Bush making America safer in the future

“I'd much rather follow orders from George W. than that rapist Klinton. The raping, partial birth abortion, wife cheating, lying, draft dodgeing, sexually diseased, selling nuke secrets to china for campaign contributions, disbarred, perjuring, socialist pig."

that all may be true about clinton, but Bush is just a plain old DUMBASS”

“Ultrapecker: You don't even take your opinions seriously. Nice dump job.”

“Oh yeah, Klinton was a dumbass too!”

“Your demeanor is absolutely beneath contempt. I have watched the way you post and talk to people. I don't care where you served or what you claim to have done for the country. Your Gestapo type mentality is just inexcusable. You give the good people who served this country a bad name. The only reason I am even talking to you is that you tried to draw me out through the comment you made above.


"Hey, I'm the one with the nasty demeanor, cuss me."

I choose not to cuss you, but instead to tell you what a slug you are. BTW, I hope you were able to launch that HUGE Republican you referred to in your post...”

“YOU BETTER SAY YOUR SORRY!!!!!





I have feelings you know, sniff, sniff.”

“true that, he may tell bacpac on you treeman!!”

“ultrapecker = bacpac? the similarities are striking.”

“Ultrapecker is more of a "Bacqac"... a Bacpac wannabee. Bacpac has a certain consistency to his posts.”

“not really, I do think UP is a little smarter then the bacpacman”

“Why is it the left on this board can dish it out but can't take it?

I will never leave this board. No matter how nice you are to me.

I would never go hiking with most of you but I would take a few of you hunting.”

“Fools.
The lot of you.


During a 2000 campaign Q&A session, a black African American colored negro reporter fella took his turn with the Presidential hopeful from Texas.

With a tone one would expect from a Farrakhanian Jessian, the guy asked Bush about his state's death penalty record. His question dripped with venom. His approach was very accusatory, and totally disrespectful.

I thought Bush might cry.
His facial expression went from his customary lecturn smirky to...
I dunno - horrific? Terror stricken?

I could only imagine what was going through his mind. If the windows of his soul were any indication, I would bet a month's pay that his emotion of the moment was grief. Now that I think about it, his expression was akin to my dad's when the nurses carted my stepmom past us while enroute between surgery and ICU a couple weeks ago.



If you honestly believe that President Bush is taking his responsibilities as Commander in Chief lightly, you're a fool.

If you believe he does, indeed, struggle with the hard decisions demanded of a Commander in Chief, but refuse to admit it, you're a fool.

Either way, you're a fool.


You fools have hit an all-time low. How dare you Monday morning quarterback, "Selection 2000" casualty, cry baby fools sit there and slam the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces at a time such as this.

You have no dignity.
You're a disgrace to your family.
You're a disgrace to your country.”

“What gojo said.”

“"I thought Bush might cry.
His facial expression went from his customary lecturn smirky to...
I dunno - horrific? Terror stricken?" -
gojo
03:12:27 PM
03/28/03

Wasn't that the same expression he had when he was asked who the preisdent of Korea was Gojo?

So you're basing your whole argument on the fact that screwed his face up when he was asked about how he had sent so many people, including those with an IQ similar to yours, to their death.”

“"cry baby fools sit there and slam the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces at a time such as this"


its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH


or does that not belong in your word book?”

“Sorry gojo, but the civilian leadership of the armed forces are very much open to criticism. And when the civilian leadership goes against the advice of the professional military brass, and the outcome is a stalled invasion unnecesarily losing lives and materiel to protect its vulnerable supply lines, then Bush and Co. should expect to take it straight on the nose from the public.”

“My freedom of speech was bashed by treebeard and almost made me cry.”

“ummm this is a very scary moment for me.
I agree with the muttman”

“LOl @ UP”

“Mutt, don't insult our intelligence with your drivel.”

“"Why is it the left on this board can dish it out but can't take it?"

I hope I'm not destroying your world here but the left is like that EVERYWHERE. Not just here. Although this bunch does seem to be a bit more emotional than most.

Good job keeping this bunch of loons in line UP.”

“It sounds like some people would rather live where you are imprisoned or shot for raising questions.

Like... Iraq.”

“Ultrapecker, commanders on the field are saying (or at least strongly implying) Rummy screwed up.”

“ok one question about "left"

is this a male thing?”

“The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but he is not the Commander in Chief of the people. Like every governor of a state, he is the steward of the people--never their master.
-- John Bricker, governor of Ohio and vice presidential running mate of Thomas Dewey in 1944


As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government. Perhaps nothing today distinguishes democratic government in England so greatly from the totalitarianism of Germany as the freedom of criticism which has existed continuously in the House of Commons and elsewhere in England. Of course that criticism should not give any information to the enemy. But too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
-- Robert Taft (Mr. Republican), December 19, 1941”

“Why is it neocons will religiously uphold and protect the second amendment, but at times like this shoot down the first amendment?

Hypocrites.”

“And why is it neocons desire more freedom and a smaller federal government, but elect a president who runs record deficits, creates a sh**load of federal jobs, and abridges personal liberty?

hypocrites.”

“Guys -
Please give me a break. Seriously.
I have to deal with 84 high school boys ALL FREAKIN' DAY! (can you tell Spring Break is due?).
I would hope I could come to TT for some adult interaction.

Instead, I get responses like nyami-what's-his-name posted above.
I'll address it anyway. 84... 85, what's the dif?

mommymommy,
I am vaguely familiar with the Korean president incident. Wasn't Bush asked something about that during the campaign?

Why would governing Texas require one to be familiar with the name of an Asian leader?

I wonder if the Korean fella could name all the governors of Mexico?

This war is killing our President.
Being a governor, and making decisions about death penalty reprievals, could only go so far in preparing a person for making the heart-wrenching decisions mandatory of a CinC.

How dare anyone joke about so serious a matter. Poking fun at the CinC is disrespectful to the troops - our brave and honorable troops. Oh yeah - it's foolish, too.


In 1945, the invasion of Japan was in full (planning & preparation) swing. Many American people were pressing President Truman to allow Japan to keep Korea, and get our boys the hell home. There had been more than enough killing.

Instead, Truman made the decision to push Japan into full and unconditional surrender - even though the military planners expected 1,000,000 Allied casualties during the invasion of Japan. Even at this time, the bomb's expected effectiveness was iffy, at best, so the invasion was still "go".

Men... try to imagine what Truman went through. One-freaking-million casualties? Sweet Mother of Jesus.


It took President Lincoln, what? Three generals? Wasn't Grant the third leader of the Army of the Potomac? Even he - Grant - had to stay schnokered 24/7 to get done what had to get done.

Heart-wrenching.
Gut-wrenching.


Bash Bush this, and bash Bush that.
But when you tread onto the hallowed ground reserved for a Commander in Chief and his brave, dedicated charges, you are tresspassing. You have no business going there - especially to make false accusations or simply to spout displeasures that are actually rooted in the "selection" incident.

Again, some of you have said some very inappropriate things. I cannot respect that, nor you - not that you care.

That stuff is so... high school.



And foolish.”

“But when you tread onto the hallowed ground reserved for a Commander in Chief and his brave, dedicated charges, you are tresspassing

Lumping Chickenhawk Bush in with the "hallowed ground" of the soldiers in the military is...how did you put it?

You have no dignity.
You're a disgrace to your family.
You're a disgrace to your country.”

“and foolish”

“Is he still a deserter or was he pardoned?”

“Is Gen. Wallace, commander of the ground war in Iraq, some kind of Bush bashing fool beneath your contempt gojo? He had some pretty strong words for the 'suits' pushing for and planning this war that the brave 'uniforms' have to execute.”

“Burn!”

“Why would governing Texas require one to be familiar with the name of an Asian leader?

As in a short space of time he was going to be dealing with the foreign policy of the most important country in the world. The guy has the future of the planet in his hands, I would hope he had a little background knowledge about what he was dealing with.
And comparing this with a Korean knowing the Governors of Mexico just shows how weak your arguments are. This is a country with 32,000 American troops based on its soil. Across it's border is an agressive communist regime. The region has hardly been out of the news since the Korean war ended.
You also seem to be saying that just because he's President nobody should criticize him, this is not the way this country works.
I hope you instill better forms of reasoning and the ability to structure some sort of evidence into an argument into the minds of your students.”

“Yeah, Bush is so stupid why I bet he couldn't even take off and land a supersonic jet unlike that really smart President before him that knew how to, umm, he knew how to, hmm, oh yeah, jerk off in a sink in front of fat girl.”

“The right always defends #43 with a comparison to #42 and then #41 --They are all corrupt as have been all before them,but it is true,each is increasingly worse that his predecessor.So,our present misfortune is the worst and the next will even surpass him.”

“"Is Gen. Wallace, commander of the ground war in Iraq, some kind of Bush bashing fool beneath your contempt gojo? He had some pretty strong words for the 'suits' pushing for and planning this war that the brave 'uniforms' have to execute."

Violin
04:27:59 PM
03/28/03


Show me one general in our history that was 100% satisfied with the number of troops and equipment with which he was provided...

MacArthur is a "supreme" example of the under-equipped.


I forget who he was, but I'll never forget what he said:

"If we've come to fight, we're too few. If we've come to die, we're too many."

The general said that after the suicide attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon(?), circa 1980's.”

“I think I may have been a little harsh on Bush above. I think he's staked so much on his policy in Iraq that the outcome of this war will decide on how he's percieved by future generations.
Hopefully the war will be over soon, aid, rebuilding and democracy follow in short order, and and the Palestinian/Isreali roadmap shows the way to peace. Democracy speads, religious extremism declines and prosperity abounds - the U.S. Economy shakes off its sloth and begins to flourish.
The trouble is I think it's a very high risk strategy. Lets hope the hawks were right all along.”

“Iraq is 80 % Shia Muslim - the same Muslim sect from which the Taliban was formed, and which currently rules "Axis-of-Evil" Iran. Conversely, Iraq is currently ruled (this week, at least) by predominantly secular Suni Muslims (Saddam is Suni). Democracy in Iraq means we get yet another Islamic State like Iran in the Middle East. That's why George I did nothing to support the last populist uprising in Iraq following Gulf War I - in fact, the American forces disarmed the Shiite resurgants out of fear that their success would mean an Iran-controlled government in Iraq. As a result of this forced disarmament, the Republican Guard (which had been left mainly intact at the end of Gulf War I) was able to cream the living tar out of the Shiite rebellion.

The recent behavior of the Iraqi populace in supposedly liberated areas of Iraq appears to indicate that the Iraqis have not forgotten how they were betrayed by the last Bush.

Make no mistake about it - there is NO WAY that George II and his cronies want a truly democratic government in Iraq, as that is a sure way to get a government hostile to the US that has the full backing (well, 80 % at least) of the Iraqi people.

This war is all about oil, plain and simple. There has never been a GOOD case made (emphasis on good - the case has been made by George II, it just wasn't very good) for Saddam's involvement with 9/11.

Nothing good for Mr. and Ms. Middle America is going to come out of this war. The oil oligarchies will do well, but the rest of us will continue to get screwed. How's YOUR 401k doing? This war won't help that one whit. And it won't make us any safer - rather, it just helps to steel the resolve of Islamic religious extremists. Does anyone even care that the primary motivation for 9/11 was the First Gulf War? This is just more of the same.

Meanwhile, back home, average hard-working Americans are finding it harder to pay for health care, or even keep their jobs. And abroad, another generation of Al-Qaeda recruits are born.”

“"the primary motivation for 9/11 was the First Gulf War"

How do you figure?”

“DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- U.S. soldiers fired on a van carrying 13 women and children when it failed to stop at a military checkpoint in southern Iraq, killing seven people and wounding two others, U.S. Central Command said Monday (3/31/03) in a written statement.

Four passengers were unhurt, the statement said. An investigation is under way.

Good for Bush... kill the Iraqi children before they grow up to resent the USA and become suicide bombers.”

“Strong words!

Go war!

8)”

“This is war....when someone tells you to stop...you stop...unless that person is already shooting at you.”

“I agree!

also in a time of war I think it would be a good move to listen to someone when thay have a very large gun!

8|”

“Um, Alaska, the procedure for checkpoints now, due to recent terrorist attacks, is that if an Iraqi does not stop when ordered to the Gis have the green light to shoot at their discretion. The van would not stop and the Gis fired at the vehicle in order to disable it but it continued to advance and they were forced to shoot into the passenger compartment.

The simple fact that make it sound like these men were blood thirsty killers and they were looking for an excuse to kill unarmed civies shows what a real piece of #&%!$ you are. I think the better part of you ran down your mamma’s crack.

Have a good evening.”

“Hmmm... whoever said it seems to have nailed:

Alaska=Spock”

“>>
>> ... the primary motivation for 9/11 was the First Gulf War.
>>
>
> How do you figure?
>

I'm not "figuring" anything, I'm merely repeating what Bin Laden (a Shiite Saudi, NOT an Iraqi) himself has said about his own motivations for carrying out the attacks of 9/11. This is old news. Very old, actually. The first attack on the WTC occured in 1993 - planned by Bin Laden, of course. Some Saudis (again, NOT Iraqis) drove a van loaded with explosives into the underground parking facitliy of the WTC and blew it up. Both attacks (as well as the bombings of US embassies in Africa in 1998) were claimed by Bin Laden as acts of retaliation against "Satan America" for "desecration of the Holy Land" (in Shiite eyes, Saudi Arabia) by the placement of "infidel" American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, starting in 1990 during Operation Desert Shield and continuing to this day.

The American press is understandably reporting very little of the massive rioting going on all over the Middle East (as well as in Muslim Europe and Asia) in response to US agression in Iraq. This war is doing very little to convince the Arabs of the benefits of democracy.”

“CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters) -- Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says the U.S.-led war on Iraq would produce "one hundred new bin Ladens," driving more Muslims to anti-Western militancy.

"When it is over, if it is over, this war will have horrible consequences," Mubarak told Egyptian soldiers in the city of Suez on Monday.

"Instead of having one (Osama) bin Laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens," he said.

Osama bin Laden is the Saudi-born fugitive Islamic militant leader blamed by the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Egypt, a key regional U.S. ally which has cracked down hard on Islamic militants, publicly opposes the war launched by Washington to overthrow Iraq's President Saddam Hussein.

European opponents of the war, led by French President Jacques Chirac, have also argued that military action against Iraq would fuel terrorism and split the international coalition assembled by Washington to fight bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

Mubarak said Iraqi forces fighting U.S. and British troops were "guarding Iraq's lands and defending its national honour and nobility" in the conflict.

Reflecting widespread public anger at what many Arabs see as Western aggression against an Arab country, he said the war would cause a "great tragedy (and) destroy a deep-rooted culture and people."

'Double standard'
"Egypt's position has been and still is clear in rejecting .. .the military option and rejecting participation in military action of the coalition forces against brotherly Iraq," he said.

Mubarak said the war had raised many questions, especially among the Arab and Muslim peoples of the Middle East, about the "credibility of the international system of collective security represented in the United Nations."

Many Arabs think Washington has employed double standards in enforcing U.N. resolutions on Iraq while not making Israel comply with resolutions demanding withdrawal from Palestinian territories and an end to Jewish settlements. (Arab views)

Mubarak read out the highlights of an international plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace called the "roadmap," saying that while the Palestinian Authority had accepted it, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had asked for 100 changes.

"This means the roadmap has been rendered meaningless. Unless the big powers agree and put forward a mechanism to implement it without any alterations ... I believe the roadmap will not move on the right road and it might lead to complications," he said.”

“(CNN) -- A poll released Saturday finds that more registered voters want to see President Bush voted out than kept in office in the next election, but his job approval rating has remained constant.

In the Newsweek poll, 50 percent of registered voters who were queried said they do not want to see Bush re-elected, while 44 percent said they do.

The survey of 1,002 adults interviewed Thursday and Friday has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/bush.poll/index.html”

“(AP) Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab ally of the United States, said in published remarks Tuesday that hatred of Americans in the Arab world was stronger now than ever because of the war in Iraq.

Mubarak also said Arab opinion of the United States had grown more negative because of Washington's continuing support for Israel.

"At the start, some believed that the Americans were helping them," Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday by French daily Le Monde. "There wasn't any hatred toward the Americans."

"After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," he added. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region."”

“(AP) Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab ally of the United States, said in published remarks Tuesday that hatred of Americans in the Arab world was stronger now than ever because of the war in Iraq.

Mubarak also said Arab opinion of the United States had grown more negative because of Washington's continuing support for Israel.

"At the start, some believed that the Americans were helping them," Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday by French daily Le Monde. "There wasn't any hatred toward the Americans."

"After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," he added. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region."”