George W. Bush's Presidency - One of the toughest tenures ever?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Yea, like Clinton and Kerry. . . they're radical lefties

ShF, you keep on professing this, yet you have absolutely nothing to back it up. The far left is non-existant, so this language is absolutely false. The far RIGHT is in control of the country, do you honestly thing there is a "far left" anymore? If you do, then what do you have for proof other then idle words which have been long gone. Saying this is akin to saying conservatives are fiscally responsible.

I'm calling you out now because you keep on saying it, yet you have absolutely nothing to back it up. In fact, the democrats are mostly moderate. The ones running for president, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Bayh, ALL are moderates, and they are the ones that are in control of the party. You need to come up with some facts if you are going to continue to profess this false claim, because frankly, I am sick of reading it.

And how is it the democrats fault? They were not the ones that voted to go to war. Do you really want me to bring up the vote? Do you really want me to bring up the EXACT language Bush used to get people to pass? Do you really want me to bring up how the extreme right slandered democrats in the election saying they were soft? Do you want me to bring up the viscous language used, and how the American public bought into it? Do you need to be reminded what was said about the Dixie Chicks? How about if you are against the war, you are with the terrorists? How anout every democrat called a terrorist lover for actually calling Bush on his BS? How about when the republicans put out a campaign commercial morphing Max Cleeland into Bin Laden? They were going along because it was their only hope of survival.

Chom honestly, sometimes I worry about you man

Do you honestly believe what you say?

Do you honestly believe the DLC controls the democratic party and not the "Democratic Wing of the democratic party"

Its like you constantly harping on "the GOP is about to split and lose election" No its not, people like you have been saying that for years

Look, do I really need to bring up quotes from key Democrats on Saddam Hussein? Really do I?

I could do a quick search on this site and find them. The Democrats went along with Iraq, voted for it, except for people like Robert Byrd, and for as much as I dislike the guy, I'll give him credit for that

Do I need to bring up quotes again from key Democrats? Quotes not only from fall of 2002, but how about justifying random missles into Baghdad during Ramadan in 1998? Should I bring up quotes then?

Good lord man, wake up, take your party back. If you want to be the party of Liberman and Biden, DO IT. But your party doesn't. Lieberman was killed by the far left in the primaries, just as Biden will be in 2008.

Seriously, take it down a level, step back and see what happened. I don't think George Bush was pushing around Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1998 when they justified missles into a few neighborhoods in Baghdad by talking about WMD's and inspections

Really man, its the same damn cyclical argument all the time with you, it never changes, you see the world through some completely different lens then I do and I don't think anything will change that.

Does the DLC control the Democratic party? No

Is the GOP on the verge of a split because of GWB? No

Here is an article on the Iraq War Resolution vote. Now if I recall correctly, in October of 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate. So half of the Senate Dems went along with the Iraq War resolution.

Step back from the ledge here man. As I have said in other posts I have been there, met people who want to destroy us, and understand a lot of the politics of the area, and WAS SO DAMN HAPPY THE REGION IS DESTABLIZED

Like I said my motiviations on this are far different from yours, however if you let the Dean wing control the party, you are going to have things like the 1990s where terrorism was viewed as a law enforcement issue, rather then the war it is.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

Administration applauds vote

WASHINGTON (CNN) --In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Cut per new rules.........

[chomerics]

Chom honestly, sometimes I worry about you man

Do you honestly believe what you say?

Do you honestly believe the DLC controls the democratic party and not the "Democratic Wing of the democratic party"

I look at who wins the nominations, where the focus is and what the message is. The democrat party is a lot different then it was 20 years ago, the same with the republican party, yet you keep on sprouting off the same old BS like it is 1986. Platforms move over time, and both parties have evolved. The right has become the extreme right, and the left has taken over the center. You continue to focus your attention on the otherside's farthest politicians, without looking at where the leadership is based, and what their foundation is. You do this, while not even realizing the shift in platform your own party has undergone.

Its like you constantly harping on "the GOP is about to split and lose election" No its not, people like you have been saying that for years

I have not "been saying it for years" I started saying it after the 04' election. Many republicans didn't vote for Bush and instead voted for Kerry for this exact same reason. What Bush did was expose the republican party as a farce. Give me a talking point for the party, like fiscal responsibility, and I can give you numbers over the past 8 years to show you different. The RINO's or the moderates are like the real rhinos, they are a dying breed. Look at who is in power, the radical right. Look at what is going on in your party right now, they are fighting like two girls over the same guy. I have been prophesying this for the past 10 months, not the past 10 years. Your party is the party of Terry Schiavo, Fox News, Harriet Miers, Michale Brown, reckless spending, and corporate welfare. I didn't label them, they labeled themselves with their actions, and people are FINALLY starting to catch on.

Look, do I really need to bring up quotes from key Democrats on Saddam Hussein? Really do I?

I could do a quick search on this site and find them. The Democrats went along with Iraq, voted for it, except for people like Robert Byrd, and for as much as I dislike the guy, I'll give him credit for that

And the vote, if you remember correctly, was a vote not to invade Iraq, but to give the president the power to. Saddam was a brutal dictator, and he only understood force. This is a fact that we can both agree on, and the vote was to give the president the authority to use force AS A LAST RESORT. You do remember the quotes by Bush before the vote don't you? Here is one from his imfamous Cincinatti speech full of lies.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

This vote was about giving the president the authority to FORCE Saddam to disarm, and allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. It was to give the authority needed to FORCE Saddam to obey us. This was NOT a vote to invade as you, and many countless others have stated over these past couple of years.

Do I need to bring up quotes again from key Democrats? Quotes not only from fall of 2002, but how about justifying random missles into Baghdad during Ramadan in 1998? Should I bring up quotes then?

What do democrat quotes on the missle attack, which was wrong BTW, it wasn't a chemical factory, have to do with the party being radical left? What does anything you have said so far have to do with the democrats being radical left?

Good lord man, wake up, take your party back. If you want to be the party of Liberman and Biden, DO IT. But your party doesn't. Lieberman was killed by the far left in the primaries, just as Biden will be in 2008.

They "far left" killed Libermann??? No, Libermann killed himself with his continuous backing of Bush. Who got the nomination? What was their platform? It was a CENTRIST platform by the democratic party, you do know this right? Kerry, the man who won the nomination, ran on centrist issues. The Pay-go system, pro-military, balanced budget. . . yes, all "far left" ideology :doh:

You seriously need to take a step outside of your position and re-evaluate who you are backing, and who closely resembles what you stand for, because you are lost right now. Your party is no longer the party you THINK it is, it is instead an extreme radical party that wants to undermine the system our founding fathers set up.

Seriously, take it down a level, step back and see what happened. I don't think George Bush was pushing around Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1998 when they justified missles into a few neighborhoods in Baghdad by talking about WMD's and inspections

Really man, its the same damn cyclical argument all the time with you, it never changes, you see the world through some completely different lens then I do and I don't think anything will change that.

Actually, you think we see the world through different eyes, but we are not that far apart on a whole myriad of issues, and you know this. We agree on a number of issues, and we are both pretty centrist in ideology. I just happen to be backing the party that promotes my ideology at this time, I have switched sides. Hell, last year I was still thinking that I was a conservative, it took me a while to realize that the party I thought I knew was nothing like it said it was. I have since looked elsewhere for leaders, and the democrats are far far closer to my beliefs then the republicans are. 20 years ago, the republicans were where my ideology was, but not any more. I haven't changed my thinking, the parties have changed theirs.

Does the DLC control the Democratic party? No

You are right, they do not controll the democratic party, but they have a number of up and coming politicians who will lead the democratic party. people like Bayh and Obama are the future of politics, and they will hopefully eliminate the old boys network in power right now.

Is the GOP on the verge of a split because of GWB? No

Ummmm, maybe you haven't read a lot of op-eds reciently, but you should check out a few. Look at what people like George Will and Andrew Sullivan have to say. They are pissed at what Bush has done to the party, as well they should be.

As for the article, I read it, and it was full of a bunch of lies. I am pissed to no end that we went to war over this.

One more thing that is quite interesting in hindsight. The Niger documentation was found to be a forgery three days before we invaded, but the law required the president to notify congress 48hours before an invasion. Well, when you put two and two together, doesn't it look like we invaded Iraq as soon as the report came back that the Niger papers were forgeries? I mean within 24hours after hearing the papers were not true, they went in anyways. Wha does this tell you? If anything, it should at least make you open up your eyes a little bit.

7 March 2003

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.

We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3051709.stm

[Kilmer17]

Man, if this isn't the definition of a blind partisan, I don't know what is. Bush had it EASY for the first 4 1/2 years of his presedency. The republican noise machine squelched out ANY and ALL questioning of the president. Read some of the questions asked of the president during the 02-04 years.

Hell, he was allowed to start a war based on FALSE information, lies and propaganda simply because the press would not ask the tough questions. . . and when they did, they were exommunicated from even asking questions.

Maybe you were asleep at the wheel during the Clinton years, but I remember a HARSH press asking him questions about things such as his sexual behavior. Funny how that gets to pass as actual news in Republican's eyes, yet asking the president if his staff KNOWINGLY commited treason by PURPOSELY outing a CIA agent is somehow partisan.

Well, during Katrina, where was Cheney? In Mantana picking out a new million dollar home. Where was Condi? In Manhattan buying thousands of dollars worth of shoes. If the staff IS with him, they sure have a funny way of poping up 1000's of miles away from Crawford.

The entire part of his vacation reflects DIRECTLY on how hard his presidency was. IF it was as hard an FH and others are trying to make it out to be (as well as Fox News, their "new" talking point) then shouldn't he have at least spent more time in Washington? What would the right's attack dogs say if Clinton was on vacation 42% of his first year and we were attacked? Do you NOT think it would be a HUGE battle cry? Of course it would, so why cry foul when others bring up the question?

You should re-read Bufford's post, he's spot on.

.

Blah blah blah (insert liberal talking points here) blah blah blah (the liberal sheep will follow) blah blah blah.

chom, if you HONESTLY believe that the last 4.5 years have been easy for Bush, I want what your smoking. It's been nothing but 24/7 attack even before he took the oath of office.

If a Dem ever wins the WH again, the payback will be brutal. And Im sure you will be leading the pack complaining about it.

You can continue to spew the talking poinjts, but they've been the same lines for 5 years now, they fall on deaf ears.

[chomerics]

Blah blah blah (insert liberal talking points here) blah blah blah (the liberal sheep will follow) blah blah blah.

chom, if you HONESTLY believe that the last 4.5 years have been easy for Bush, I want what your smoking. It's been nothing but 24/7 attack even before he took the oath of office.

I KNOW what I am smoking

I hate to be the bearer of reality, but Bush has had an absolute free ride up until the Harriet Miers nomination. Look at what he has done to this country in terms of economic stability, and you think he's been attacked 24/7??? Fox News was a 24 hour Clinton bashing event, yet when Dubya was ruled the winner, they became the biggest rump swabs on the face of this planet. Talk radio, exactly the same. The press corps, same thing. He has not had to face attacks 24/7, you absolutely know this, and you are showing a lot of intellectual dishonesty with this post.

If a Dem ever wins the WH again, the payback will be brutal. And Im sure you will be leading the pack complaining about it.

WHEN the democrats win the WH again, Fox News will be deemed the propaganda station that it is, and America will understand what they are up to. Up until Katrina, a majority of the public still believed Fox to be a legit news station, it wasn't until the conservative reporters started to lay the blaime that they were the talking wing of the WH that people started to listen.

You can continue to spew the talking poinjts, but they've been the same lines for 5 years now, they fall on deaf ears.

You will always fail to hear the voice of reason, there is nothing wrong with that, it is just showing your partisan nature.

Fascism:

Are you sure that's the type of government and economic system we operate under? I'm pretty sure you mean capitalism.

Also, you completely missed the point of my post... I don't disagree that there may have been price gouging, if there was then punish the gas companies. With all the service stations you'd think there would be more than enough proof that they all conspired together to price gouge.

The point was, maybe it's not so cut and dry, and I provided an example of how I think the system works... but you chose to ignore that example.

If you feel business controls our goverment, the answer isn't to scream about better business, but scream about better government. We get the government that we deserve.

[Sarge]

Chom, I haven't read this whole thread, but you really are losing it. I'm surprised your keyboard still works from all the drool and lather that drips out of the corner of your mouth when you post.

You're gonna give yourself a coronary:laugh: