Bush: The worst president ever?
- Thread starter No Limit
- Start date
- Status
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, and do you not agree that a balanced budget is the most important issue? Do you understand that if we go at the rate Bush is going (he doesn't want to slow down the spending) China will be in charge of our economy? If you think that won't be a disaster and Clinton getting head is much worse there is no reasoning with you.
No, remember that the Republicans are great at running smear campaigns. Look up that Gore thing on Snopes.com ; it is absolutely false and it was invented by your Republican friends to smear Gore. What he said was that he took initiatives to help spread the internet in this country which is absolutely true.
Yes, they pull out of the agreement 4 years in to Bush's administration and they said they do not want to work with Bush. Are you really going to blame Clinton for that?
Funny, before the memo I mentioned came out last year Republicans were quick to blame 9/11 on Clinton; most still do. At least you have some sense (I have this feeling you believe that because of that memo).
Yes, but you are quick to blame everything on Clinton even 5 years after his presidency; so blaming oil prices on Bush seems reasonable. The fact that Bush had prices lowered before the election also doesn't help his image.
Okay, you agree that Clinton knew how to run an economy; great. Now by the same token and to add a little reasoning do you admit that Bush is destroying this economy?
How about Iraq? I love how you say Samolia was a failed mission and Clinton shouldn't have gone in there when thousands were getting killed. But when Bush changes his justification for the Iraq war to saying Saddam was a bad man you give him a free pass.
Clinton said that in 1998. Do you remember what else was going on in 1998? Let me give you a hint:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
This was to put pressure on Saddam to comply and he did. Clinton didn't go in and bomb the entire country and get thousands of our troops killed and thousands more innocent civilians. Bush on the other hand did when Saddam was in full compliance with the international community. Also, look at that again. He went in there with full international support. He also said this was the last chance Saddam had to comply; and guess what; HE COMPLIED and as we know and as we knew when Bush ordered the invasion (as the international community knew) there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Okay, you are right on Truman. I think the poll numbers I looked at might had been from the beginning of his term.
Are you kidding me? His affairs were dragged in to public light because your Republican friends wanted to completely destroy him. It had nothing to do with the media. Kennedy was never impeached for having sex and Clinton certainly shouldn't have; just another example of Republicans abusing their power to get media attention to the scandal; if congress did this to Kennedy the media would also have been all over it.
Yes, Bush is a monster. However, I have back up for that claim; you don't have any back up to say Clinton was a monster. I, unlike you, can admit there are some good Republicans out there and there have been Republican presidents out there that I respect.
Now you said Clinton was worse than Bush which I know you know is absolutely insane but lets break it down; these are the issues that you say made clinton bad:
Clinton did nothing regarding foreign policy other than **** up our military.
I find you saying that a little strange since later you talk about how Clinton bombed Iraq to get them to comply; how Clinton went in to Somalia. Then you talk about how Clinton worked with North Koreans. Let me give you some more:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/clinton.htm
Can you explain to me how this is doing nothing with foreign policy?
Now lets look at what Bush did, he invaded a country when there was no need to and killed thousands. Iraq is now a hot bed for terrorists with a few hundred people dying daily. He ruined our image around the world. He is allowing China to run our economy. He let Osama get away by giving the job of capturing him to foreign radicals. North Korea pulled out of talks 4 years in to his term. Our image around the world and especially around the Middle East is so ****ed that it might never be repaired. Afghanistan is totally out of control and on the verge of serious terrorist attacks.
I will admit Bush had a couple successes such as in Lebanon but his failures far out weight the good.
And you are going to tell me Bush is better on foreign policy?
And your other reason is that Clinton couldn't keep strains off a dress.
Compare that to this list and what I said:
http://www.alternet.org/story/22057
And you are going to try and bullshit me that you really think Bush is a better president? Are you blind to what is going on around the world (to what Bush caused)?
seinfeldrules
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,385
- Reaction score
- 0
I have my reasons, you have yours. You cannot claim that I am not allowed to hold my own opinions. There are no factual outcomes in scenarios like this, I think you are failing to recognize that. Furthermore, just because I listed three Dem Presidents doesnt mean I hate them all. FDR did a pretty damn fine job turning this country around and his far left actions were needed at the time.
No, foreign policy is.
Do you think they magically produced nuclear weapons months after they pulled out of the agreement? No, it doesnt happen overnight. They were clearly working on their technology while we were still living up to Clinton's end of the bargain.
Bush is doing what he can with his inherited recession.
Where is your answer there? If Clinton was serious about the mission then he should have actually done something. He half assed the mission there and was quite clear.
So that means Bush was justified with his intel. Clinton agreed 100% that Iraq was a major threat to US and world peace.
After he kicked the inspectors out.... again. By the time Saddam realized we were serious this time around it was too late for him.
Refer to Clinton's quote.
You really need to open your eyes. The society of the 1960s and that of the 1990s are very different. Remember that JFK was a Dem too.
So do I. Just because you dont like my reasons really doesnt bother me.
NK= Failure
Somalia= Failure
Military cuts= Failure (intel! humvees!)
Iraq= night of his impeachment, Saddam still disobeyed the UN under Bush.
Yes, he is actually doing something rather than the 'sit back and wait' approach. It is about time somebody sent the message that ****ing with America will no longer be tolerated.
It is a reason yes. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Who are you kidding Billy Boy?
BaconIsGood4You
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 0
All the above, and more, is why I contend that George W. Bush is the worst president EVER. Hands down, no one else even comes close.
-No one comes close? Not Johnson or Grant? Thats a very strong statement and is obviously seeded with a personal grudge against Bush.
Herbert Hoover may have triggered the Great Depression, but he didn't invade another nation on false pretenses, authorize torture of prisoners, or try to stack the courts. Franklin Roosevelt did try to stack the courts but Congress said "no" and he said "OK," and went on the save the world from fascism and secure the lives of America's elderly by creating Social Security -- which Bush now wants to subvert.
-Hoover did not trigger the Great Depression, the FED and governmental regulation did.
-"Invade another nation on false pretenses, authorize torture of prisoners, or try to stack the courts" This statement is completly false.
-FDR tried to kick out justices that were 70 or older because they were not "fit" after they found the AAA and NRA unconstitutional (which they were). Bush selecting justices of his political belief is hardly stacking the courts.
-Social Security has set the US up for a fall with the baby boomers and only hurts Americans (but thats a whole 'nother debate).
Johnson and Nixon did fight an illegal and immoral war but Johnson lifted millions out of poverty and got the Civil Rights Act passed, much to his own party's determent. Nixon tried to subvert the Constitution but was caught and thrown out of office before he could succeed.
-Johnson was a simple opportunist and politician, he saw the want and the future and tried to take his place in history.
-Nixon...Watergate...him not getting away with it doesn't make the act any worse.
But I fear it's too late to stop George W. Bush and his band of right-wing revolutionaries. We have let them get too far along now to stop them. We have let them neutralize too many constitutional checks and balances. And once they deep-six the filibuster it truly will be game over.
-Filibuster's fine, a limit might be set on it, but that's pretty reasonable considering how the filibuster can be abused. I sense either a decade or so of Republican rule (Social conservatism and big, but not as big, government) or a severe backlash, based on future economy and Iraq.
Yes, the Democrats have begun to fight, but too little and now too late. The only recourse soon will be public demonstrations of the kind and size not seen here since the 1970s.
-Oh please, I'm sick of protests. No one actually pays any attention about "uncivil" protest which is pretty much just an angry mob. Protesting just makes you look immature and irrational. Lobby, petition, get active in politics, use art, don't just yell and wave some offensive sign.
-No one comes close? Not Johnson or Grant? Thats a very strong statement and is obviously seeded with a personal grudge against Bush.
Herbert Hoover may have triggered the Great Depression, but he didn't invade another nation on false pretenses, authorize torture of prisoners, or try to stack the courts. Franklin Roosevelt did try to stack the courts but Congress said "no" and he said "OK," and went on the save the world from fascism and secure the lives of America's elderly by creating Social Security -- which Bush now wants to subvert.
-Hoover did not trigger the Great Depression, the FED and governmental regulation did.
-"Invade another nation on false pretenses, authorize torture of prisoners, or try to stack the courts" This statement is completly false.
-FDR tried to kick out justices that were 70 or older because they were not "fit" after they found the AAA and NRA unconstitutional (which they were). Bush selecting justices of his political belief is hardly stacking the courts.
-Social Security has set the US up for a fall with the baby boomers and only hurts Americans (but thats a whole 'nother debate).
Johnson and Nixon did fight an illegal and immoral war but Johnson lifted millions out of poverty and got the Civil Rights Act passed, much to his own party's determent. Nixon tried to subvert the Constitution but was caught and thrown out of office before he could succeed.
-Johnson was a simple opportunist and politician, he saw the want and the future and tried to take his place in history.
-Nixon...Watergate...him not getting away with it doesn't make the act any worse.
But I fear it's too late to stop George W. Bush and his band of right-wing revolutionaries. We have let them get too far along now to stop them. We have let them neutralize too many constitutional checks and balances. And once they deep-six the filibuster it truly will be game over.
-Filibuster's fine, a limit might be set on it, but that's pretty reasonable considering how the filibuster can be abused. I sense either a decade or so of Republican rule (Social conservatism and big, but not as big, government) or a severe backlash, based on future economy and Iraq.
Yes, the Democrats have begun to fight, but too little and now too late. The only recourse soon will be public demonstrations of the kind and size not seen here since the 1970s.
-Oh please, I'm sick of protests. No one actually pays any attention about "uncivil" protest which is pretty much just an angry mob. Protesting just makes you look immature and irrational. Lobby, petition, get active in politics, use art, don't just yell and wave some offensive sign.
gh0st
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Messages
- 6,023
- Reaction score
- 0
Hoover didnt start the great depression. Secretary of the Treasury Mellon (?) put us on the road to depression as a result of his efforts to reduce our huge defecit. I dont recall the specifics. In addition to his fiscal plans, America was overproducing, overspeculating, and underconsuming. To blame is on a president is laughable and moronic. That said, Hoover wasent a very good president, but he certainly wasent the worst.
Jackson was NOT the worst president, not by a long shot. In time and place, his hostility toward the Indians was as much a states rights argument as anything. He did great things for America, as did his supreme court - he is ranked somewhere among the top 10 greatest presidents in history.
Bush is not the worst president, though I feel very little good has come from his presidency. Many of the articles points are knee jerk and fail to realize context, as many of you are eager to do.
Nixon is not the worst president either. Nor is Clinton. In my opinion, Grant was the worst president (historians often rate him among the lowest), though he, like clinton, presided over a period of economic boom, his presidency was riddled with scandal after scandal.
My top ten would be this (in no particular order)
Thomas Jefferson - Literally the smartest, most forward thinking human this nation has ever birthed, doubled our nation.
Theodore Roosevelt - Simply beastly, an awesome foreign policy and world view
Franklin D Roosevelt - Gained economic momentum post depression, invented many social programs we have today
Eisenhower - Beat those commies, CREATED modern economic and cultural america through compassionate conservatism
Lincoln - Won the civil war
Jackson - "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes."
Madison - War of 1812, Federalist Papers, key player in the constitution and brilliant human being.
Wilson - Progressive leader, did well pre WW1, stumbled in league of nations and 14 points
Washington - The father of our country. Great leader, defined the presidency.
Reagan - BEAT RUSSIA.
Jackson was NOT the worst president, not by a long shot. In time and place, his hostility toward the Indians was as much a states rights argument as anything. He did great things for America, as did his supreme court - he is ranked somewhere among the top 10 greatest presidents in history.
Bush is not the worst president, though I feel very little good has come from his presidency. Many of the articles points are knee jerk and fail to realize context, as many of you are eager to do.
Nixon is not the worst president either. Nor is Clinton. In my opinion, Grant was the worst president (historians often rate him among the lowest), though he, like clinton, presided over a period of economic boom, his presidency was riddled with scandal after scandal.
My top ten would be this (in no particular order)
Thomas Jefferson - Literally the smartest, most forward thinking human this nation has ever birthed, doubled our nation.
Theodore Roosevelt - Simply beastly, an awesome foreign policy and world view
Franklin D Roosevelt - Gained economic momentum post depression, invented many social programs we have today
Eisenhower - Beat those commies, CREATED modern economic and cultural america through compassionate conservatism
Lincoln - Won the civil war
Jackson - "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes."
Madison - War of 1812, Federalist Papers, key player in the constitution and brilliant human being.
Wilson - Progressive leader, did well pre WW1, stumbled in league of nations and 14 points
Washington - The father of our country. Great leader, defined the presidency.
Reagan - BEAT RUSSIA.
JoeCLawrence
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
Bush is by no means the worst president, though he isn't particularly good. If you ask me he is about on par with Johnson, who didn't just handle Vietnam poorly, he practically started it. Under Kennedy we were pulling out, but Johnson intentionally escalated Vietnam and then things pretty much went to hell. Nixon was really bad. He screwed up Vietnam even more before destroying confidence in the government with Watergate and while spending your tax money to pursue his "enemies." Johnson (or was it Jackson?) takes the cake for that whole Indian genocide thing.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Really? So China, which is the worlds second largest power owning our economy isn't as important as invading Iraq? Do you understand if China put an embargo on buying US bonds our entire country would probably fail over night. As far as I know Iraq isn't comparable.
No, they probably produced them long ago. However, there was no evidance at the time of Clinton's administration that they had these. So let me ask you this, what did you want Clinton to do? Invade a country with nuclear weapons? If that is the right thing to do why isn't your buddy Bush sending everything we got at them? I think the answer is simple. What Clinton did was work with North Korea to slow/stop their nuclear program in exchange for aid. This worked well and it was the only thing that you could do (unless you can give me a better idea). Now here is what you buddy Bush did, prior to 9/11 when he first came in to office he publicly said he didn't have a north korea policy; real smart. His policy didn't come in until after 9/11 when he declared them the axis of evil. Another smart foregin policy move. When North Korea saw us invade one of the countries on the axis of evil list without any international support they became extremely hostile, drew out of talks, and soon after annouced they had nukes. Now I might be a little too reasonable for you but this seems like Clinton 1 Bush -1122 in the foreign policy department; unless you see Bush doing something useful against North Korea please point it out.
Yeah he is doing a lot by giving tax cuts and running up 7 trillion dollar deficits. Yes, I won't dispute that the economy was on a slow down turn when Clinton left and 9/11 made it worse; but when you are in time of war you do not increase spending while lowering taxes which alone costs us 1.1 trillion. And again, he is not willing to cut his spending. His best attempt was to cut things like education, welfare and other programs for the poor which didn't put a dent in anything. Yes, he didn't get the best economy when he started; but neighter did Clinton, your claim that Clinton was handed a good economy is absolute BS:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
Look at the totals:
From 1988 - 1992 Bush Sr. was running up huge deficits with -290 in 1992. By 09 Clinton got a surplus of over 125. IThat surplus continued in to Bush's term 2001 when we all know what happened. So yes, Bush got a shitty deal with 9/11 but again, you do not cut taxes and increase spending when that happens. Now look at that CBO site again; thanks to Bush we are now at a record deficit in 2004 for 427 Billion and it will be even higher this year. You have got to be insane to say that Clinton got a good economy and then ruined it. Bush got record revenues handed to him in 2000; I don't know how you can accept people like Hannity telling you different when the data is right there for everyone to see.
yeah, because of your republican friends that were putting extreme pressure on him to get out. I am not saying the missing was right but for you to give Bush a free pass and not give Clinton one is sickening.
What intel? Did you read what I said? The intel was weapon inspectors from the UN doing their job. When Saddam kicked those inspectors out he was clearly playing games so Clinton bombed them and said you have one more chance to comply before a full invasion. This made Saddam comply and thousands of lives were saved. Bush sent our troops in there when Saddam was doing nothing wrong and following all the UN resolutions by allowing inspectors.
When Bush went in there Saddam was in full compliance.
Yes, I am aware he was a dem. But congress didn't hold hearings about his sex life; now did they?
Look in quote, I address all your points.
I already explained to you how this is wrong. Nobody was ****ing with America prior to 9/11. After 9/11 the people ****ing with America were part of Al Queda led by Osama; remember that guy? I hope you do, because Bush has completely forgotten about him. In the last year I think he mentioned him once. Again, yeah, sure he is really doing something.
The real question is did your Republican friends even have a right to ask that question. But lets stick to more important issues for now, that's just the best dirt you got on Clinton so I know you need to bring it up everytime.
I also find it distrubing your best example of Clinton's lie is "I did not have sexual relations with that women" but I am yet to hear you condem the Bush administration for lying about Patrick Tillman's death for over a month after it happened.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Really how so? If you are going to say their statement is false tell me how.
FDR didn't try to end the fillibuster to get all his nominations through unopposed; Bush did.
You might not like it but some people do. The main point the author tried to make was all the democrats in this country standing up and fighting as our senators are failing to do.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Here is a good explaination of how much share China has in our country and this is going up yearly:iyfyoufhl said:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/225167_krugman22.html
Once those bonds stop being bought our economy will be a disaster. But of course; according to Republicans like seinfieldrules, Iraq was a much more important issue and Bush is running his foreign policy much better than Clinton. :dozey:
seinfeldrules
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,385
- Reaction score
- 0
China knows it is walking a two way street. They need our money and we need their goods. Remember that they have a billion people to feed, without a continous supply of money that could prove quite difficult.
There was evidence during his administration that they were building them, that is why Clinton created the treaty which supposedly stopped their program. The bottom line is that his negotiations didnt work and NK basically ignored him.
Take a harder line on NK that would have produced results, not nukes.
They were building them at that time.
He may have slowed it, but all he was really doing was passing the buck on down the line.
I see Bush regaining America's military respect around the world. Countries like Iraq and NK would basically tool around with America almost daring us to invade knowing that we wouldnt. Its now a very different picture. Terrorists arent allowed to roam free in places like Afghanistan anymore as they were doing during the Clinton era. Remember that Clinton had his own episodes of terrorism that you seem to be forgetting. USS Cole, WTC 1 as a few examples.
The opposite happened however, Clinton was handed an economy on the upwards path. Bush was clearly handed an economy headed south.
It was an attempt to jump start the economy.
Saddam had kicked the inspectors out months before Bush invaded. Bush and Clinton clearly agreed that Iraq had WMD and was a major threat to world peace.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610462/U_S_-Iraq_War_of_2003.html
At that moment in time he was, but you need to look back a few months.
They were for decades. We have Lebanon, USS Cole, WTC 1, hostage crisis, African embassy bombings, etc.
That was the army.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
I think you have it mixed up, it is us that need the 300 billion a year they lend us; not them. You are right if you are saying they are doing this to purposely give their money less value but that is a much smaller problem for them than it would be for us if they stopped buy those bonds. And you are kind of missing the point, is making sure China doesn't control our economy less important than Iraq?
And you have no proof that they didn't actually stop. For all we know they could have built them during Bush's term right after 9/11. Yes, it would imply that they had the capability to build them before Bush but still not a plus for Bush.
Really? As far as I know only a small part of Kabul is actually in control of the Afgahn government and there is intelligence that terrorists will begin all out attacks there soon. Iraq was absolutely free of terrorism before Bush invaded; now they are the perfect place for terrorists to roam. I love how you guys always bring up terrorism but terrorism here killed barely anything if you compare it to the scale that a nuke going off from NK or China destroying our economy would do.
What military respect are you talking about? You do realize NK could give a crap less about how much military we have; invading them is simply not an option (I think you will agree).
Umm...do you have a source for this? I know that the inspectors were on the ground 48 hours before we invaded. I don't recall them ever being kicked out months before that.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
Again, when Bush invaded Saddam was in full compliance.
I don't recall Clinton ever saying Saddam had WMDs; what he said was that we need to stop them from ever getting that capability hence why he said Saddam was dangerous when he kicked the inspectors out.
How can you claim that when the CBO source I posted disputes what you just said. Do you have some numbers for me to look at? Again, the numbers I posted from the non-partisan CBO directly contradict that claim.
And it clearly didn't work so why does Bush again want to make them perminent?
Again, I could be wrong but I think he was in compliance because of pressure in 2002. That compliance was what Bush said would stop the invasion; Bush lied.
USS Cole happened in October of 2000, right as Clinton was leaving office; hardly anything he could do. WTC 1 was during Bush's presidency and we did catch the ones responsible. The other acts of terrorism were there and Clinton was certainly active in that regard; no less active than Bush was before 9/11. Again, Bush got a memo that said Osama was going to attack us using planes, he did nothing.
Yes, it was the army but it was the army led by Bush, the commander in chief. I can't buy that Bush or his close advisors had nothing to do with it.
I don't have a lot of time as I am at work so if I missed any point you made please let me know.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/
I want you to tell me where Saddam didn't comply with the resolution that Bush said would avoid war. Combine that with this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
and I hardly think Bush really wanted to avoid war. That is the bottom line and it makes him a complete liar and a horrible president for sending our troops in to combat and destroying an entire nation. If you can provide me specific examples of where Saddam didn't comply I will revist my stance on this; but if you can't I really do hope you revisit yours.
I want you to tell me where Saddam didn't comply with the resolution that Bush said would avoid war. Combine that with this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
and I hardly think Bush really wanted to avoid war. That is the bottom line and it makes him a complete liar and a horrible president for sending our troops in to combat and destroying an entire nation. If you can provide me specific examples of where Saddam didn't comply I will revist my stance on this; but if you can't I really do hope you revisit yours.
seinfeldrules
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,385
- Reaction score
- 0
Nor do i have time until tomorrow.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Okay, I'll wait for SPECIFIC examples of how Iraq didn't comply with UN resolution 1441 until tomorrow. BTW, stay away from newsmax; I already am aware of their articles and those articles have been debunked.seinfeldrules said:
Cole
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Messages
- 6,430
- Reaction score
- 1
Heres my version of the future,
We have found a super heat conductor allowing nuclear fusion, causing the middle east and african oil plant dependent nations to collapse. The tech was developed by the U.S. causing more hatred twords us from the middle east, thus in the end a nuclear war happens (aka WW3) and then after a few humans start reproducing WW4 happens and is fought with sticks n stones effectivly killing the human race.
We die 100% becuz of a war fought with sticks n stones.
We have found a super heat conductor allowing nuclear fusion, causing the middle east and african oil plant dependent nations to collapse. The tech was developed by the U.S. causing more hatred twords us from the middle east, thus in the end a nuclear war happens (aka WW3) and then after a few humans start reproducing WW4 happens and is fought with sticks n stones effectivly killing the human race.
We die 100% becuz of a war fought with sticks n stones
.
seinfeldrules
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,385
- Reaction score
- 0
No, no. You said from 2000-2003. Also, I already had the quote in one of my responses:
Important section in italics.
You can also see here that Saddam had halted inspections from 1998 onwards: (I pulled out the biggies)
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm#1998
1998-
12 Jan: Iraq announces that it will bar further inspections by UNSCOM team led by Scott Ritter because of "imbalance" of US and UK inspectors.
20-23 Feb: UN Secretary-General visits Iraq and reaches an agreement with Baghdad for limited inspections of presidential sites
2 Mar: UNSC adopts RES 1154 endorsing agreement between UNSCOM Chief Ekeus and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Aziz, warns of severest consequences if Baghdad fails to heed agreement
5 Aug: Iraq's RCC and Ba'ath Party Command halt cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA, end no-notice inspections; monitoring activities are allowed to continue
31 Oct: UNSC press statement condemns Iraq, calls move a flagrant violation of UN resolutions Saddam ends all cooperation with UNSCOM
14 Nov: Saddam allows UNSCOM to return to Iraq
19 Dec: Iraq declares that UNSCOM will never be allowed back in Iraq
2000-
30 Nov: Iraq rejects UN Secretary-General offer to discuss weapons inspections
2002-
12 Sep: UNSC begins discussion on Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions
17 Sep: Iraq says it will permit UN weapons inspections
What its 4 years later at this point?
Well, I'm in the process of graduating so I probably wont have much time for any more of these responses over the next month or so.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
No, my last question was about resolution 1441 passed in 2002. This is the resolution that Bush said would avoid war if saddam complied. My question is simple and based on that the following are not valid:seinfeldrules said:
The following address my question but are totally wrong or off point:
And what were the results of this investigationg? This is not an answer to my simple question.
They did:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.un/
http://www.sptimes***/archive/times/821/rest/r_7923.htm
(I swear to God, if you say the second source isn't good I will literally puke; I don't have time to look for a better one as I am going to bed but I doubt anyone disputes that the inspectors returned to Iraq.)
Now with that said you still haven't provided me with an example. Just the fact that you can't think of a true one should mean you agree bush lied his ass off when he said if Saddam complied war would be avoided. The fact you won't admit this based on what you know is an example of how partisanship is destroying this country. I am going to bed and probably won't be back until next tuesday so in the mean time examine the resolution that Bush said would avoid war at:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
and then tell me how Saddam didn't follow that resolution.
Good, but if you can't think of anything off the top of your head and at the same time say Bush isn't a ****ing liar sickens me. Until you can find something where saddam didn't comply you should assume Bsh lied, but you will never admit that.
Raziaar
I Hate Custom Titles
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,769
- Reaction score
- 140
Vegas at night sucks. You'd think there'd be somebody... SOMEBODY there who plays anything else in their vehicle than the people who blare rap music so loud you can hear it before you make it into vegas. Their bass and stuff just rumbles the streets and they think they're cool. Heh.
I'd pay someone 100 bucks to roll down the strip at night blaring polka music just for fun.
I'd pay someone 100 bucks to roll down the strip at night blaring polka music just for fun.
Raziaar
I Hate Custom Titles
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,769
- Reaction score
- 140
No Limit said:Hey, I love the rap music; and so do the ladies
More power to ya. And no, all the ladies don't like rap music. 'trust' me on this.
Only the type that like to hang out with gangster wannabes like it.
seinfeldrules
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,385
- Reaction score
- 0
Did you not read what I posted? Saddam was in non compliance for four years, right up until a few months before US invasion. Clinton's bombings didnt work. As I said, Saddam was merely playing games with the US and the UN. When things got too hot they would comply for a few months, then once attention was shifted they would resume their belligerance.
...
Worst President ever, anyone?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090073/posts
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey11102004.html
Funny enough, I got that link from Kirovmin, who said he googled it, and it came up with how he was a bad president. These were just the first two off of that google list. I see Democrats all over pointing out all the bad things about GWB. None of the good things are mentioned. (One has to take the good with the bad, after all.) It seems to me that Democrats don't focus on helping other people, only screwing the other party over.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090073/posts
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey11102004.html
Funny enough, I got that link from Kirovmin, who said he googled it, and it came up with how he was a bad president. These were just the first two off of that google list. I see Democrats all over pointing out all the bad things about GWB. None of the good things are mentioned. (One has to take the good with the bad, after all.) It seems to me that Democrats don't focus on helping other people, only screwing the other party over.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Sorry it took me so long.
I couldn't find anywhere that Iraq didn't allow access to scientists but I did find this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2734991.stm
Maybe you have a source.
You are missing what I am saying, the fact that they weren't in compliance before 2002 is irrelevent; Bush said resolution 1441 would stop war if Iraq followed it. My question is what part of resolution 1441 did they not follow (see below about you 2 examples).
I couldn't find anywhere that Iraq didn't allow access to scientists but I did find this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2734991.stm
Maybe you have a source.
Show me a source, as far as I recall they provided thousands of pages of their records which we now know were accurate.
T.H.C.138
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 0
didn't Saddam and his sons have to step down/turn themselves in as part of the "no war" deal? maybe I'm thinking of something else...
I just seem to remember Bush gave Saddam some kind of notice about things and thats when he didn't comply..not that this makes what is going on ok,but perhaps this is where some of the confusion about compliance comes from?
I wish none of these fools were in power..why can't the world compromise more often about important things dammit?!
I just seem to remember Bush gave Saddam some kind of notice about things and thats when he didn't comply..not that this makes what is going on ok,but perhaps this is where some of the confusion about compliance comes from?
I wish none of these fools were in power..why can't the world compromise more often about important things dammit?!
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
What good things should we point out about Bush? I can't think of anything big that was good that he really deserves credit for. Maybe you can help me out.Dag said:
Your posting on Free Republic is a classic example of how idiotic the Republicans can be:
FDR won WWII and saved the world from Nazi occupation; Saddam was never a threat to anyone and Bush knew this as the new Downing Street memo shows. FDR led us out of depression; Bush is driving us there. The real question is does anyone with a right mind believe FDR was worse than Bush? I think they are alone on that one.
True, but they didn't **** anything else up. Kennedy fought for human rights and freedom, Bush is trying to destroy them.
The Sudan thing is a flat out lie, Sudan never offered Osama to us.
Bosnia was a mess and needed to be stabilized as thousands of civillians were dying. Our mission there was limited and was there for keeping peace; we never invaded the country. Russia helped us with this.
Again, the real question is what idiot believes Clinton was worse than Bush? The American people think he was much better as he left with almost a 70% approval rating; Bush's is below 50% and continues to spiral down.
More like he destroyed at least 1 country and left the other out to dry. Iraq is on the verge of civil war with hundreds dying almost daily and Afgan's are ran by a drug economy with the governmeny only controlling the capitol. Again, more than 70% of americans disagree with that freepers idiotic comment as the support for war is down in the 30% range.
I would have said he did in 2002 but then he simply left it at that and now the Taliban is reforming and a strike by them is expected soon.
Please, that makes me want to laugh. Maybe the freeper forgot Osama; don't blame him as Bush hasn't mantioned Bin Laden's name in ages (once last year).
I'll give him that.
No we lost 1600 soldiers so far. And can anyone please tell me what Bush has done to stop another attack? The borders are still unsafe and terrorists can ship pretty much anything they want in to this country through the ports.
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Nope, that doesn't appear anywhere in the resolution.T.H.C.138 said:
I am waiting for Seinfeld to give me a accurate list of where Saddam didn't comply; still didn't get factual ones as far as I can see. I'll have to wait for him to respond though.
T.H.C.138
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 861
- Reaction score
- 0
ok I guess I was thinking of something else..I do remember hearing something about that (the Hussien family stepping down) in the week or so leading up to this insanity,I just can't remember what it was in connection with..oh well,not like it matters much anymore..
BTW I was directing the "blind and deaf" statement yesterday at EVERYONE,myself included..I just wanted to clear that up!
BTW I was directing the "blind and deaf" statement yesterday at EVERYONE,myself included
..I just wanted to clear that up!
No Limit
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 9,018
- Reaction score
- 1
Bush could have saided but that would mean he lied again; I wouldn't be suprised. The bottom line is that Bush said if Saddam followed resolution 1441 he wouldn't go into war. I am waiting for anything that shows Saddam not complying with this.T.H.C.138 said:ok I guess I was thinking of something else..I do remember hearing something about that (the Hussien family stepping down) in the week or so leading up to this insanity,I just can't remember what it was in connection with..oh well,not like it matters much anymore..
BTW I was directing the "blind and deaf" statement yesterday at EVERYONE,myself included
MarcoPollo
Newbie
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
- Messages
- 2,584
- Reaction score
- 1
What about that one president that died a day after his innogurational party....Or carter?
- Status
