Who watches Fox? I read, Newsmax (many different authors), Human Events (many different authors), Opinion Journal, local news (with much doubt), etc.
Here’s some quick clips, hopefully clearly stating why I get so mad when people slander President Bush.
Failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut
and ran when al-Qaida ambushed U.S. Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that
called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons
inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the
U.N. inspectors back in.
That administration also failed to respond to the murder of
U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in
Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa by
firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in
Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when it had
a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport
security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have
prevented 9/11.
In short, to every act of war against the United States during the
1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse.
By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a
hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new
administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat.
As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan
that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did
not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.
And, as for why the President Bush went into Iraq:
In fact, the first — and last — rationale presented for the war by the
Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war
was not the destruction of WMD but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or
regime change.
This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international
outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control
agreements it embodied, including U.N. resolutions 687 and 689, and the
15 subsequent U.N. resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of
these, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum
to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm — or else. The
ultimatum expired on Dec. 7, 2002, and America went to war three months
later.
Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements
that made up the Gulf War truce — and not the alleged existence of Iraqi
WMDs — was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops
to Iraq.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam
by force when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear
violation of the Gulf truce.
This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to
Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in
October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and
it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team,
including the secretary of state, the secretary of Defense and the
director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American
troops into Iraq in March 2003.
The Authorization for the Use of Force bill — passed by majorities of
both parties in both Houses — is the legal basis for the president’s
war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent
to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas”
clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics
of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to
stockpiles of WMD. On the other hand, 12 of the reasons for going to war
refer to U.N. resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.
On the very eve of the war, the
president gave Iraq an option to avoid a conflict with American forces.
On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour
ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if
Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American
invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’
crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of
Saddam.
If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left
in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign
Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The
idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the
truce accords of 1991 and U.N. Resolution 1441. This would have led to
Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMD
or WMD programs that Saddam may have had — without necessitating a war.
Ignoring — and distorting — the facts about how and why his country went
to war, slanders the president — and therefore his
country — that have become a familiar aspect of our political life.
The charges are transparently designed to destroy the authority of
America’s commander in chief, while his troops are in harm’s way — an
unprecedented sabotage of a war in progress.
The argument that Bush manipulated the facts about Iraqi WMD to
pursue a war policy that was aggressive and unfounded is demonstrably
false.
Bush acted on the consensus of every major intelligence agency,
including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the
Jordanian — all of whom believed that Saddam had WMD. In other words, he
cannot reasonably be accused of inventing the existence of Saddam’s WMD,
although that is precisely what Gore and other demagogues on the left do
on an almost daily basis.
Since every Democratic senator who voted for the war was provided by the
administration with a copy the intelligence data on Saddam’s WMD, the
charge made by Democratic senators that they were deceived is both cynical and hypocritical as well as false.
By 2001, when Bush took up residence in the Oval Office, Saddam had already
broken the Gulf War truce many times over.
American pilots were engaged in a low-intensity armed conflict with the
Iraqi military over the “no-fly zones” the truce had created. Clinton
and Gore had allowed Saddam to get away with breaking the truce he had
signed for two reasons. First because they were preoccupied with the
fallout from Clinton’s affair in the White House; but more importantly,
because ever since Vietnam the Democrats had shown no interest in
deploying American troops to protect the national interest (and thus had
opposed the first Gulf War).
In 1998, Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Why would he do
so if it was not his intention to do mischief as well?
Specifically, why would he do so if it was not his intention to develop
the weapons programs, the WMD programs, that the Gulf truce outlawed and
that the U.N. inspectors were there to stop?
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that Saddam’s mischief could have
serious consequences, not because Saddam had a role in 9/11, but because
Saddam celebrated and endorsed the attacks, had attempted to assassinate
an American president and had hosted terrorist organizations and
gatherings engaged in a holy war against the West.
The only reason Saddam allowed the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq in
the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its
border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on
the border of a country which was violating international law unless he
meant to enforce the law. But the troops were there to go to war only if
Saddam Hussein failed to honor the 1991 truce, not to slake the
aggressive appetites of the president of the United States, as America’s
enemies — and Al Gore — maintain.
Saddam’s offer to allow the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq coincided
with Bush’s appearance at the U.N. in September 2002. His message to the
U.N. was that it needed to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.
If U.N. did not enforce the resolutions that Saddam had violated, the
United States would do so in its stead. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore marked
the occasion by publicly attacking their own president for putting such
pressure on Saddam Hussein. This was the beginning of the Democratic
campaign to sabotage an American war in progress, which has continued
without letup ever since.
As a result of Bush’s appeal, the U.N. Security Council voted
unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline
to expire on Dec. 7, 2002.
By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons
programs or “serious consequences would follow.” The ultimatum was U.N.
Resolution 1441 — the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf
War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance.
Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies, Russia and
France, would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the
reason the United States and Britain went to war without U.N. approval,
not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures, which is simply
another Democratic deception.
Since war was not the president’s preference, first, last, or otherwise,
the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House
spent three months after the Dec. 7 deadline trying by diplomatic means
to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the U.N.
resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to
full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War
truce that they, as Security Council members, had ratified and promised
to enforce.
Virtually all of the claims that make up the core of the Democrats’
attacks on Bush’s decision to go to war — that he manipulated data on
aluminum tubes to present them as elements of an Iraqi nuclear program
and that he lied about an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake uranium — were
never part of the administration’s rationale for the use of force, and
were not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force
congressional legislation.
They were political attempts to persuade the reluctant Europeans to
enforce the U.N. ultimatum and international law. Even then, by offering
Saddam an escape clause, Bush provided an alternative to war. If Saddam
would re-settle in Russia or some other friendly state, the United
States would not invade.
For all the president’s Democratic critics, all these facts count
for nothing. In their place is the great American Satan, George Bush.
According to the Democrats, America went to war for reasons that are either illegitimate or immoral or both.
They suggest the sending of American troops to Iraq was an imperial aggression, orchestrated by the president and his advisors who manipulated the evidence, deceived the people, and ignored the U.N. to carry out their malign intent.
What Bush actually ignored was the French, who built Saddam’s nuclear
reactor, collaborated with Saddam’s theft of the “oil for food”
billions, and threatened to veto any attempt to enforce international
law or the U.N. ultimatum.
Bush also ignored the Russians, who supplied two-thirds of Saddam’s
weapons, helped him sabotage the U.N. sanctions, and refused to enforce
the U.N. ultimatum.
What Bush did not ignore were the 17 U.N. resolutions designed to keep
the Middle East peace and protect the world from the consequences of its
failure.
First of all, the best chance to get Sadam was when Bushes dad was right on the border after the Kuwait war, and he made the choice to stop right there. Rebublicans also supported Sadam in the 80s by giving him chemical weapons to fight Iran.
Also, if regime change is that important, how come we dont want regime change in North Korea, they actually have Nucular weapons as George would say, so why not go after them instead of Sadam?
Remember, I posted saying I changed my mind about Bush being a criminal – Reread that post.
Dam right you are out of here, I blew you away with my argument saying that terrorists could still easily come to our country rather than fighting a losing battle against the strongest military in the history of civlization.
Walter, you have stated no facts in any of your posts. You have blow away nobody. You take the liberal talking points and regurgitate that spew over and over with no factual basis. Answer the earlier question, if President Bush is a criminal, where are the charges in the incredibly partisan congress? There will be none because it’s easier to slander as you do in you posts than to prove anything. Yes, I do watch Fox News, along with reading several newspapers a day and scanning multiple news web sites. Stop the assumption that because someone doesn’t agree with you that they are ignorant. Your posts reflect ignorance of any facts and a total buy in to the general slash and burn tactics of the Bush haters. Now, back to the actual topic in question if you please, or if you don’t Walter. Maybe you should go back to Moveon.org with the rest of whatever kind you are.
Nobody important, if you are so smart please tell me why no terrostists ever come to the US, instead they chose to fight the most powerful army on Earth.
And when in gods name have you ever heard a Democrat make that argument? – The Dems and Repubs are part of the problem you stupid deaf idiot.
You clearly havnt read my other posts. All you can do is regurgitate, none of my arguments have supported Democrats one bit, if you have a brain in your head, where did you come up with this??
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
What does this have to do with the house in NY with damage from a Concorde? misbloggers
Who watches Fox? I read, Newsmax (many different authors), Human Events (many different authors), Opinion Journal, local news (with much doubt), etc.
Here’s some quick clips, hopefully clearly stating why I get so mad when people slander President Bush.
Failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut
and ran when al-Qaida ambushed U.S. Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that
called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons
inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the
U.N. inspectors back in.
That administration also failed to respond to the murder of
U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in
Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa by
firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in
Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when it had
a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport
security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have
prevented 9/11.
In short, to every act of war against the United States during the
1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse.
By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a
hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new
administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat.
As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan
that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did
not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.
And, as for why the President Bush went into Iraq:
In fact, the first — and last — rationale presented for the war by the
Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war
was not the destruction of WMD but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or
regime change.
This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international
outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control
agreements it embodied, including U.N. resolutions 687 and 689, and the
15 subsequent U.N. resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of
these, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum
to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm — or else. The
ultimatum expired on Dec. 7, 2002, and America went to war three months
later.
Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements
that made up the Gulf War truce — and not the alleged existence of Iraqi
WMDs — was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops
to Iraq.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam
by force when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear
violation of the Gulf truce.
This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to
Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in
October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and
it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team,
including the secretary of state, the secretary of Defense and the
director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American
troops into Iraq in March 2003.
The Authorization for the Use of Force bill — passed by majorities of
both parties in both Houses — is the legal basis for the president’s
war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent
to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas”
clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics
of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to
stockpiles of WMD. On the other hand, 12 of the reasons for going to war
refer to U.N. resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.
On the very eve of the war, the
president gave Iraq an option to avoid a conflict with American forces.
On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour
ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if
Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American
invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’
crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of
Saddam.
If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left
in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign
Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The
idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the
truce accords of 1991 and U.N. Resolution 1441. This would have led to
Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMD
or WMD programs that Saddam may have had — without necessitating a war.
Ignoring — and distorting — the facts about how and why his country went
to war, slanders the president — and therefore his
country — that have become a familiar aspect of our political life.
The charges are transparently designed to destroy the authority of
America’s commander in chief, while his troops are in harm’s way — an
unprecedented sabotage of a war in progress.
The argument that Bush manipulated the facts about Iraqi WMD to
pursue a war policy that was aggressive and unfounded is demonstrably
false.
Bush acted on the consensus of every major intelligence agency,
including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the
Jordanian — all of whom believed that Saddam had WMD. In other words, he
cannot reasonably be accused of inventing the existence of Saddam’s WMD,
although that is precisely what Gore and other demagogues on the left do
on an almost daily basis.
Since every Democratic senator who voted for the war was provided by the
administration with a copy the intelligence data on Saddam’s WMD, the
charge made by Democratic senators that they were deceived is both cynical and hypocritical as well as false.
By 2001, when Bush took up residence in the Oval Office, Saddam had already
broken the Gulf War truce many times over.
American pilots were engaged in a low-intensity armed conflict with the
Iraqi military over the “no-fly zones” the truce had created. Clinton
and Gore had allowed Saddam to get away with breaking the truce he had
signed for two reasons. First because they were preoccupied with the
fallout from Clinton’s affair in the White House; but more importantly,
because ever since Vietnam the Democrats had shown no interest in
deploying American troops to protect the national interest (and thus had
opposed the first Gulf War).
In 1998, Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Why would he do
so if it was not his intention to do mischief as well?
Specifically, why would he do so if it was not his intention to develop
the weapons programs, the WMD programs, that the Gulf truce outlawed and
that the U.N. inspectors were there to stop?
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that Saddam’s mischief could have
serious consequences, not because Saddam had a role in 9/11, but because
Saddam celebrated and endorsed the attacks, had attempted to assassinate
an American president and had hosted terrorist organizations and
gatherings engaged in a holy war against the West.
The only reason Saddam allowed the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq in
the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its
border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on
the border of a country which was violating international law unless he
meant to enforce the law. But the troops were there to go to war only if
Saddam Hussein failed to honor the 1991 truce, not to slake the
aggressive appetites of the president of the United States, as America’s
enemies — and Al Gore — maintain.
Saddam’s offer to allow the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq coincided
with Bush’s appearance at the U.N. in September 2002. His message to the
U.N. was that it needed to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.
If U.N. did not enforce the resolutions that Saddam had violated, the
United States would do so in its stead. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore marked
the occasion by publicly attacking their own president for putting such
pressure on Saddam Hussein. This was the beginning of the Democratic
campaign to sabotage an American war in progress, which has continued
without letup ever since.
As a result of Bush’s appeal, the U.N. Security Council voted
unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline
to expire on Dec. 7, 2002.
By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons
programs or “serious consequences would follow.” The ultimatum was U.N.
Resolution 1441 — the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf
War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance.
Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies, Russia and
France, would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the
reason the United States and Britain went to war without U.N. approval,
not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures, which is simply
another Democratic deception.
Since war was not the president’s preference, first, last, or otherwise,
the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House
spent three months after the Dec. 7 deadline trying by diplomatic means
to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the U.N.
resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to
full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War
truce that they, as Security Council members, had ratified and promised
to enforce.
Virtually all of the claims that make up the core of the Democrats’
attacks on Bush’s decision to go to war — that he manipulated data on
aluminum tubes to present them as elements of an Iraqi nuclear program
and that he lied about an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake uranium — were
never part of the administration’s rationale for the use of force, and
were not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force
congressional legislation.
They were political attempts to persuade the reluctant Europeans to
enforce the U.N. ultimatum and international law. Even then, by offering
Saddam an escape clause, Bush provided an alternative to war. If Saddam
would re-settle in Russia or some other friendly state, the United
States would not invade.
For all the president’s Democratic critics, all these facts count
for nothing. In their place is the great American Satan, George Bush.
According to the Democrats, America went to war for reasons that are either illegitimate or immoral or both.
They suggest the sending of American troops to Iraq was an imperial aggression, orchestrated by the president and his advisors who manipulated the evidence, deceived the people, and ignored the U.N. to carry out their malign intent.
What Bush actually ignored was the French, who built Saddam’s nuclear
reactor, collaborated with Saddam’s theft of the “oil for food”
billions, and threatened to veto any attempt to enforce international
law or the U.N. ultimatum.
Bush also ignored the Russians, who supplied two-thirds of Saddam’s
weapons, helped him sabotage the U.N. sanctions, and refused to enforce
the U.N. ultimatum.
What Bush did not ignore were the 17 U.N. resolutions designed to keep
the Middle East peace and protect the world from the consequences of its
failure.
Read the first message by Plano Taxas, he somehow brought up Hillary Clinton, as if she has anything to do with this – Thats how it all started.
First of all, the best chance to get Sadam was when Bushes dad was right on the border after the Kuwait war, and he made the choice to stop right there. Rebublicans also supported Sadam in the 80s by giving him chemical weapons to fight Iran.
Also, if regime change is that important, how come we dont want regime change in North Korea, they actually have Nucular weapons as George would say, so why not go after them instead of Sadam?
Did you…….
And how does your statement address the accusation of President Bush being a criminal?
Walter, I am afraid I’m out of here. I have a job and people waiting on me for other things.
Remember, I posted saying I changed my mind about Bush being a criminal – Reread that post.
Dam right you are out of here, I blew you away with my argument saying that terrorists could still easily come to our country rather than fighting a losing battle against the strongest military in the history of civlization.
Its pure and simpe logic.
Walter, you have stated no facts in any of your posts. You have blow away nobody. You take the liberal talking points and regurgitate that spew over and over with no factual basis. Answer the earlier question, if President Bush is a criminal, where are the charges in the incredibly partisan congress? There will be none because it’s easier to slander as you do in you posts than to prove anything. Yes, I do watch Fox News, along with reading several newspapers a day and scanning multiple news web sites. Stop the assumption that because someone doesn’t agree with you that they are ignorant. Your posts reflect ignorance of any facts and a total buy in to the general slash and burn tactics of the Bush haters. Now, back to the actual topic in question if you please, or if you don’t Walter. Maybe you should go back to Moveon.org with the rest of whatever kind you are.
“Dam right you are out of here, I blew you away with my argument…” What’s next? Yeah, and my dad could beat up your dad!!!
What bunch of morons you people are. Entertaining, but morons still.
Nobody important, if you are so smart please tell me why no terrostists ever come to the US, instead they chose to fight the most powerful army on Earth.
And when in gods name have you ever heard a Democrat make that argument? – The Dems and Repubs are part of the problem you stupid deaf idiot.
You clearly havnt read my other posts. All you can do is regurgitate, none of my arguments have supported Democrats one bit, if you have a brain in your head, where did you come up with this??