - are we connecting the dots yet? To deny this is insane.


I don't think so. Bin Ladens "hatred" surely is connected with religious themes, but it is not a true Jihad. He does not want to invade the USA and either convert or kill the unbelieving masses, he simply wants the US out of the Middle East, specifically out of Arabia where the holy cities of the Islam are. Imagine if Iran had a military base in the Vatican or something like that. You'd probably want them out too. Moreover, he like the rest of the world condemns the american attitude towards Israeli expansionism. This too has very little to do with religion. Israel is illegally occupying territory it has conquered in a war. This is prohibited by the UN and the UN have ordered Israel to retreat within its borders prior to the war. Israel has been defying the UN security council for at least as long as Saddam. 
Saddam himself was a secular military dictator. I will explani the word "secular" for those who have never heard of the concept: secular means lay, non-religious, separation of church and state, etc. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but not a fundamentalist Muslim. He opposed Muslim fundamentalism, he fought it as a rival to his power, he declined to do business with Osama, he fought against Iran with the helpp of the USA. By removing Saddam the US vastly improved the possibility of a Iran/Taliban-like government taking power in Iraq. The religious fundamentalists are no longer oppressed by Saddam and now they have become a probem for the US. Moreover the us very tactfully bombed some major religious sites which has everyone up in arms against them (literally) and no wonder. Imagine the Palestinians blowing up the Wall of Tears or Iran bombing the Holy See ("... but we just hit the cupola a little bit! How come they are all angry about that?").



> Ask yourself the hard question of what president the terrorists want in office.


 The same as do I: not a president who invades countries around the world on false pretexts and for mainly economical reasons.


----------

