question for thoes who hate bush

Whats important to me? Honestly? Both, I think Bush and his cronies (this goes back to Papa Bush) along with the Clinton gang.... have worn out their welcome.
We need fresh new faces..across the board ...both in the White House and the seats in Congress. But we need to do it in a smart way ... not politically vindictive as the both the Dems and Repubs are guilty of ..as in the cases of Lieberman and Chaffee. We the people need to start making the decisions.. not let the political rhetoric of party politics drive us to the polls.

So whats more important .. getting rid of Bush or winning the War on Terror or Iraq? All of them. Bush must go..and he will because we have a system that will not allow him to stay beyond two terms, and winning the War on Terror is an International Goal..so the next President will automatically have that on his list of objectives. Winning in Iraq is not so clear... what are we winning is the real question. Is our goal for Iraq to be a clone or Satelite of the US? If so ..we have a long road ahead. Is our goal to leave Iraq with a secure Government in place and selected by its Citizanship ...well that could be accomplished sooner rather than later.. but its going to take a high level of diplomacy on our part .. and I am convinced that this present administration does not have the right stuff to make that happen.
 
Well, first we would have to have oversight hearings on:

Bush/Cheney: paid for news propaganda with tax dollars without listing the paid source of the "news"...(law breaker)(constitution breaker)

Bush/Cheney: Misinformation, Lying his way in to our hearts to support HIS WAR in Iraq...this includes who was directed to forge the yellowcake memo, the 16 words in his presidential address, and ALL OF THE LIES, LIES, LIES....like we will be treated as liberators, and there is NO DOUBT that saddam Hussein NOW HAS WMD'S AMASSED against us....(law breakers, contitutional breakers)

Bush/Cheney- NSA spying without using the FISA courts. (Law breaking)

Bush/Cheney- using phone companies to SPY on Americans without a warrant. (Constitution breaker)

Bush/Cheney- Corrupt connections with Jack Abramoff, and with Delay and the K-Street Project

Bush/Cheney -DISGRACEFUL handling of Katrina and their hiring practices of unqualified people.

Bush/Cheney-Distribution of Government contracts with ONLY GOP supporters...that is the Dems tax dollars TOO, ya know...but use my dollars for only gop supporting companies is UNLAWFUL and unconstitutional.

Bush/Cheney-Breaking the Geneva Convention with ordered TROTURE techniques such as Water boarding. (unlawful) (unconstitutional)

Bush/Cheney-Abu ghraib terrorizing, was it ordered from the top and the grunt soldiers are taking the blame?

Bush/Cheney's- Rendition of combatants (unconstitutional, and unlawful)

Bush/Cheney- Taking back the MOST IMPORTANT right to mankind and writen in our constitution twice as a right, because it was SOOOOOO IMPORTANT, the writ of habeas corpus. Unconstitutional and law breaking.


There are so many ADDITIONAL issues that need to be investigated and he needs repremmand for if found guilty....but who has the time? ;)

The president takes an OATH that he will uphold and preserve the constitution.
 
Whats important to me? Honestly? Both, I think Bush and his cronies (this goes back to Papa Bush) along with the Clinton gang.... have worn out their welcome.
We need fresh new faces..across the board ...both in the White House and the seats in Congress. But we need to do it in a smart way ... not politically vindictive as the both the Dems and Repubs are guilty of ..as in the cases of Lieberman and Chaffee. We the people need to start making the decisions.. not let the political rhetoric of party politics drive us to the polls.

So whats more important .. getting rid of Bush or winning the War on Terror or Iraq? All of them. Bush must go..and he will because we have a system that will not allow him to stay beyond two terms, and winning the War on Terror is an International Goal..so the next President will automatically have that on his list of objectives. Winning in Iraq is not so clear... what are we winning is the real question. Is our goal for Iraq to be a clone or Satelite of the US? If so ..we have a long road ahead. Is our goal to leave Iraq with a secure Government in place and selected by its Citizanship ...well that could be accomplished sooner rather than later.. but its going to take a high level of diplomacy on our part .. and I am convinced that this present administration does not have the right stuff to make that happen.


ANOTHER POINT OF AGREEMENT!
 
Whats important to me? Honestly? Both, I think Bush and his cronies (this goes back to Papa Bush) along with the Clinton gang.... have worn out their welcome.
We need fresh new faces..across the board ...both in the White House and the seats in Congress. But we need to do it in a smart way ... not politically vindictive as the both the Dems and Repubs are guilty of ..as in the cases of Lieberman and Chaffee. We the people need to start making the decisions.. not let the political rhetoric of party politics drive us to the polls.

So whats more important .. getting rid of Bush or winning the War on Terror or Iraq? All of them. Bush must go..and he will because we have a system that will not allow him to stay beyond two terms, and winning the War on Terror is an International Goal..so the next President will automatically have that on his list of objectives. Winning in Iraq is not so clear... what are we winning is the real question. Is our goal for Iraq to be a clone or Satelite of the US? If so ..we have a long road ahead. Is our goal to leave Iraq with a secure Government in place and selected by its Citizanship ...well that could be accomplished sooner rather than later.. but its going to take a high level of diplomacy on our part .. and I am convinced that this present administration does not have the right stuff to make that happen.

well put
 
ok... another question...

what would you impeach bush for ? what missdeed or missdeed's would you use too impeech him ?





Well, first we would have to have oversight hearings on:

Bush/Cheney: paid for news propaganda with tax dollars without listing the paid source of the "news"...(law breaker)(constitution breaker)

Bush/Cheney: Misinformation, Lying his way in to our hearts to support HIS WAR in Iraq...this includes who was directed to forge the yellowcake memo, the 16 words in his presidential address, and ALL OF THE LIES, LIES, LIES....like we will be treated as liberators, and there is NO DOUBT that saddam Hussein NOW HAS WMD'S AMASSED against us....(law breakers, contitutional breakers)

Bush/Cheney- NSA spying without using the FISA courts. (Law breaking)

Bush/Cheney- using phone companies to SPY on Americans without a warrant. (Constitution breaker)

Bush/Cheney- Corrupt connections with Jack Abramoff, and with Delay and the K-Street Project

Bush/Cheney -DISGRACEFUL handling of Katrina and their hiring practices of unqualified people.

Bush/Cheney-Distribution of Government contracts with ONLY GOP supporters...that is the Dems tax dollars TOO, ya know...but use my dollars for only gop supporting companies is UNLAWFUL and unconstitutional.

Bush/Cheney-Breaking the Geneva Convention with ordered TROTURE techniques such as Water boarding. (unlawful) (unconstitutional)

Bush/Cheney-Abu ghraib terrorizing, was it ordered from the top and the grunt soldiers are taking the blame?

Bush/Cheney's- Rendition of combatants (unconstitutional, and unlawful)

Bush/Cheney- Taking back the MOST IMPORTANT right to mankind and writen in our constitution twice as a right, because it was SOOOOOO IMPORTANT, the writ of habeas corpus. Unconstitutional and law breaking.


There are so many ADDITIONAL issues that need to be investigated and he needs repremmand for if found guilty....but who has the time?

The president takes an OATH that he will uphold and preserve the constitution.
 
ok, i have got another question... should i star a new threat for it or just add it too this one ?
 
ok.. no objections

why was saddam touted as the biggest threat throughout the 90's
 
I don't know that he was touted as the BIGGEST threat.

the world is full of threats...and even moreso after 9/11. going after one that had nothing to do with 9/11 seems kinda dumb to me.... especially when it means completely losing focus and allowing our stature in the world to slip to the point where a little goggle-eyed gook named Kim Jong Il can totally ingore our warnings not to test ballistic missiles and fire off a handful of them on the fourth of fucking july and we just let ourselves get slapped like that...

the world is full of threats. things change. priorities change. Iraq may have been perceived as a bigger threat back in the 90's but I know that I sure as hell was dead set against invading Iraq in this century...and I predicted a whole host of bad things that would result...and every single one of MY predictions has come true. Does that make me clairvoyant? no. It just makes the Bushies dumb and not at all perceptive.
 
ok.. no objections

why was saddam touted as the biggest threat throughout the 90's

Stop lying.

I just searched all of clintons State of the Union Speeches, and Terrorism was mentioned every year. And Clinton predicited that terrorism was the biggest security challenge the United States would face. He only mentioned Iraq in a couple of STOU speeches, and never said they were the greatest threat:

*Clinton’s 2000 State Union Address:

A third challenge we have is to keep this inexorable march of technology from giving terrorists and potentially hostile nations the means to undermine our defenses. Keep in mind, the same technological advances that have shrunk cell phones to fit in the palms of our hands can also make weapons of terror easier to conceal and easier to use.

We must meet this threat by making effective agreements to restrain nuclear and missile programs in North Korea; curbing the flow of lethal technology to Iran; preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors; increasing our preparedness against chemical and biological attack; protecting our vital computer systems from hackers and criminals; and developing a system to defend against new missile threats -- while working to preserve our ABM missile treaty with Russia. We must do all these things.

I predict to you, when most of us are long gone, but some time in the next 10 to 20 years, the major security threat this country will face will come from the enemies of the nation state: the narco traffickers and the terrorists and the organized criminals, who will be organized together, working together, with increasing access to ever-more sophisticated chemical and biological weapons.

*Clinton’s 1999 State Union Address:

As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation's security, including increased dangers from outlaw nations and terrorism. We will defend our security wherever we are threatened, as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror. The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world. So let's give them the support they need, the safest possible workplaces, and the resources they must have so America can continue to lead.
We must work to keep terrorists from disrupting computer networks. We must work to prepare local communities for biological and chemical emergencies, to support research into vaccines and treatments.
We must increase our efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons and missiles, from Korea to India and Pakistan. We must expand our work with Russia, Ukraine and the other former Soviet nations to safeguard nuclear materials and technology so they never fall into the wrong hands.
Our balanced budget will increase funding for these critical efforts by almost two-thirds over the next five years.

*Clinton’s 1998 State Union Address:

America must stand against the poisoned appeals of extreme nationalism. We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information and ideas and people, and they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

*Clinton’s 1997 State Union Address

Fifth, we must move strongly against new threats to our security. In the past four years, we agreed to ban -- we led the way to a worldwide agreement to ban nuclear testing. With Russia, we dramatically cut nuclear arsenals and we stopped targeting each others citizens. We are acting to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands and to rid the world of land mines. We are working with other nations with renewed intensity to fight drug traffickers and to stop terrorists before they act, and hold them fully accountable if they do.

*Clinton’s 1996 State Union Address:

The threats we face today as Americans respect no nation's borders. Think of them: terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, drug trafficking, ethnic and religious hatred, aggression by rogue states, environmental degradation. If we fail to address these threats today,we will suffer the consequences in all our tomorrows.

* Clinton’s 1995 State of Union Address:

This year I'll submit to Congress comprehensive legislation to strengthen our hand in combating terrorists --whether they strike at home or abroad. As the coward's who bombed the World Trade Center found out, this country will hunt down terrorists and bring them to justice. [/quote]

************************************************************

clinton made a big deal out of terrorism, in ALL of his SOTU speeches. The most widely watched and important speeches an american president ever makes.

Until Sept. 11 2001, other presidents barely mentioned terrorism - even though islamic terrorism has been going on since the 1970s. I don't think George Bush as candidate, or as prez until 9/11 ever really mentioned terrorism.

Poppy bush did mention home grown environmental terrorists once though - that Earth First group, I think.



Presidention SOTU's:
http://janda.org/politxts/State of Union Addresses/preface.html
 
And, as an addendum to Cypress' points, I'd like to point out that Clinton rarely even mentioned Saddam Hussein, except to make quick political points with selected audiences.

The thesis that he (Saddam) was touted as a major security threat throughout the 90s is pretty much unsupportable.
 
Back
Top