100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: President Bushes biggest mistake | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Well,,, Mtnhiker's effort to win my vote for Obama had me leaning, but Daniels post here sealed the deal! Obama has my Vote.... and he says he'll bring the boys home!  I am glad to see another person pushing for Obama, but I am confused on how anythign I posted in ehre has anythign to do with that. Unless it is due to Mcain and President Bush being fromt he same party. I am looking towards Obama, cause I think he would make the betetr president; not because he is the opposite party of President Bush. My personal opinion is the two parties should be obliterated (yes I said obliterated, lol) and we should have no political parties at all. We simply vote who will do the better job, not which party our families have or have not supported over the years. Because the proof has been provided in previous threads for months. It's also on the news. Winx and Dragon in particular: That is NO EXCUSE, if we are to participate in a specific thread, we must in all fairness and RESPECT, follow the rules and requests of the OP. After all, it IS his/her thread. If we make a mistake, admit it and go on, that simple  Lindyy  Thank you Linndy. I had not read all the way down prior to my rebuttles so please accept my apologies for seeming to have over ridden ya. I tried to email you, but was blocked due to age. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry but this is not civics class this is free form forum where people can write and explain anything how they want to. What is up with these "instructions" in a free speech, free form, forum???   It feels too bossy.  yup and it is speaking down to people and that is not cool. not once did I speak down to you or anyone else. I aksed you to simply follow the guidleines of this particular thread. if you can not or choose not to do so, then please do not respond at all. And it is not being bossy to put limitations on a specific thread in order to try and keep it maintained in the way it was intended by the person startying the thread. It is however rudeand arrogant to think you have the right to come into a thread, not follow the topic or guidelines of the thread, and then complain when you get asked to do so. or to come into a thread and just do whatever you want, or tellthe poster of the thread that they are wrong for putting guidleines behind their own thread. Alrighty then. Bush was one big walking mistake. He handled this country like his personal playground and put our men and women's lives in the mix. He handled Katrina badly, no proof needed obvious. He pointed us towards Saddam when bin laden is the culprit of 9/11 for his own personal agenda. Obvious, no proof needed. He did not meet the guidelines of the congressional okay to have military action against Iraq obvious if you read it. He has taken a dictatorial stance in a democracy making him similar if not exactly like the dictators he claims are enemies to this country. IE his speech stating he care not if people of the country liked what he did or not, he was going to do it. He is of the party that says the "poor" are poor by their own damn fault and deserve no hand outs and then he hands out money freely to everyone. Hypocrisy. He has cut the funding to the Chip program which is the low income health insurance for children of this country who do not qualify for Medicaid, cad. He lies and manipulates the press and the people for his own sick agenda. Proof is available on the internet. Etc...... Is that better for your requirements of this thread Daniel? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 05/09/08 10:39 AM
|
|
A time table, one source and only enough to show Bush fabricated the evidence used to invade Iraq. I can provide more!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4996218 No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003 UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says: "There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm." Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003 In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence. Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003 U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003 The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says: "This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it." U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003 The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says: "These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world." Blix tells the U.N. the next day: "Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found." Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries. Invading Iraq ::: March 20, 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel, if you're going to scold Winx and Dragoness for straying off topic, you should also scold Lindy, even more so, since her copy and paste from Wikipedia has nothing to do with this thread!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The warlord Bushes own words,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052418 The president focused on those elections, which he has said will mark a turning point not just for Iraq but for the entire Middle East. He also accepted responsibility for faulty intelligence leading up to the war. "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," he said. Still, he said the decision to remove former Iraq leader Saddam Hussein was the right one. (What an understatement, considering it was intentional) "We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," Bush said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More? You ask!!
Critics Unimpressed by White House Claims Outside the administration, there was widespread belief that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons, but less confidence on the nuclear question. The U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided over the issue. And, despite months of searching, U.N. inspectors -- both before and after the invasion -- failed to find any weapons of mass destruction. That was no surprise to Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector for Iraq. "I said to Condoleezza Rice that we were not impressed by the intelligence," Blix recalled in an interview with NPR. "I remember she said, 'Intelligence is never 100 percent. But it is not the intelligence that is indicted. It is the Iraqis who are.'" The administration tried to bolster its case by making a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, which implied a connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," Mr. Bush said in a October 2002, speech, his first major prime-time talk to help build public backing for a still unannounced war. Information from Discredited Sources The new information came from a captured al Qaeda operative named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. But eight months before President Bush made that speech, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report saying that information from Al-Libi could not to be trusted. Other informants were also ultimately discredited. Take the case of a man codenamed "Curveball," an Iraqi who defected to Germany in 1999 and lived under the control of that country's intelligence service. When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations in February of 2003 -- six weeks before the war began -- some of the key elements in his controversial presentation were the result of information provided by "Curveball." "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources," Powell told the U.N. gathering. "These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq had mobile labs that could produce anthrax and other deadly germs, enough to kill many thousands of people. At the time, Lawrence Wilkerson was Powell's chief of staff. He says Powell went to then-CIA Director George Tenet in advance to make sure everything in that presentation was accurate. "I remember being in that room with Secretary Powell and George Tenet, and I remember vividly the secretary turning to George and saying 'George, you stand by this? Right?'" recalls Wilkerson. He says the CIA director responded, "Yes." But "Curveball" was not a credible source. The Los Angeles Times, in a story this week, reports that the CIA knew the informant was unstable and that he provided fabricated intelligence. U.S. officials had no direct access to him. David Kay, a former U.S. weapon inspector, was astounded that the government used the type of flimsy intelligence provided by "Curveball" as a basis for war. "I was flabbergasted when I discovered that we'd had the secretary of state lay this story out, and yet no American official had ever talked to this individual or even been able to directly interrogate him as to what his views are and how he knew what he claimed to know," says Kay. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copy and Paste,
Copy and Paste, Oh, how easy to Copy and Paste............ Wait I'll find the Libby trial transcripts... Be right back 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you like me to pick through and just find the juicy stuff, post the whole thing, or trust you to read it yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come on Bushies,
Im game, I can go either route! Tell me something............ 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the Link. I know Dragoness and Madison will read it!!!
http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/osc/exhibits/0306/gx2t.txt Is this offical enough for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 05/09/08 11:12 AM
|
|
Here's a good part,
He's describing a time in the early summer of 2002. It might help explain why Powell resigned. This is Libby talking. The Vice President asked me to get the interagency together to determine, if you're going to go into Iraq and inspect for weapons, as difficult as that is, what is -- what are the rights that you would want, what are the authorities you would want the inspectors, the U.N. inspectors, to have, to have a reasonable shot at finding something given how difficult it would be since he had hidden all his weapons. This was the belief, the understanding at the time, that he had made great efforts to hide things. So I went to the interagency, to the NSC, and they went out to the interagency and said, we would like to get a study going of what are the types of rights you would need if you were a U.N. inspector. What would you most want to have if you could have the best set of rights you could possibly have? I received word back from some people on the NSC that Undersecretary Grossman had refused to participate, and he -- his view was that we couldn't get an ideal set of rights and that he told the NSC that I was asking for this solely in an attempt to get a long list that couldn't be achieved and then to leak it, give it to the press to embarrass Secretary Powell. Mind you Libby was convicted and then Pardoned! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Fri 05/09/08 11:27 AM
|
|
THIS IS REAL GOOD!
MS. KEDIAN. 1538. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Q. Let me start with 1456. In the meantime, I'll show you 1445. Let me show you what's a document -- it's Bates Stamped 1445 and without getting into the contents it's from, from John Hannah to the Vice President and concerning a CIA paper on the Iraq/Niger/uranium deal. Do you recognize that? A. I do, sir. Q. Okay. And do you recall receiving it on or about June 9th? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you recall what it was that occasioned Mr. Hannah to prepare this? A. We had gotten a paper from the CIA. It was a very long paper. I think it's attached here, eight single-spaced pages with a lot of data in it, and a lot of dates and meetings and discussions, and he undertook to summarize some of the things that were in the CIA paper down to, I guess, two and a half pages. CHENEY TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO EDIT AN 8 PAGE CIA REPORT DOWN TO 2 1/2 PAGES? A report concerning the uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger. HMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............. Maybe they (Cheney) thought Congress couldnt read 8 pages? Convincing evidence??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im through trying to show proof to Sheeple who wont even look.
The facts are there... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is this the way to Oz?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fanta
 Good job
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fanta Good job Its really a waste of time dragoness....... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is this the way to Oz? Yes it is....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fanta Good job Its really a waste of time dragoness....... I know, the ostrich syndrome. Put your head in the sand in the face of great injustice and it will go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lindyy
on
Fri 05/09/08 11:50 AM
|
|
I feel President Bush did not vetoe enough bills. Reason I think it was a mistake? TOO MUCH PORK BARREL was attached to each bill presented so as to get the bill passed. Subsequently, a ton of money could have been saved if it were not for the 'favor owed' pork barrel jibberish. People really do not understand the 'whys' of a veto. People never look into the records and see WHY a bill was vetoed. i.e., pork barrell shoved into the bill. List of United States presidential vetoes From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia• The word veto does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires every bill, order, resolution or other act of legislation by the Congress of the United States to be presented to the President of the United States for his approval. When the President is presented the bill, he can either sign it into law, return the bill to the originating house of Congress with his objections to the bill (a veto), or neither sign nor return it to Congress after having been presented the bill for ten days exempting Sundays (if Congress is still in session, the bill becomes a law; otherwise, the bill does not become a law and is considered a pocket veto). The list below contains many of the bills vetoed and pocket vetoed by Presidents. I am only going to make a few comparisons President Bush's Vetos and Bill Clinton's vetoes: President Bush: Regular vetoes 8 Pocket Vetoes 1 For a total of ONLY 9 vetoes Vetoes overridden 1 Bill Clinton: Regular vetoes 36 Pocket vetoes 1 Total vetoes 37 Overridden vetoes 2 George W. Bush Vetoes (Please note that only 1 veto was ever overridden. And why were the rest not vetoed? Not enough votes meaning democrats and Republican alike both House and/or Senate agreed with President Bush's vetoes of a bill!!) 1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed). 2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval. 3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. 4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed). 5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto. 6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed). 7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007[18]. Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed). 8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19] 9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20] [21]. Override attempt failed in House, 225-188 I am not posting Clinton's vetoes as it seems to be meaningles to the left wing libbers. They are quite capable of going to Wikepedia and seraching themselves. Plus, I have entered enough information as this post is directed towards President George W. Bush. Lindyy Edited by Lindyy on Fri 05/09/08 09:53 AM Thank you for the reasoning and such behind your belief. One questio nI have though, is wether or not you know where we could get the information on WHY president Bush vetoed each particular proposal? I am simply curious to see what his reasonings were. Daniel: This is my source for information. Some reasons are explained, the site does refer you to other sites that may give more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But they are so happy.....
|
|
|
|
|
