BF2S Forums Mrs. Bush, Rice: Bush presidency not a failure

deeznutz1245 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Shame.  You're kinda alright in my book even though you're stoopid neo con slag.  You have something between your ears unlike you know who.   

Let me put it this way.  You see a man on the street, you don't know him but from his swagger he thinks he's a hard man.  He then stabs a random guy in the chest and kills him there outright.  You call the cops and he gets his ass busted after all he's violated the law, right?

You walk further down, you see your mate across the street.  He also walks past some guy and stabs the guy in the chest.  Poor guy dies there and there.  But, you do nothing and look the other way and continue on your journey.  You mummer to yourself "honestly. Not my problem".

If you're going to preach the violation of resolutions, try to be consistent.  After all integrity as part of your argument is everything.

Thats the point though. I wouldnt be friends with someone who randomly stabs people, just like I don't agree with our support for Isreal. I think the people of Isreal have gotten a raw deal and would agree with their leave us the hell alone attitude. However, I don't think the US should support or even be involved. Many make the assumtion that because I am a neo con slag that I am a proponent of our support towards Isreal.

We are not debating US support to Israel.  Rather the subject at hand is your reasoning for the US going to war with Iraq is rightly based on violation of UN resolutions.  If find it odd that you and many other use this reasoning when Israel is guilty of much the same.  You can't expect to be taken seriously when you argument lacks balance.

Last edited by m3thod (2008-12-30 08:25:44)

“The real change in the president, in my opinion, didn’t actually happen until that Friday, when he traveled to New York. The situation on Tuesday was so—you really didn’t have time to reflect. In New York, the range of emotions that he went through—standing on the rubble, the bullhorn moment, but just as important, when he sat there in that room in private and met with those people who were still trying to learn the whereabouts of their loved ones, and hugging them, and where he got the badge.

He always gets asked, Have you changed?, and he instinctively recoils at that kind of question. But when something like this happens on your watch, there’s no way it can’t change you. It can’t not change your worldview—and it obviously changed his in a way that has been controversial for a lot of people.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat … ntPage=all

Spark wrote:

Maybe he "changed", yes, but he did fuckall about it. His biggest failure for me was still not putting the extremist, oil-fuelled fuckers in SA out of business when he had the perfect opportunity - a global mandate - to do so. No, instead he encouraged consumption and filled their pockets, and gave them a blank cheque to spread their brand of Wahabism/Salafism all over the Muslim world.

ya eh?  what did YOU guys do about SA?  ya thats right, still in bed with them.

m3thod wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Shame.  You're kinda alright in my book even though you're stoopid neo con slag.  You have something between your ears unlike you know who.   

Let me put it this way.  You see a man on the street, you don't know him but from his swagger he thinks he's a hard man.  He then stabs a random guy in the chest and kills him there outright.  You call the cops and he gets his ass busted after all he's violated the law, right?

You walk further down, you see your mate across the street.  He also walks past some guy and stabs the guy in the chest.  Poor guy dies there and there.  But, you do nothing and look the other way and continue on your journey.  You mummer to yourself "honestly. Not my problem".

If you're going to preach the violation of resolutions, try to be consistent.  After all integrity as part of your argument is everything.

Thats the point though. I wouldnt be friends with someone who randomly stabs people, just like I don't agree with our support for Isreal. I think the people of Isreal have gotten a raw deal and would agree with their leave us the hell alone attitude. However, I don't think the US should support or even be involved. Many make the assumtion that because I am a neo con slag that I am a proponent of our support towards Isreal.

We are not debating US support to Israel.  Rather the subject at hand is your reasoning for the US going to war with Iraq is rightly based on violation of UN resolutions.  If find it odd that you and many other use this reasoning when Israel is guilty of much the same.  You can't expect to be taken seriously when you argument lacks balance.

Nope, Israel is ignoring a clear bias against it. The fact that the UN says or does nothing in regards to the issue of Palestine and Israel until Israel strikes back is proof of this.

Wreckognize wrote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97664610

The two most influential women in President George W. Bush's White House — first lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — are strongly defending the president's legacy against critics who are calling his administration one of the worst in history.

"I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," Mrs. Bush said in an interview that aired Sunday. "I think history will judge and we'll see later."

Fuckin' idiots.

The sitting SecState and FLOTUS disagree that their President (and for Laura, husband) is the worst in history. And you're surprised by this and/or consider them idiots for saying that?

Seriously?

Laura Bush wrote:

I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way"

Then we don't really need to consider such moronic views either now do we?

I hope she and her kin die a horrible death and rid us of their miserable existence.

Fuck. Off. You. Fat. Bitch.

_{copypastes ougs post and emails to the secret service.}

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The sitting SecState and FLOTUS disagree that their President (and for Laura, husband) is the worst in history. And you're surprised by this and/or consider them idiots for saying that?

Surprised no, idiots yes, they should just STFU and slink into the shadows, drawing attention to this doesn't help them.

So if someone were attacking your boss or spouse, you would just "STFU and slink into the shadows" when asked about it?

I didn't think so.

How is what she said grammatically incorrect? There's nothing dumb about what she said...simply that she doesn't feel the need to engage with people who view things that way. Because--no matter what--they will always view it that way. So what's the point?

Let me see if I can dig up a cartoon that has fuckall to do with the OP.

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. Bin Laden wasn't believed to be a threat at that time.
2. No they didn't. The world was looking at the intel concocted by the US and the Israelis.
3. But why not hit Iran instead of Iraq? Iran had WMD and was working directly with terror groups.
4. Please point out at what point Iraq was deemed a threat to US security, and I'll show you the videos of Powell and Rice saying Iraq was no threat to anyone.
5. Correct, Deeznutz did.
6. Everyone has financial ties to everyone, US included.
7. Saddam was not a threat to the US, not sure where you get 2 million from.
8. And allowed to slip away AFTER 9/11 by Bush - Seems like a smidgen of a failure to me.

1. not true, Clinton was offered Bin Laden AFTER WTC '93. Also Oliver North named Bin Laden as a threat in the '80's
2. like it or not the UN deemed Iraq as a threat, they believed the same intel that the US believed.
3. Iraq was breaking the peace treaty for a decade. The UN would not enforce it. Sp the US did
4. Iraq's continued games in violating the peace treaty with inspections. Iraq refused to allow any "surprise" inspections. Iraq would deny access and kick out inspectors for weeks, only to let them in at a later date. Iraq's actions were suspecious and intentions obvious. Continuing the war was justified because the tool used to stop it was not being adhered to. http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
6. Then at least you are not denying the reason these other countries did not want to thump Iraq, it would mess up their dealings with Iraq. Sorry about that.
7.  http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html . It is a number, no one knows the exact death count under his rule, does it really matter when we know what he was doing?
8. I am sorry, when was Bin Laden in our crosshairs after 911 and Bush said let him go?

You're completely misreading what the lady is saying, Dilbert. She's not doing the typical "neocon" stuff as you imply. She's saying she doesn't feel a need to engage with people who trash her husband.

Then she should follow her own advice.

You imply there was some sort of complicit-ness in AQ attacking ("allowing AQ to attack the US").

Its quite possible there was, a minor attack woud have been just the ticket for an ME invasion, which was the agenda.
The other people you mention sat up and took notice when given warnings, Bush didn't.
Even when told the US HAD been attacked he still sat on his fat backside to finish hearing the 'Happy Goat' story or whetever it was.

I thought he was the 'commander in chief'.
Didn't he have orders to issue or something?

The VP headed for the strategic command bunker, the POTUS sat and listened to a baby story - figures.

I would have thought at least finding out what was going on would be more interesting than hearing about fictional farmyard animals.

Whatever, if you think the Bush Presidency wasn't a failure you're out of step with the rest of the US, and certainly the whole of the rest of the world.

Please point to some successes if you can.