Laugh at Liberals

65 Responses to “Worst president in history?”

1. Henk Says: May 19th, 2004 at 11:15 pm

   Why are you so blind? Do you not see what happening in the world? Why can’t we change the view of the USA that only they are ruling the world? The USA had a lot of enemies, but the gouverment of mr Bush has made the situation more worse.

2. megapotamus Says: May 20th, 2004 at 5:26 pm

   Yeah, this kind of claptrap is based on NO historical context. If you want to get screamed at, try mentioning that the casualty rate is 700/140,000 and mention your historic parallels.

3. Emory Says: May 20th, 2004 at 9:16 pm

   We might take into account whose perspective the situation is “worse” for. If a Shiite under Saddam’s rule, it’s better. If a foreign government benefitting from trade with Saddam, it’s worse. Agreed?

4. Patton Says: May 21st, 2004 at 5:07 pm

   Why are you so blind? America is the only super-power. America is the only country that will ever do anything to stop anyone in the world. I doubt France or Germany have the balls to do anything like we undertake. The UN is a joke. At least Bush has some backbone. He gets my vote. Enemies that won’t fight aren’t enemies, they’re lackies.

5. Henk Says: May 21st, 2004 at 10:19 pm

   when you not accept de UN as a ruling party in the world, you are on a dangerous road. In Holland much people believe you’re invasion in Irak was illegal, and, if you like it or not, the same handling as Saddam did in Kuwait. My believe is that a superpower must use his power carefully.
   When he use it, it must be done in name of the security councel of the UN.
   And to an historical context: Amerika has made Saddam great!

6. Emory Says: May 22nd, 2004 at 6:51 pm

   The U.S. has never accepted the UN as a “ruling party” and hopefully never will. A strong case can be made that the UN is corrupt. Where has the U.S. ever asserted that they are “ruling the world?” Comparing the U.S. invasion of Iraq to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait doesn’t work for me because the U. S. invasion was in self defense, Saddam’s invasion was to annex Kuwait.

7. Henk Says: May 24th, 2004 at 10:05 pm

   @Emory: 2 times the US had tried to setup a ruling party above the goverments of the world: first time
   in 1919 and second time in 1945. It’s only this gouverment who don’t accept the UN. The result is clear. The US are in fact almost alone in there case in Iraq and in big trouble. I don’t believe the US let Iraq create his independent gouverment. It will be big brother. In fact it is the same procedure as Saddam did in Kuwait. So I can follow the resistend of much Iraqi against the US troops.
   How should you react as the US whould be ruled trough someone you don’t like? Your argument the invasion of Iraq was self defence can i not understand. You must explain it to me…

8. zack Says: May 25th, 2004 at 1:06 pm

   Is there another government in the world that has a choice but to bow to the U.N.?

9. Emory Says: May 25th, 2004 at 5:32 pm

   Henk, history will tell if Iraq turns out to be a truly independant government like Japan and Germany are now. I can’t imagine having a government much worse than the Saddam dictatorship. If the U.S. was ever taken over by a Saddam-like dictator, and someone wanted to oust him for us, I’d certainly be grateful. In fact, I’m grateful that the French helped free the U.S. from British rule. As to the self defense part, Saddam had been attacking our pilots regularly while enforcing the U.N. no-fly zones. Aside from his links to al Qaeda and usage of WMD, the world can’t allow terrorists and countries who support them to do business after the 9/11 attacks. We have to confront them if we want to continue living free. The timing and methods are debatable. Confronting Saddam was a must.

10. Henk Says: May 26th, 2004 at 12:15 am

    @Emory: Those links you suggested with al qaeda are proven that the where not there: In concrete, Saddam dislike al qaeda, because he saw them as a thread for his own power. I still don’t understand what for interest the US has in Iraq, except for the oil. And I have the believe that mr. Bush fight a personal war, to make his fathers work finisht. I see the relation between 9/11 and Iraq not. Afghan and the Taliban, yes that was right to go there, because the evel had there protection of the taliban gouverment. But look what the US have done after they invaded Iraq: they lost almost all the support they had. The “war” against al qaeda is sanded, morely through the second war in iraq, wich costed the us army almost all of his resources. The world has been changed: in worse, divided a lot of countries in a pro and anti american camp. Mr Bush is be seen as a dangerious man, who’s interest only the US interest are and ignoring the rest of world. It started before 9/11 with the Kyoto agreements, than he accepted in case it was needed, to free us soldiers from the UN justice with gun power, in wich he overrun a frendly country, the netherlands.

11. Emory Says: May 26th, 2004 at 2:11 am

    Henk, let me make sure I understand you. You think that Bush is “dangerous” for removing Saddam from power? You actually believe that president Bush went to war for oil resources rather than to stop Saddam from using WMD again? Do you think we should respond to terrorists only after an attack?

12. fuji Says: May 26th, 2004 at 11:01 am

    While I’d prefer not to put words in Henk’s mouth, I think henk meant that Bush’s methodology in removing Saddam Hussein from power is what makes him dangerous, rather than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.

13. fuji Says: May 26th, 2004 at 11:14 am

    As for the Oil comment, I thought that was a fairly obvious motivation. While I’m sure that there were all manner of motivations for removing the Ba’ath within the administration, Oil must have figured predominantly. Such arguments are lent particular weight when we consider that maintaining oil production was given priority over ensuring clean water, health care and proper nutrition following the collapse of the regime in April of last year. As for the use of WMD in the Iran-Iraq war, the Regan administration lent tacit support to the use of chemical weapons against Iran and turned a blind eye to the 1988 gassing of 40 000 kurds. In fact, Saddam Hussein was given the key to the city of Detroit in the mid seventies…the exact date fails me. It’s not that the Bush Administration is evil, as many liberals unfairly contend, it’s that most American administrations have been far too accustomed to cloak and dagger politics, and they subsequently falter when exposed to the daylight.

14. zack Says: May 26th, 2004 at 12:48 pm

    (fuji)First let me say that thank goodness very few liberals argue as you do! We conservatives would be in trouble! Now….to shed a little daylight on your argument. The facts are coming out now that 5 times more media reporters are liberal than conservative. The word from Iraqis leaving Iraq is beginning to get a little louder. America has won the war in Iraq, but lost it in the media. Most of the arguments would be moot if the news coming out was even-handed. I actually heard the press defending, not arguing that fact yeaterday! Their point was that. yes 78% of the stories on Iraq are negative, but the numbers have proven that if they were positive, people wouldn’t watch! So they spin trouble out of everything. When is the last time you saw video from inside an Iraqi school? A mall? down-town city streets during rush hour? MY POINT is that if the whole trueth were to be know about the current situation in Iraq, there would be nobody arguing. As for Reagan in the 80’s….that was a long time ago! Things change. I’m sure there are current rulers that we will have trouble with in the future. As for WMD….let’s hold-off on that argument. If you’ve noticed, MOST Democrats INCLUDING Kerry and Kennedy have backed way off from that one. I think there’s something we don’t know yet. Personally, I believe the rumors that they have been found but that they want to run every test they can and be absolutely positive before they announce it.

15. fuji Says: May 26th, 2004 at 2:36 pm

    Aye, I hear you Zack. From an outsider’s perspective, the American media really confuses me. Well, more so American reading of various American media outlets confuses me. On one side, conservatives contend that liberal jounralists bolster political correctness to unhealthy ends and steamroll conservative achievement (exemplified by media circi like ‘the Fallen’) , while liberals underscore the corporate direction of news journalism at the expense of a meaningful constructive social voice (exemplified by Fox and CNN’s coverage of the 2000 election, the lead up to Afghanistan and Iraq). And I think both sides have legitimate concerns. While I obviously have a different reading of the ’successes’ in Iraq than you do - as I am informed by foriegn press - I think much of this domestic media infighting (imagined or otherwise) serves only a partisan agenda, and cannot work towards any meaningful change or reform. In response to the WMD issue, I think Kerry backed off the WMD issue because Kerry is spectacularly pathetic. While I believe Bush’s credibility is waning steadily, it makes absolutley no difference if Kerry has none to begin with. What do you think?

16. Emory Says: May 26th, 2004 at 7:15 pm

    Yeah, fuji, it may be that we agree that George Bush’s methodology could have been better, but I wouldn’t say it was dangerous. It’s sobering for us to hear an objective point of view that’s cuts through the partisanship.

17. fuji Says: May 26th, 2004 at 9:23 pm

    I dunno. I stand quite firm in the opinion that Bush’s diplomatic methodology and understanding of global affairs is catastrophic. I don’t want to get into the typical mudslinging and name calling because it’s unproductive, but I think that in alienating traditional foriegn allies with the war in Iraq, Bush has greatly diminished global support for counter-terrorism measures, which allows organizations like Al Qaeda to burgeon like never before. Further in lying about, or at least misrepresenting the threat posed by WMD’s, he reduced his credibility at home. The Bush administration’s aggressive unilateral military policies and practices, not to mention questionable diplomatics - such as bugging UN security council chambers and offices and elaborate plans to disredit Hans Blix when he found no WMD - has simply made the world, and perhaps even home turf, a dangerous place for Americans. This is what I meant by Dangerous methodology. I mean, the current administration is walking a very fine line, and while I reject the typical liberal rendering of Bush as some deranged facist idiot, I think America is experimenting with some - at best - questionable politics.

18. fuji Says: May 26th, 2004 at 9:46 pm

    I mean, North Korea was a far more obvious and pressing threat to global stability, security and - I’m reluctant to use the term because I feel it’s been rendered entirely meaningless - freedom. While the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ was struggling to convince global opinion of the raging fanatacism and will of the Ba’ath regime in early 2003, ‘President For Eternity’ Kim Jong Il had freshly ejected UN weapons inspectors from the Yongbyon Nuclear Facility, by force in December of 2002, and was preparing between one and three nuclear warheads (by CIA estimates) for deployment in advanced Scud IV missiles. These missilies are capable of striking Alaska, California and Hawaii, and were capable of doing so in February of 2003. North Korea had in fact sold such missile technology to Iraq, Iran, and had passed on the know how to construct these missiles. Further, and if we are to pretend that the war in Iraq is about freedom, North Korea has the worst human rights record of any Axis of Evil nation - current or retired - and is completely totalitarian. The Ba’ath had a death count of 300 000, North Korea is in excess of 4 000 000. North Korea is and was a far more dangerous regime and was completely ignored because there was little to gain - at least for the Bush administration - in regime change.

19. Henk Says: May 27th, 2004 at 12:14 am

    That’s what I degree with fuji. I see North Korea as a much bigger threath for the world as Saddam ever was. And I still believe Saddam was not a terroristic treath at the time as the US invade Iraq. Why do i think mr Bush is dangerous? Because he don’t act as a superpower president who works with rest of the world together. He believes he can do what he want. He should look back to his father, who find the whole world behind him, or mr Clinton who act on the same way.
    It not goes alone about war. It goes about how everybody in this world can live with the resources of the earth. It cannot be that half the world lives in povertry and that the US take for 300 million us citizen almost a third of the earth resources like oil. I hear mr bush not talking about that. It is frustating to see that poor people get more poorer and rich people more richer. The US had much more with the money do as they now burning in Iraq. Look at the us self: how looks poorest in your country? How looks the schools?

20. zack Says: May 27th, 2004 at 3:04 pm

    Here is my take on N. Korea vs Iraq…Korea is the proverbial “bull-in-the-china-shop”, Iraq the black widow. Kim Jong doesn’t have a death wish. There are no virgins waiting for him. He wants to use his weapons for blackmail. Bargain power. He knows that using those 3 or so missiles against us or anyone would be suicide. He wants to be a player, a big boy. Saddam, on the other hand, would LOVE to have destroyed The U.S. and democracy. It wouldn’t have mattered if he got credit or not. He had money, it was just a scoreboard to him. Someone once said “I’m not worried about the guy with several nuclear weapons, I’m worried about the guy with one”. Korea is under the microscope. His neighbors won’t help him hide his weapons. He’s (and pardon the pun) on an island by himself. Between us, Japan, S Korea, Russia and China….he can’t scratch without alarms going off. If heat plumes as big as a roman candle went up….well, you get the message.
    I don’t know if you’ve seen the pictures or not, but the coalition literally uncovered 2 dozen, hi-tech Russian fighters “buried” in the sand in Iraq. Now, if they can completely hide 2-dozen fighter jets…..how can anyone be certain that the WMD aren’t there? Which one do you think Saddam was more concerned with hiding? For a moment, I’ll take your argument that he DIDN’T have WMD. He wanted everybody to think he did. He liked the attention. Put it this way. If there was a street gang in your neighborhood that wanted to kill you, but had no guns, and there was a guy who lived across the street who had shot people before and spread the rumors that he had guns, and empty cartridges could be seen laying around his house, and you knew he hated you and the street gang members were seen leaving his house……would you be wrong in kicking his door down?

21. fuji Says: May 27th, 2004 at 6:03 pm

    Aye, I agree with you. North Korea is a far more complex little pariah, for all manner of reasons. Particularly, any attack on North Korea would result in the total devestation of Soeul: a prosperous, modern westernized metropolis of 15 million people. The psychological effects of such an event are incalculable, not to mention the poltical and economic implications. I also suspect that North Korea will collapse on itself eventually, because Junge or Juste or whatever that self-reliance policy is called is completely unsustainable, and it’s likely that the administration realized this. That said, I would agrue that in appeasng North Korea, or at least ignoring North Korea’s development of Nuclear weapons, we are allowing a dangerous and fanatical regime to develop invaluable diplomatic bargaining tools. Now, Iraq did not and could not have had nuclear weapons last year and I think this was obvious to most critics from the left or right. It was simply impossible, and I think the administration was largely aware of that. And to be honest, I think they knowingly and willfully lied about it. They manipulated unreliable intel to drive the point home that the Ba’ath Regime was an imminent gathering threat. I mean, it’s quite possible that Saddam Hussein was developing Biological and Chemical weapons, but I think that is largely irrelevant, because they have been proven strategically inneffective in the Middle East, and to suggest that he was developing a nuclear arsenal is not only ridiculous, it’s extremely irresponsible. It implies that the administration does not have to be accountable to the intelligence community or it’s military planners, and what’s worse it suggests that the post 9/11 doctrine is above scrutiny, that it’s unquestionable and absolute, which is what I meant about the dangerous methodology earlier. Also, I think North Korea took a back seat to Iraq because an invasion of North Korea would kill millions of Koreans (North and South) and Americans. It would simply be to costly. By the bys, what jets did he have hidden? I’d guess they are Mig 29’s, but were they recently built, or were they leftovers from the gulf war that had been upgraded or what? Do you have a link perhaps?

22. Emory Says: May 28th, 2004 at 3:09 am

    It’s difficult to imagine terrorism being defeated without someone taking risks. Appeasement is easy. But, appeasement wasn’t working. It wasn’t working for the Kurds. It wasn’t working for Kuwait or Israel or the world (except for countries who were doing business with Saddam). George Bush took a risk which may or may not prove to pay off. History demonstrates that both aggressive and diplomatic policies can achieve a healthy peace. We’ll see.

23. DaveIsKing Says: June 12th, 2004 at 10:21 pm

    Where are your sources?

24. zoot potatoe Says: June 14th, 2004 at 12:22 am

    you claim that FDR declared war on germany in WWII, while it was actually the other way around. with Germany an ally to japan, they declared war ON US.

    so, you want every president that’s started a war, lets think about this.

    Lincoln sent us into the civil war.

    George Herbert Walker Bush sent us to the Gulf War…

    thats just two very obvious ones. I could waste my time to prove you conservative wrong, but its not worth it..

    hmm… do you support nazis? is it a BAD thing that we went to war against an evil government that killed 6 MILLION PEOPLE?

    HA HA! THIS MORON’S A NAZI!

25. zoot potatoe Says: June 14th, 2004 at 12:24 am

    also, let us not forget WHY we went to war agaist Iraq. for the WMD’s. where are they? think about it. WE didn’t go for the friggen things, we had no proof htey existed. Cheney used Bush as a puppet to drive us to war, and for nothing. Yes, its a good thing Saddam is gone, but we didn’t go to war just to remove saddam, we went to war because he wouldn’t remove his WMD’s…

    laugh at liberals my *ss, this is one of the most laughable things i’ve ever seen

26. factCheck Says: July 17th, 2004 at 7:13 pm

    ” There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January…..
    In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s
    just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
    ”

    The fact of the matter is that there have been between 10,000 and 13,000 civilian
    deaths, 1,000 “coalition” deaths and over 5,000 coalition injuries. The
    civilian deaths include children, women and the elderly and are, like you, people
    just trying to get by in life. Yep, charred babies, children with their arms blown
    off, that sure is a pretty picture. And the justification of a war by comparisons
    with the domestic murder rates is possibly the most insane rational that I have
    ever heard of.

    ” When some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war, state the
    following …FDR… led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
    From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. ”

    Germany was an ally of Japan and had, by the time we were involved, initiated unprovoked
    attacks and invaded most of Europe, Russia, And Northern Africa. if you are suggesting
    that decision to go to war with Germany was a mistake, then we really have nothing
    more to say. If you wish to draw analogies between the war with Germany and the
    war with Iraq I would suggest that you conduct a bit of historical research first,
    and discard any opinions that you have drawn from “Info-tainment” which
    seems to pass as “news reporting” these days .

    ” Truman… finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
    attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
    ”

    North Korea sent its army south across the 38th parallel after years of insurgency.
    U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities
    and a withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950. On
    the 27th, U.N. Security Council asked U.N. members to furnish military assistance
    to help South Korea repel the invasion. On June 30 Truman’s authorized MacArthur
    to use all forces available to him.

    Unlike Iraq, this was a case of honoring a mutual defense treaty with virtually
    all developed countries of the world against an invading force.

    “John F. Kennedy… started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked
    us. ”

    In reality Eisenhower sent troops first, the so called “MAAG missions”,
    and began our active involvement by installing a repressive regime of it’s own (Diem).
    He accomplished this by citing the famous “domino theory” after the partitioning
    of Vietnam in 1954 at the Geneva Conventions. In 1957 the North Vietnamese insurgency
    into the south begins and the first US servicemen to die in the conflict were at
    Bienhoa in 1959 while Eisenhower was president.

    ” Clinton… went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never
    attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan
    and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. ”

    Patently false. Dutch UN troops entered Croatia in 1992, and French UN troops in
    Bosnia called for the first NATO air strikes in January of 1994, and remember, that’s
    NATO operations, not the US. These operations were a direct result of both UN and
    NATO treaties and resolutions.
    But yes, Bosnia never attacked us and choosing to ignore ethnic cleansing would
    have been a more moral reaction…. And yes, Clinton and Osama most certainly
    must have been buddies, those missiles we were firing into Sudan and Afghanistan
    were just some pretty fireworks for our friend Osama. I’ve always enjoyed this particular
    “Clinton - Osama” theory as it is often repeated but never documented,
    interesting. What is documented in detail however is the funding and arming of Osama
    and Mujahideen and of Saddam himself by Reagan, Bush senior, Rumsfeld, Cheney et.
    al.

    ” In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated
    two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in
    Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
    slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.”

    The Taliban is alive and well in most of Southern Afghanistan, and what limited
    security that actually exists in this country is strictly limited to parts of the
    city of Kabul. Osama and al-Qaida are fully operational and are free to roam.

    We have no nuclear inspectors in Iran or in North Korea. This is purely a fabrication,
    and to believe this indicates a total lack of understanding in regards to history
    or current events.
    Latest poll state that the average Iraqi citizen believes that they have fewer freedoms
    now than under Saddam. And all polls overwhelmingly state that the Iraqi people
    want us the fuck out of there.

    This war isn’t over, people are still dying and we are now burning through 4 billion
    dollars a month of taxpayer money to prosecute this occupation, money that could
    have been spent here in THIS country.

    The massive stores of goodwill and sympathy from the world community after 9/11
    have been squandered; they have been replaced with distrust and hatred and have
    ensured the creation of a new generation of terrorists in the future. We have done
    nothing more than to play into the terrorists hands.

    President Bush is an embarrassment, imagine the day when the “leader of the free
    world” stumbles over words with more than two syllables. He has lead us into a
    quagmire in the Middle-East, shits on the environment, ignores the Constitution,
    sacrificed our personal liberties, and increasingly shifts the burden of a historic
    national debt on to the lower and middle class. Bush is nothing more than a baffoon
    and it will be a welcome pleasure to see him thoroughly crushed in November.

27. Buck Says: September 14th, 2004 at 3:56 pm

    I think we should change the use of the term liberate. From now on, we’re not going to liberate anyone. We’re going to conserve them. It’s their only hope.

28. zoot potatoe Says: September 15th, 2004 at 12:22 am

    sad pun…

    yes, i’m sure that countries all around the world believe in bush and his conservative ways. face it, the world despises bush for the Iraq war, and alot of the world would scoff at your comment…

29. Emory Says: September 15th, 2004 at 3:43 am

    I guess all of the countries who are part of the coalition, not to mention the Iraqis themselves despise Bush for the Iraq war.

30. Proud Liberal Says: October 3rd, 2004 at 11:10 pm

    “FDR…
    led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.” …. well, I suggest you to don’t say anything you are not sure of. The US DID NOT DECLARED THE WAR UPON GERMANY. After 9/12/1941, FDR declared the war on Japan, who was an ALLY of Germany. The US couldn’t fight Japan, but not Germany… so really Japan didn’t attacked us, the axis did.
    Not to mention that it was FDR who saved America from the depression and turned it into the world power it is, because of his “New Deal”. But what have Bush done? Made fun out of the UN, lost almost all American allies, invaded 2 countries without any reason (Real reasons, I mean), broke the Geniva convention, made it legal for the government to act like a despotic state with his idiotic PATRIOT act, (It’s interesting, actually, that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had acts that looked just like the patriot act)and still managed to take more vacation than any other president on the history of the United States. And who knows… maybe, when president Bush attacks Iran and place a democracy in there, perhaps he could consider bringing it back to America…

31. bob Says: October 3rd, 2004 at 11:34 pm

    guess all of the countries who are part of the coalition, not to mention the Iraqis themselves despise Bush for the Iraq war.
    Comment by Emory — 9/15/2004 @ 3:43 am

    Yes emory, they do. If by people, you mean citizens of countries, not the ruling elites, as in the case of our colition partners, or strongman thugs, as in the case of Iraq. they hate us. the iraqi people want us out. The brit citizenry is about to toss tony B into the Channel, the Spanish voted out the administration that to them to war. The japanese, the Costa Ricans and the tobagoan airforce are all leaving. the Poles don’t have enough troops on the ground to field a soccer team. We are alone because boy george wanted to play golf rather than do his job.

32. Adam Says: October 17th, 2004 at 10:56 pm

    I love how the so called “liberals” are able to out talk the conservatives on their own site

33. zack Says: October 24th, 2004 at 4:36 pm

    Proud Liberal: Your post should really be under “Humor”. “Depends on what the meaning of IS, is.” Sound familiar? Japan didn’t attack us!? Yeah, right. No really, you’re a conservative trying to make liberals sound even sillier than they really are, aren’t you? But you went too far. Not even REAL liberals are that dumb!

34. jd Says: October 24th, 2004 at 8:16 pm

    Proud Liberal is a not to bright liberal. Japan attacked us. We declared war on Japan. We did not declare war on Germany. Two days later Hilter declared war on the U.S.

35. Jeannie Says: October 24th, 2004 at 10:06 pm

    Oops, I arrived here by accident–my mistake–won’t happen again.

36. Emory Says: October 25th, 2004 at 2:12 am

    I should hope you wouldn’t make the same error twice.

37. Serbian National Says: October 25th, 2004 at 3:12 pm

    At least fuji wasn’t a flaming liberal. He, as a foreign observer, was able to look upon both sides of the issue and can agree with both sides about various points of this argument. That’s much more than I can say for, say, zoot potatoe, who proudly states that all Conservatives are Nazis. Just like all liberals are Commies, right? Exactly.

    President Bush did neither of those two things - lie about or even misrepresent the WMDs in Iraq. He was given information by his intelligence service, and when the CIA tells you that Iraq has WMDs, who are you to tell them “Like hell they do!” He was misrepresented to by his intelligence service, and its no fault of his own that this happened.

    I seriously doubt that the intelligence services of the United States of America, one of the best in the world, could have been completely wrong about all of this. There must have been some sort of fact base for their reports that stated that Saddam Hussein possessed or possessed the ability to create weapons that could be a threath to the rest of the world. These people don’t just pull intelligence reports out of the air, the don’t have a quota to fill for intelligence reports.

    Henk, your English is excellent. Are you taking classes?

38. bonniem Says: October 26th, 2004 at 12:02 am

    Our CIA was not the only ones who believed there were WMD’s.

39. bonniem Says: October 26th, 2004 at 12:10 am

    Of course Germany, Russia and France hate us! We messed up their little money making scheme in Iraq when we went in. They would have never ever, voted for us to go in much less join us, as long as they were making money off Sadamm and besides that Saddam didn’t hate them as they did the U>S and that happened long before we went in. Maybe it started when we got them our of Kuwait - but where I don’t believe they were part of 9/11, I do believe they would helped Al Queda or any of the terroist who hate us. And they don’t hate us because of what we have done. It started long before that!

40. Kinch Says: January 23rd, 2005 at 2:53 am

    the UN is good for some things. UN is useful for places like Africa, where water and supplies need to get to starving people. But the UN doesnt have an army (sure it has a security force, but that’s all us), it should not have a say about anything that involves conflict.

    Also… why does the UN let regime’s like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (yes, Iraq was in the UN) be in the
    UN.

    It should be the United Free Nations of the World.

41. Okie Dokie Says: February 1st, 2005 at 8:39 am

    Now the elections have been held in Iraq and the liberals have to shut up for 48 hours.

    Ah, blessed quiet.

    And Hillary fell on her butt/collapsed in public.

    Some days are markedly better than others.

42. B-Sprizzle Says: March 10th, 2005 at 3:26 am

    Maybe the liberals will shut up. But just because they do doesn’t change the fact that conservatives still suck at governing our great country. I give Bush all the credit in the world for doing what needed to be done in the Middle East. It’s still far from being done, but it needed to happen. But as far as America, Bush and conservatives prioritize corporate and private interests before the needs of the 12.4% of individuals in poverty.

43. Richard Williams Says: March 26th, 2005 at 6:23 am

    I’m just amazed at the way some people can still try to justify this “war” in Iraq as if it really was something that needed to be done.
    Iraq didn’t do one single thing to us. They had no weapons of mass destruction. They harbored no terrorists. They were not involved in 9/11.
    Now, considering that this is the truth, and it is, why did we attack some country the size of Utah that had done nothing to us? We’ve killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and I’d really like someone to tell me exactly why any of them had to be killed. I mean, we “freed” them from Saddam by killing them?

44. John Arndt Says: March 26th, 2005 at 6:46 pm

    Iraq didn’t do one single thing to us??? What about that scumbag who mixed the chemicals and detinated the bomb that blew up the WTC in ‘93, which was intended to knock over one of the towers resulting in 80,000+ deaths. Mr. Yasin escaped to Baghdad where he was put under protection and given a monthly salary from Hussein. Baghdad was also the official home of Abu Nidal, who killed many Americans and blew up airports around the world. Baghdad was also the safehouse for the murderers who killed Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair bound American who was pushed off the side of a ship. Hussein also paid suicide bombers in Israel, whom have killed many Americans. Husseins forces killed scores of Americans (and tortured many others) during his pathetic invasion of Kuwait. The Iraqi secret police were caught red-handed trying to kill former President Bush. The Iraqi forces fired missiles at American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone EVERYDAY for more than a decade. How about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was injured at the beginning of the Afgan war and taken to Baghdad for ’special’ treatment. I can go on and on. And spare me that ‘100,000 innocent Iraqi’s killed’. Just because Saddams henchmen removed their uniforms and blended into civilian society does not make them civilians nor innocent. How many thugs did Saddam employ to control and terrorize 25 million people? Probably at least 100,000, so I guess there’s probably a lot more ‘innocent civilians’ out there planting roadside bombs and blowing up restaurants.

45. Antonio Jaramillo Says: March 27th, 2005 at 7:13 am

    It’s amazing how people keep trying to manipulate information as well as the Bush administration.

    That’s a good try and a good idea though; let’s take the month with the least “combat (interesting term) casualties” and compare it to the deadliest city in the US at its worse.

    So here are the facts made simple:

    Manipulation Quote:
    “There were 39 combat related killings
    in Iraq during the month of January…”

    Fact:
    • First of all, in the month of January there were 51 American casualties. That is NOT COUNTING Iraqi civilians or coalition forces. Call it combat or not, those are dead American humans, consequence of this “miscalculated (Bush)” war.
    • But why January? Why not say…April? Or even more precisely, why not the monthly average? Let’s do some math:
    - Iraq war time = 18 months;
    - American casualties = 1007 (9/9/04);
    - Coalition casualties = 127;
    - Iraqi civilians = 11,793 < x < 13,802. Let’s take it easy and let x = 11,793.
    - Total casualties = 12,927
    - Average/month = 718 !!!
    What happened? Is there something wrong here? I know what you’re thinking. But those aren’t all combat killings. So if you really are one of those that think that those non-combat dead kids are not important, I did the math for you too:
    603/month. Hey….that’s not that baaad…..
    (Source: US Department of Defense. http://www.defenselink.mil/)

    Manipulation Quote:
    “In the fair city of Detroit there were
    35 murders in the month of January.”

    Fact:
    Define “fair”: how about the city with the highest murder rate in the US. So if you’re proud of 33.5/month, or 402/year02 murders in this city, you have problems. (Source: US Department of State. http://www.state.gov/)

    I see that you’re comparing the occupation Iraq with WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and N. Korea. If you really think there is any correlation between these, then you need to sit down and do a little bit of self-education. Even Bush admitted that this was a different kind of war. Comparing the Invasion of Iraq with WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and N. Korean war is absurd. I’m sorry that 12,927, one thousand of them American dead humans seem so small to you. You let me know how many deaths are significant enough for us to make us wonder.

    I see that you’re taking all of us who oppose the cruelty of the war and the scandalous policies, and identifying us as democrats and bias. By you doing that, and by automatically pouncing on people like Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno who coincidentally are members of the opposing Democratic Party, makes who bias?

    So let’s forget about all those dead children, women, and men; let’s forget that Bush hasn’t attended a single soldier funeral; let’s forget Bush’s use of the name of God to promote his atrocious foreign policy and political campaign; let’s forget the billions of bloody dollars that the Bush/Cheney liaisons such as Halliburton, and the Carlyle group made consequentially through unbidded contracts in Iraq; let’s forget the turnaround of the world respect towards the US that was forcefully deteriorated after 9/11; let’s forget the lack of respect from our president towards our troops by his sarcastic and ineloquent remarks at press conferences; let’s forget about partisanship, let’s forget about FOX news; let’s forget about Bush’s DUI and substance dependencies; let’s forget about lost jobs and poor marginal gain; let’s forget that $50million were invested in the Monica Lewinsky investigations while only $5million were invested into the Enron (one of Bush’s major campaign funders) investigation by the Bush people; let’s forget about our $7.5 trillion deficit due to irresponsible tax cuts to the elite (Bush’s base); let’s forget the never-found WMDs; let’s forget about the AWOL from the National Guard; Let’s forget the under-funding of our police force; let’s forget the under-funding of our veterans; let’s forget that we had the opportunity to catch Bin Ladin using our intelligence resources yet choosing an arrogant, large scale, and ineffective attack; let’s forget the flip-flopping of reasons to justify the invasion in Iraq; let’s forget the 17% Medicare premium increasing while promising decreasing; let’s forget about the 527 group soft money appropriations; let’s forget about right wingers characterizing people that question our government policies as “un-Americans”, “lefties”, “loose liberals”, and “sissies”;

    Let’s forget about what political party we’re affiliated with, and ask ourselves two questions.

    Are we really safer now?
    Were all those deaths worth it?

    I’m terrified.

46. Julian Says: March 28th, 2005 at 11:37 am

    John Arndt, your accuracy rate on the “facts” your report in comment 44 is approximately 20%. You need to re-evaluate your sources or have your memory checked.

47. Julian Says: March 28th, 2005 at 11:03 pm

    John Arndt,
    1. Yasin was imprisoned by Hussein in Baghdad in 1994.
    2. Nidal entered Baghdad and was assassinated by Hussein in 2002.
    3. Abbas, Klinghoffer’s murderer was found in Baghdad. But if harboring a murderer justifies and invasion, we have a lot of invading to do.
    4. I don’t know how many Americans killed by Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. But you apparently do know. So how many was it? I do know approximately how many innocent Panamanians were killed when the US invaded Panama to get Noreiga. Interested?
    5. Iraqi’s did plan to kill Hussein. But the CIA was plotting to kill him too. So I suppose that make us even on that count.
    6. The US wanted Iraqi anti-aircraft to fire at our jets. That’s why we intentionally flew over their sovereign airspace. It helps identify where the radars and anti-aircraft installations are located.
    7. Al-Zarqawi and Saddam were enemies (as were Saddam and bin Laden). Saddam hated any threats to his power. That’s why the US supported him as an ally for so long. He maintained control.
    8. The John’s Hopkins University study that was published in The Lancet showing that over 100,000 Iraqis died because of the invasion also showed that the vast majority of them were women and children. Easy targets but not the ones we should have been bombing.

48. Julian Says: March 28th, 2005 at 11:05 pm

    correction to #5
    5. Iraqi’s did plan to kill Bush. But the CIA was plotting to kill him too. So I suppose that make us even on that count.

49. Julian Says: March 28th, 2005 at 11:06 pm

    damn. one more try.
    5. Iraqi’s did plan to kill Bush. But the CIA was plotting to kill Hussein too. So I suppose that makes us even on that count.

50. John Arndt Says: March 29th, 2005 at 6:08 am

    Yasin was imprisoned by Hussein in ‘94?? Says who? Yasin and Hussein, that’s who. You are right Nidal was in Baghdad in 2002 (post 911)and if you can give me better details, but was it Saddam himself that murdered him? Apparently you know all the details. And I guess it was just coincidence that Abbas just happened to be in Baghdad at the time, as well. And are you talking about the civilians that Noriega deliberately put in front of harms way to defend himself after his countless coward terror acts?
    On #5, you blatently put yourself on the side of Saddam Hussein, (”I suppose that makes “us” even on that count”) which automatically makes you a pathetic piece of shit! On #6- Oh, now you’re back to “our jets”. Which side are you on? By the way, don’t we all want to be shot at? #7- Zarqawi(and al-Qaida) and Hussein were enemies? You earlier told me to have my memory checked, but I still can’t think of any al-Qaida/Baath Party conflicts, or wars or disagreements, Oh! Now I remember. Bin Laden once called Hussein an Infidel. Ouch! That was a few months after bin Laden released his videotape claiming he will “kill all infidels in the Mideast!” With enemies like these, who needs friends? On #8- Claiming we killed women and children because they were “easy targets”? Fucking sick, Julian!

51. Julian Says: March 29th, 2005 at 1:03 pm

    John Arndt, As for our assault on Panama, if you know the history of Panama you know that our invasion was bogus. And why is it that whenever the US drops bombs on civilian houses we say that our enemy put civilians in harm’s way? On point #8, according to the Pentagon’s own analysis, the first 100 cruise missles launched by the US during the “shock and awe” escapade missed their targets. Many hit civilian houses. It was Rumsfeld who originally said that Iraq was attractive because it held “easy targets.” The women and kids were collateral, not primary targets. But we are horrible shots with our missles and bombs. That’s just a fact.

52. Julian Says: March 29th, 2005 at 2:44 pm

    John Arndt,
    We started our exchange after you replied to Richard Williams with your list of justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Now, if you look back at your comments at #50 you are essentially admitting that the evidence that you used was ambiguous at best. I think that it is tragic, even pathetic, that we rationalize the murder of innocent people using ambiguous evidence. If we are going to allow our leaders to invade sovereign countries, we should at least require them to base their decisions on quality information.

    BTW, there was a Baath vs al Qaeda conflict. There is documented evidence that after Saddam invaded Kuwait Bin Laden made an offer to the Saudi government to use al Qaeda to dispose of Saddam, conditional upon the House of Saud asking the US to abandon our military bases in Saudi Arabia.

    As for Noriega, the one and only reason we went after him was that he was negotiating with Japanese contractors who were designing a new canal that would Panama would control (read John Parkins’s book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” for an insider’s account of the deal). The US will never let Panama control their own real estate. It’s too valuable to the US strategically.

    As for the G.H. Bush/ Saddam mutual assassination plans, if it was wrong for him to do wasn’t it wrong for us to do too?

    Whose side am I on? I am on the side of truth and awareness. To me the most terrifying thing is the self-destructive urge of some of my fellow Americans to follow, like lemmings, the neocons over the cliff.

    If you are following the political situation in Iraq, you will have noticed that the entire affair has backfired. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani, a guy who had his own army when he lived in Iran, is the dominant force in Iraqi politics now and our troops are in the awkward position of defending the Shia who see the Iranian Mullahs as their dearest brothers (the very ones that Bush said were the chief sponsors of terrorism in the world). The whole thing is Shakespearian. From the standpoint of US Middle East strategic policy, no one in the Bush administration ever could have imagined a more horrible nightmare scenario than what has unfolded. And yet, like lemmings, 40% of Americans still think the invasion was a good idea. The worst informed 40%.

53. LW Says: April 27th, 2005 at 3:43 pm

    Well said, Zack! But liberals and their stupid parrots will never see that. So sad, and even tragic.
    Good day.

54. Bill Says: June 7th, 2005 at 6:40 pm

    Just how far must you stick your collective heads up your collective butts to come up with your points of view? It must be very difficult to live like that. Why don’t you so called “conservatives” just stick your heads in the sand, like the typical bird brain….What group of total morons!

55. boy Says: October 6th, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    julian, thanks for providing intelligent and researched comments. we should all follow your lead and DO OUR HOMEWORK before opening our mouths

56. Joy Says: October 7th, 2005 at 4:24 pm

    I do love a good chess game.

57. used to be liberal Says: October 7th, 2005 at 11:18 pm

    at least conservatives think rationally before they speak, oh billy boy.

58. Jack Antilla Says: October 8th, 2005 at 3:02 am

    #57, for the most part, liberals do to. With the exception of the few morons they have, but those can be found on both sides.

59. Mike Williamson Says: May 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    I’m an immigrant, and American by choice. I am a 22 year veteran.

    Europhags: I really don’t care what you think over there in the Third World. At all. Go burn some Peugeots.

    “Liberals”: I hate you for stealing my title. I am a liberal. I support free speech, the right of the individual to invest and advance and capitalize to improve himself and our country, the right of self-determination, the right to dissent. You’re cookie-cutter dissenters like all the teenagers fighting the status quo by wearing the same uniform fashion purchased from Hot Topic. At first it was amusing. Now you’re just childish and stupid. Grow up.

    Both of you: While you’re at it, learn some history. President for life FDR imprisoned over 100,000 people based on their race or ethnicity, no trial needed. He confiscated their property and put them in concentration camps. Many died. He set the FBI spying on anyone he thought might be a spy–you know, with a German last name, and on anyone who might be “moral threat”–you know, single waitresses who might have sex with a soldier or sailor. He created massive federal bureaucracies that to this day do nothing productive for the economy, haven’t changed the poverty rate at all and cost us billions in welfare for “public servants” who are frequently unionized liberal filth with no marketable skills. (A degree in “American Studies” or “Art” doesn’t count. Try learning something useful and getting a real job.) In the end, when he proposed packing SCOTUS with 6 extra Justices of his choice, just so the court would rubberstamp his unconstitutional acts (which was pretty much all of them), even his own party abandoned him and refused to endorse it.

    If you can compare Bush to the putrid slime that was King Roosevelt with a straight face, you need to read a fifth grade social studies book, or put down the hash pipe, or both.

    And know that I hate you.

60. PopDaddy Says: June 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Poor US of A, I can hear it imploding. Which country will it be that offers help but really wants our resources and technology. The military will then come back to defend the homeland but in time, martial law will be needed to quell the anarchy. Which soldiers will appear to be putting down dissidents but instead residents. Thing do not look good for the US. Where is democracy and freedom of the press. We have freedom of speech, but it appears to be under attack too.

61. nutslikebush Says: June 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 am

    Here is a number that is shocking. Each and every American household currently owns $516,000 of the Federal budget deficit. I’m thinking that a lot of households could have trouble coming up with half a million dollars to cover their part of the federal budget deficit. The story is in today’s USA Today if you want to track it down. Perhaps we need a more rational way of financing our purchases at the federal level.

62. R.S.A Says: July 9th, 2007 at 5:47 am

    So basically what we are saying is that George has not learned anything from the mistakes of the past. The fact that he has borrowed more money from other countries in his term of office than all the presidents from Washington to Clinton added up together should tell you something. Who do you think is going to pay for it when he leaves office. Him? Its like having your stupid brother in law rack up your credit card and take off leaving the bills in your name. Iraq is a mistake that kills our kids. No war on terror to be fought there. Any terror there is caused by us occupying that country. People always fight an occupying force. We would do the same. God doesn’t anyone actually look at the numbers and figures? Its not about liberal or conservative. Its about us. Americans. Whose diversity has made us a power. Whose ability to use the best in everyone to make us great. Whether we agree or not. We will and have stand and stood together. Bush’s administration has set us apart from each other. Partisanship is wrong. We waste time fighting each other.

63. hahahaha Says: October 24th, 2007 at 11:15 am

    It’s very simple for all you “Dubya” supporters

    Look at the economy
    Why did we go to Iraq? What happened to “Mission Accomplished?”
    Why did we not turn Afghanistan into a kitty litter box after 9-11?
    Why does the number of dead matter? Iraq is not a war for us to fight so every death is that much worse.
    He is trying to provoke a war with Iran.
    Haliburton
    The Economy
    More time away than ever needed by anyone and he took it during a time of war, I would have been in the WH 24-7.
    Katrina
    Refusal of aid from Cuba during Katrina
    Shooting down health care for children
    The Economy, again
    Seperation of Church and State?
    AND
    IRAQ, again, WTF?

    I don’t care what you say, he is the WORST president in at least my life time. Make fun of me if you wish but I will never return to this site full of half witted views and theories that have no true research. You are all a bunch of Spin Doctors, you should work in the advertising industry, maybe Dubya can start another company for you but then again you would only be able to work for a few weeks before the company fails……. Who are the idiots who voted for this guy?

64. Kerol Says: January 25th, 2008 at 12:35 am

    I love this quote in the article: “It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.” Don’t you feel used yet? Don’t you feel like asses led into the voting booths with what we all know now are lies? I would be so incredibly mad if I were a Republican. The Bush administration has treated its base like a bunch of whores, and yet you persist in taking the abuse, even defending your abusers? Unbelievable. Unimaginable. I honestly feel sorry for you, but then again I don’t ever have to tell my children that I supported the Iraq War and the liars who started it, never supported taking away the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act, never supported the wholesale raping of the economy. I’m glad I never supported such extremism, but the purveyors of this website will never know that good feeling. They will forever be tied to the Great American Disaster (i.e. Bush and Friends), and that’s just the way it shook out, friends. Oh, and for the record, Bush Jr. is hands down the worst President we ever had. Bush’s lies make Clinton’s sex scandal look like Reagn eating jelly beans!

65. Kolran Says: January 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    ? confusing post to say the least… the “people on this website” do not share the same view on many issues. I’m glad your not a patriot. And you have ALOT of eye opening to do if you think Bush’s group is ‘extremist’. It’s idiots like you that make me think the world missed 9/11.

Leave a Reply