Bush's State of the Union Address: The Final Chapter

[IRememberDBoon]

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time. We could've saved alot of time, lives, and money if we had simply thought it through, and for that, the Democrats need to take some blame. Instead of voting to allow it to happen, they (and everyone else, nobody is safe from criticism) should have made sure we knew we had a plan for stabilizing the region.

 

 

THEY DID NOT FUGGING VOTE TO ALLOW ANYTHING TO HAPPEN. They voted to give The President the power to make the decision. There was no way they could have voted any different. Think back to 03. With the administrations lies everywhere the whole country thought we should invade. I bet the percent was like 85 or more. i even thought that after the president's 03 state of the union and Im a very proud staunch DEMOCRAT

 

Yeah. 4000 dopes who were duped into becoming Bush's baby killers.

 

What I love more than "instant historical perspective" (now the norm), is assuming that no one in the military had personal convictions or beliefs that led to them signing up for the mission.

 

i dont get your point.

[darkstar]

Yeah. 4000 dopes who were duped into becoming Bush's baby killers.

 

What I love more than "instant historical perspective" (now the norm), is assuming that no one in the military had personal convictions or beliefs that led to them signing up for the mission.

 

 

Dopes????!!!!! I usually stay away from the political threads because everybody has their own opinions and thats fine, but this comment really pisses me off. You may not like the war, you may not like the politicians who are involved in it, you may not even like the military, but how fucking dare you call anyone who has died (or served) over there a dope.

 

It's real easy sitting in your comfy house typing in stupid shit like this, without thinking one whit about what the folks over there are dealing with. We have an all volunteer military these days and you better be thankful that there are people who are willing to put themselves at risk to do this utterly thankless job.

 

Argue all you want about this war being a political move or about oil or whatever...thats fine, but think about calling someone a dope who is willing to put his/her ass on the line when shit like this goes down. I don't know you, don't know your politics, don't know your background...you may be a hell of a person, but to call these people who have perished over there doing what they feel is right dopes, is , at the least callous and shockingly disrespectful. I don't want to sound like an ass but shame on you.

[Beltmann]

I might be wrong, but I think Shuck was using sarcasm in order to make the same point you made.

[a.miller]

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time.

Terrorists from Afghanistan struck the US and we bombed Iraq. That's always how I have seen it / will see it and the logic will never, ever make sense. How the hell we got from Afghanistan to invading Iraq I will never know.

[Sir Stewart]

They were mostly from Saudi Arabia, I believe.

[bobbob1313]

There were plenty of people in appropriate positions (CIA, etc.) who knew that what the Bush administration was trumpeting as the great Iraqi threat was complete and utter bullshit. Bush & Co. simply chose not to listen to those people. They'd had the Iraq invasion on their agenda for years already before Bush was installed in the White House.

 

 

...or they should have voted no. That's what I blame the Democrats for. What's more important -- saving the country from a disastrous, unnecessary war, or getting re-elected? Most of them chose the latter.

 

Granted, the administration was filling their ears with all kinds of nightmare scenarios about Hussein (that "mushroom cloud" comment, for example), but the correct intelligence was there if people had just sought it out. Bush has tried to make it look like there was a breakdown in the intelligence community, but really, it was their own intelligence initiatives, conducted outside the normal channels, that were wrong.

 

This is my point. Instead of voting with their conscience, or voting based on information that was there, they voted because they were afraid they wouldn't get re-elected. That is what pisses me off, and this is why I hold everyone accountable. We put lives at risk because people weren't willing to deal with the reprecussions of their actions, and they still aren't. Rather than fessing up that they voted for the war, democrats have been dancing around the issue for the last 4 years because they are afraid, again, (and sort of ironically) they won't get elected or re-elected.

 

Interesting how the perjury trap set up for Clinton revolving around a personal issue is blown up to be a greater crime and event than what has occurred the last seven years. I also find it interesting that the perjury trap set for Clinton revolving around a personal issue not related at all to the running of the united states is still a larger issue to Bush supporters than things like oh Perjury involving the exposure of a US spy. Especially when the SPy perjurer was given multiple chances to extricate himself from the lies. How many times was libby brought back in to clarify testimony? At least Rove had the sense to change his story to match what he knew the prosecutor already knew. But it all pales in comparison to lying about a personal mater. And remeber the origins of that lie...an investigation into a failed real estate venture.

 

But please list these laws CLinton has supposedly broken. We all know Bush's phillosophy which has has stated publicly more than once...if we do it it's legal. SO by definition he can't break the law because he is above it.

 

Well, lying under oath is a pretty big one. As far as I know Bush never lied under oath regarding the spy thing, so that's a moot point.

 

I love you're categorization of me as a war mongering, baby killing, anti-clinton conservative freak in your posts throughout this thread. I don't and didn't support the war, but I refuse to pin all of the blame on one person. The majority of the country allowed themselves to be duped into supporting this war, including almost every democratic person in Washington. They gave him the final go ahead without questioning the motives or the plan. Every person who voted for war or voted for a politician who voted for the war has an equal stake in this. And more importantly, as Americans, we all hold an equal stake in this regardless. This war doesn't just effect the people who died, or the people who support it. It effects all of us. We are already in there, so it' spointless to debate why we went in in the first place or whether we should be. We are.

 

We need to find a way to make the best of a shitty situation, but it seems like almost eveyrone in this country is more concerned with getting "their people" into office rather than making a decision that will be best for the country. I'm getting sick and tired of politics in this country because instead of looking for real solutions to real problems, we argue over bullshit like gay marriage or just plain blindly follow our parties.

[Reni]

I think of all the fucked up illegal shit Bush and Co have done, I think extraordinary rendition and illegal wiretapping without FISA court approval is my favorite.

[owl]

I love you're categorization of me as a war mongering, baby killing, anti-clinton conservative freak in your posts throughout this thread.

Chris, don't sweat it. You don't need to defend yourself. Anyone who is reading your posts should be able to understand what you mean.

[John Smith]

Well, lying under oath is a pretty big one. As far as I know Bush never lied under oath regarding the spy thing, so that's a moot point.

 

I love you're categorization of me as a war mongering, baby killing, anti-clinton conservative freak in your posts throughout this thread. I don't and didn't support the war, but I refuse to pin all of the blame on one person. The majority of the country allowed themselves to be duped into supporting this war, including almost every democratic person in Washington. They gave him the final go ahead without questioning the motives or the plan. Every person who voted for war or voted for a politician who voted for the war has an equal stake in this. And more importantly, as Americans, we all hold an equal stake in this regardless. This war doesn't just effect the people who died, or the people who support it. It effects all of us. We are already in there, so it' spointless to debate why we went in in the first place or whether we should be. We are.

 

We need to find a way to make the best of a shitty situation, but it seems like almost eveyrone in this country is more concerned with getting "their people" into office rather than making a decision that will be best for the country. I'm getting sick and tired of politics in this country because instead of looking for real solutions to real problems, we argue over bullshit like gay marriage or just plain blindly follow our parties.

 

Bush would never go under oath nor testify on the record about anything. My point being that Bush apologists think lying about a personal matter totally unrelated to the running of our country is a much more serious offense than lying about...well, the security of our nation. Clinton was held accountable for every action of every underling in his adminsitration, for some reason Bush apologists slough every bad thing off on others. The man-god is pure and untouched in their minds beciause of this.

 

I did nto realize I had categorized you as any of those things. I think you read way tooo much into what I wrote.

 

I would say that it is very important to debate why we wennt in so that we can learn from our mistakes and not make them again. Using your logic iit is not important to find out how and why 911 happend, thus deal with the results. Nope, that is exactly the position bush took way back before he flip flopped and pretended to be in favor of investigating 911. It is not really a good phillosophy, you have to learn from your mistakes, and sucesses. There is no way to do so unless you understand how and why they occur.

[bobbob1313]

I agree, they've done some awfully fucked up shit (PATRIOT Act and the related bullshit spring immediately to mind). But who should be taking the fall for this stuff? We're going to throw the President in jail, then?

 

Ultimately, many Presidents have done just as much to violate national and international law. How many of them went to jail? Lincoln is a perfect example, i.e. the suspension of habeas corpus.

 

My main point is we are all gnashing our teeth about Bush but I really don't think the country's in that bad shape. You can blame the recession on him if you want, but recessions happen. Presidents rarely have anything to do with them. Are we in worse shape than after Watergate or Vietnam? Or the war of 1812? It is too early to judge, but I can't see how we are. And if we are, WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO FIX IT?

 

You hear alot of politicians talk about change. Not a single one has made even the slightest effort to talk about what will change.

[bobbob1313]

I would say that it is very important to debate why we wennt in so that we can learn from our mistakes and not make them again. Using your logic iit is not important to find out how and why 911 happend, thus deal with the results. Nope, that is exactly the position bush took way back before he flip flopped and pretended to be in favor of investigating 911. It is not really a good phillosophy, you have to learn from your mistakes, and sucesses. There is no way to do so unless you understand how and why they occur.

 

That is not my logic at all. But what is more important than figuring out why we went in (and we aren't really doing that. We are just appropriating blame to whoever will make us look best) is figuring out what we are going to do now. We are in. We have been. Is the surge working? Can we pull out now? Do we need more troops? These are issues that are far more important than why we went in, but nobody seems to be looking for a real answer that isn't steeped in rhetoric and attack.

[ShuckOwens]

Dopes????!!!!! I usually stay away from the political threads because everybody has their own opinions and thats fine, but this comment really pisses me off. You may not like the war, you may not like the politicians who are involved in it, you may not even like the military, but how fucking dare you call anyone who has died (or served) over there a dope.

 

It's real easy sitting in your comfy house typing in stupid shit like this, without thinking one whit about what the folks over there are dealing with. We have an all volunteer military these days and you better be thankful that there are people who are willing to put themselves at risk to do this utterly thankless job.

 

Argue all you want about this war being a political move or about oil or whatever...thats fine, but think about calling someone a dope who is willing to put his/her ass on the line when shit like this goes down. I don't know you, don't know your politics, don't know your background...you may be a hell of a person, but to call these people who have perished over there doing what they feel is right dopes, is , at the least callous and shockingly disrespectful. I don't want to sound like an ass but shame on you.

 

Shuck was using sarcasm in order to make the same point you made.

Is sarcasm really that hard to spot... especially when followed up with my non-sarcastic screed in the same post?

[John Smith]

These are issues that are far more important than why we went in, but nobody seems to be looking for a real answer that isn't steeped in rhetoric and attack.

 

I respectfully disagree that those issues are more important. They are equally important. They are happening now, but we must prevent this from happening again. IOne is the here and now and the other is the future. As to no body looking for ann answer that is not steeped in rhetoric, umm nobody is looking period. The ISG was completely ignored by the administration. And face it no matter what any investigation would uncover unless it shows exactly what people want to hear they will never believe it. And I am speaking in particular of the cult of Bush never coming to the realization of the truth. I agree that some on the other side of the fence will not believe any fact based findings unless their position is supported. But more likely the Bush people will stick together regardless.

 

Just and FYI...Bush drove me out of the republican party. When he won the nomination I dropped them like a hot potato. For soem reason people have short memories and forgot what a douchebag has was all of his life and how little he hhad changed beyond his so called conversion to christianity... So called because he really does not reflect christ in his actions or ideals.

[IRememberDBoon]

or just plain blindly follow our parties.

 

I follow my party (The Democratic Party) with my eyes wide open. Im proud of our record and excited about the future. You say noone has ideas for real change I would say youre not paying attention to what John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are saying.

[bobbob1313]

I follow my party (The Democratic Party) with my eyes wide open. Im proud of our record and excited about the future. You say noone has ideas for real change I would say youre not paying attention to what John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are saying.

 

Not 10 posts ago you said you supported the Iraq war when everyone else in your party did, now you don't. You definitely are the very definition of a blind party follower. The democratic nominees have no real plans for change. You just think they do because they say "change" alot.

[a.miller]

They were mostly from Saudi Arabia, I believe.

Exactly.

[owl]

Not 10 posts ago you said you supported the Iraq war when everyone else in your party did, now you don't. You definitely are the very definition of a blind party follower. The democratic nominees have no real plans for change. You just think they do because they say "change" alot.

 

I hear you loud and clear, but what is to be done? (And please) don't say Ron Paul.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Not 10 posts ago you said you supported the Iraq war when everyone else in your party did, now you don't. You definitely are the very definition of a blind party follower. The democratic nominees have no real plans for change. You just think they do because they say "change" alot.

That time never happened. Something like 40%+ of the Democratic Senators voted against the war--and took big political risks to do so.

[ikol]

So only the majority of Democrats supported the war.

[darkstar]

Is sarcasm really that hard to spot... especially when followed up with my non-sarcastic screed in the same post?

 

 

Yeah I guess it was hard to follow your sarcasm... so point taken, however this is something I feel strongly about and I don't really feel that any sarcasm or joking of any kind is warranted when your talking about US Service members getting killed. I guess it just affects me harder. I was over there in Gulf War I for almost 13 months and it puts me into a different frame of refference.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

So only the majority of Democrats supported the war.

Essentially, yes.

By my count, 44% of the Senate Democrats voted against authorization. 56% for. I was responding to the assertion that there was a time that all Democrats supported the war--clearly that's not the case.