Bush says Americans frustrated by 'failure' of Congress to allo...

hertzer wrote:

anybody want to explain to me why, since we found all this yellow cake. why the hell are people still calling george bush a murderer? why don't people realize that these people are a threat to our way of life? why haven't the democrats appologized for the way they've treated this issue? what was this yellow cake for, a birthday party?

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
My problem is that Bush is totally incompetent, and I don't care what party he belongs to. In every case, in every part of our government, some program is broke, or some some policy is screwed up. And it is always someone who comes to the rescue.
Before I talk about the war, it is important to find out what makes him think the way he does. Bush has been controlled by Cheney, by Rumsfeld, by the neocons, and by the religious right. Bush also believes in ideology. It is tax cuts throughout, but he does not balance that with cuts in spending. It is free trade, but the midwest is a mess. Bush also believes in laissez-faire. As if the tax cuts will do the job and he does not have to worry about anything. He is always the Johnny come lately and the predictions on his budgets are ridiculous. He says he will balance the budget by 2012. Totally erroneous.
Now on to the war. We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was our mission to get him, after all it was Bush who said "wanted dead or alive." And we had him trapped in Tora Bora and Rumsfeld screwed that one up. Then Afghanistan slipped off the radar as the neocons wanted to go to Iraq. So we have been brainwashed over the next few months that we had to go to Iraq. And with this brainwashing we were led to believe that this was a war on terror. But how can you drop one guy for another. And especially when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The other thing is we had a policy to keep Iraq and Iran as equals. And everyone knew going into Iraq would be a quagmire. Cheney said it years before. And that is why Bush 41 told Schwartzkopt to stop short of Baghdad. And Bush 43 never consulted or even wanted to hear the other side of the story. It was all neocons with him, and the circle got smaller with yes men.
As far as Iraq having yellow cake, if that is the case, I could have seen doing something about it after we got Osama Bin Laden. Maybe that would make sense. But beyond that, if that is the case, then the case can be made to invade Iran which is three times bigger than Iraq. And never mind that half of Iran is westernized. Also North Korea may have some 10 nukes, since a Bush administration official has openly admitted that they had their minds on Iraq and could not deal with everything. So who knows. I can only tell you that Bush is the most incompetent person I have seen in the White House.
In contrast his father had the gulf war paid for and 500,000 troops. And because of all of the misjudgments and not having enough troops, there are more people that died than what had to be.

Slavic Baptist wrote:

<quoted text> Doesn't mean at all that Obama would be better.Dont forget, dems all did vote war war. And after 911 tragedy hussein was asked to open everything and get clean.Dont make yourself the general Zhukov.

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
My problem is that Bush is totally incompetent, and I don't care what party he belongs to. In every case, in every part of our government, some program is broke, or some some policy is screwed up. And it is always someone who comes to the rescue.
Before I talk about the war, it is important to find out what makes him think the way he does. Bush has been controlled by Cheney, by Rumsfeld, by the neocons, and by the religious right. Bush also believes in ideology. It is tax cuts throughout, but he does not balance that with cuts in spending. It is free trade, but the midwest is a mess. Bush also believes in laissez-faire. As if the tax cuts will do the job and he does not have to worry about anything. He is always the Johnny come lately and the predictions on his budgets are ridiculous. He says he will balance the budget by 2012. Totally erroneous.
Now on to the war. We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was our mission to get him, after all it was Bush who said "wanted dead or alive." And we had him trapped in Tora Bora and Rumsfeld screwed that one up. Then Afghanistan slipped off the radar as the neocons wanted to go to Iraq. So we have been brainwashed over the next few months that we had to go to Iraq. And with this brainwashing we were led to believe that this was a war on terror. But how can you drop one guy for another. And especially when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The other thing is we had a policy to keep Iraq and Iran as equals. And everyone knew going into Iraq would be a quagmire. Cheney said it years before. And that is why Bush 41 told Schwartzkopt to stop short of Baghdad. And Bush 43 never consulted or even wanted to hear the other side of the story. It was all neocons with him, and the circle got smaller with yes men.
As far as Iraq having yellow cake, if that is the case, I could have seen doing something about it after we got Osama Bin Laden. Maybe that would make sense. But beyond that, if that is the case, then the case can be made to invade Iran which is three times bigger than Iraq. And never mind that half of Iran is westernized. Also North Korea may have some 10 nukes, since a Bush administration official has openly admitted that they had their minds on Iraq and could not deal with everything. So who knows. I can only tell you that Bush is the most incompetent person I have seen in the White House.
In contrast his father had the gulf war paid for and 500,000 troops. And because of all of the misjudgments and not having enough troops, there are more people that died than what had to be.

Eyes Wide Shut wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that's not exactly right. Bush is not totally anything as he has never finished anything that he has attempted in life other than leaving a few companies and a country almost completely bankrupt

hertzer wrote:

obviously you weren't paying attention to this war. this war is totally successful. we brought down a dictator in iraq. we are now helping iraq build a democracy. to do that we have to stop the radicals that are keeping us down there. this shit doesn't happen overnight. terrorists are killing americans along with any other people that doesn't fit their agenda. and guess what? we don't! we are not at war with iraq anymore. we are helping iraq establish a democracy while dealing with terrorist. guess what, in wars, people die. if you check it out, we've lost more soldiers under clinton than under bush. and we weren't at war when clinton was in office. explain that. i could... george hit back! they are not as strong as they used to be, because they are always on the run. they are always on the run because under no circumstance will we stop to get them. in this world you are either the lamb or the lion. the lamb never made it!

Derek wrote:

<quoted text>
You are a complete moron !

Gerry wrote:

<quoted text>
My problem is that Bush is totally incompetent, and I don't care what party he belongs to. In every case, in every part of our government, some program is broke, or some some policy is screwed up. And it is always someone who comes to the rescue.
Before I talk about the war, it is important to find out what makes him think the way he does. Bush has been controlled by Cheney, by Rumsfeld, by the neocons, and by the religious right. Bush also believes in ideology. It is tax cuts throughout, but he does not balance that with cuts in spending. It is free trade, but the midwest is a mess. Bush also believes in laissez-faire. As if the tax cuts will do the job and he does not have to worry about anything. He is always the Johnny come lately and the predictions on his budgets are ridiculous. He says he will balance the budget by 2012. Totally erroneous.
Now on to the war. We were attacked by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It was our mission to get him, after all it was Bush who said "wanted dead or alive." And we had him trapped in Tora Bora and Rumsfeld screwed that one up. Then Afghanistan slipped off the radar as the neocons wanted to go to Iraq. So we have been brainwashed over the next few months that we had to go to Iraq. And with this brainwashing we were led to believe that this was a war on terror. But how can you drop one guy for another. And especially when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
The other thing is we had a policy to keep Iraq and Iran as equals. And everyone knew going into Iraq would be a quagmire. Cheney said it years before. And that is why Bush 41 told Schwartzkopt to stop short of Baghdad. And Bush 43 never consulted or even wanted to hear the other side of the story. It was all neocons with him, and the circle got smaller with yes men.
As far as Iraq having yellow cake, if that is the case, I could have seen doing something about it after we got Osama Bin Laden. Maybe that would make sense. But beyond that, if that is the case, then the case can be made to invade Iran which is three times bigger than Iraq. And never mind that half of Iran is westernized. Also North Korea may have some 10 nukes, since a Bush administration official has openly admitted that they had their minds on Iraq and could not deal with everything. So who knows. I can only tell you that Bush is the most incompetent person I have seen in the White House.
In contrast his father had the gulf war paid for and 500,000 troops. And because of all of the misjudgments and not having enough troops, there are more people that died than what had to be.

Healthy Skeptic wrote:

As a post script, oil has gone down in the past few days. Last week, some oil traders were brought before congress on charges that they have been "banging the close" on oil in attempts to drive up the price. Now Congress has these bloodsuckers running scared and oil is falling back down to a more reasonable level. DOn't listen to Bush, he's just a partisan hack who never took responsibility for anything.

taroB wrote:

The price will continue to go down to assure the election of McSame.
Just like the price of gas falling before the 06 mid-term elections to assure that republicants held office.
If the most powerful lobby with the deepest pockets wanted to drill anywhere in the USA (like the lawn of the White House)they could do it with the snap of a finger. The "tree huggers" have ZERO political clout when compared with the oil barons.

Pappa wrote:

<quoted text>
If memory serves, the democraps took over in '06. Kinda makes your claim pretty dumb, huh?