Is Bush a Liar?

[Chief]

It seems to me that none of this liar business came up until things started going poorly in Iraq. I will be the first to agree that the "operations" (I refuse to call it a war since our congress did not have the balls to pass a declaration of war) are being run poorly and mainly do to political sensitivity here back in the states and internationally. Congress had access to the same information that the White House did for the most part. Congress made a near unanimous vote to allow the use of force. Anyone who voted for the use of force and is now back tracking is either admitting they were a totally uninformed idiot or are playing politics.

In a nutshell and my opinion, what is driving this issue is the dycotomy of the unwillingness of our nation for the most part to accept and strongly support the use of effective measures to exterminate the enemy. If our military forces were allowed to be militarily effective; the revulsion and outcry would be world wide. Our current leadership on BOTH sides of the isle does not have the balls or the stomach to achieve victory in a timely manor. To me it is obvious that politically it is FAR more safe and "politically cheaper" to allow our military men and women to be sacrificed and made expendable in the name of the "War on Terror".

What is victory and what do I envision as effective measures to exterminate the enemy? Basically the simple rule of war that has governed war among man kind for millenia.............kill and exterminate the enemy by all means available until he surrenders unconditionally or exterminate him altogether. A KEY term and definition that MUST be clarified is the term "enemy". Exactly who is the enemy in my view? The enemy is ANYONE who is not assholes and elbows doing EVERYTHING humanly possible to aid and assist you in destroying the enemy. This include men, women, children, dogs, cats, etc.

An example of the leadership I speak of was the campaign to rid Fallujah of insurgents. Our marines tooks trendous losses not because of a fierce and brave fighting enemy......but because our leadership allowed the occupants of Fallujah several days to evacuate (so called non-combatants) thus allowing the enemy to infest the town with bobby traps and sniper positions! Had our leadership employed tactics that cut off food & water, destroy medical facilities, schools, water, electric, and basically all municipal facilities, followed up by the use of chemical weapons to purge the town of insurgents; our casualties would have been far fewer and the objective achieved in hours, not days. The Iraqis were soundly defeated on the field of battle. The insurgents and anyone who supports or tolerates them in ANY way are the enemy and should be exterminated. We have yet to attack the Syrians or the Iranians who are the prime support for the insurgents. What does this mean to the American public and world opinion?????? It means dead bodies numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. The American public is not ready for this nor would it support it. The outcry of what we did to the Iraqi's in the first Gulf War on "the highway of death" served to ensure our military would not be fully unleashed again. The destruction was so complete that it broke the will of the Iraqi's to fight.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html

I got the opportunity to be there and see it first hand and still could not believe my eyes.

In more basic terms..........when in a bar fight, either fight with all ya got and kick the guy's ass or get out of the bar! Our political leadership had this concept mastered with the decisions made on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There in lies the rub and the running for political cover to claim lies.

I support our troops, the operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world and I DON"T support the half assed way we are going about it! I damn sure don't like the way our military men and women are being used as political pawns to buy time!

I don't think Bush lied. I voted for Bush both times and given his opponents, I would vote the same again. Still doesn't mean that I can't be mad as hell for how things are being run and hold Bush responsible for his part but congress holds the greatest responsibility by virtue of the fact that they abdicated their constitutional authority and duty by NOT voting on a declaration of war.

The average person in America could give shit less about the "War on Terror". Half don't even know who is their congressman or senator much less who is the vice president and in some cases the president! They seem more concerned about the price of gas, methamphetamine, pot, and how much they can get from the government. This is where leaders are supposed to lead!!!!! NOT take a poll to see what to do next!!!! It is sad that our nation can't even be rallied to shit or get off the pot!

Anyhow, that is my take on the issue. Think I'll step of the soap box before I fall off.

 

[OkeeDon]

...clinton also made the same promise that GHW Bush made re: taxes, except he didn't say "read my lips". It wasn't long before he gave us the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY..

Who's tinkering with the truth? Consider:
The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) fashioned by Dole and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 placeAd(2,'slate.homepage/slate') (OBRA-93) pushed through Congress by Clinton were projected, at the time of passage, to raise almost exactly the same amounts of revenue. The Dole measure was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to increase the Treasury's take over the next five years by $235 billion. The revenue parts of Clinton's bill were projected to produce $241 billion over five years. But these numbers need to be adjusted. Inflation between 1982 and 1993, as measured by the GDP deflator, eroded the value of the dollar by almost a third. Measured in 1982 dollars, Clinton's tax increase would be worth only about $165 billion--$70 billion less than Dole's.

Further: Clinton specifically promised a tax increase on the affluent and on business. In 1993, 78% of the tax increase was on the affluent (63%) and business (15%), which was therefore a campaign promise fulfilled. The only tax he passed that affected the middle class was a gas tax, and that cost the average middle class family about $45 per year. At the same time, the tax increases caused interest rates to fall, and the average middle class family saved hundreds of dollars per year in interest. Over all, the middle class fared pretty good.

If you were against the 1993 tax increase, and in favor of the tax custs for the affluent today, you are either very affluent yourself, or you are being duped and used by the Republicans to further their gains for the rich, Either way, I have little sympathy.

 

[Melensdad]

Now, if you want to talk about documented messes that one President leaves another, let's look at Bush Sr.'s failure to remove Saddam in '92; in my opinion (and I said so at the time), that was one of the biggest goofs ever seen

Of course, had he done that, he would have violated international law. The US led coalition troops were not authorized, by the UN mandate, to persue and destroy Saddam's administration or to topple his government. We were only authorized to get Iraq out of Kuwait and run them back far enough to remove the threat to Kuwait.

 

[OkeeDon]

Chief, this may surprise you, but I agree with much of what you say. I'm not as strong as you about the need for Congress to declare war; they haven't done that since WWII, and likely never will again. I also have a disagreement with you about what Congress did vote for: most of them, from both parties, felt they were giving the President a Last Resort. It was their short-sightedness that did not recognize that the Bsuh folks were hell-bent on invading Iraq no matter who did or said what.

I'm not a member of Congress, obviously, but I was speaking out against our involvement in Iraq months before we went. Almost all of the claims I denounced at the time were later proven to be bogus; I was right.

Regardless, I now come down on the same side as Hillary. It was a blunder to go there; but if we leave now, it would be an even bigger blunder. We've made our bed; now we have to lie in it. I think that's the biggest reason I resent GW so much; we should NEVER have been in this position, and I have the right to say so now, because I said so at the time.

The saddest part of this whole lunacy is that it's our brave young people, the best we have to offer, who are suffering the most. Of course, I totally support them. There are starting to be more and more of them who are coming home and saying we should never have gone there in the first place, and I applaud their courage, but I totally support giving our troops the best and most of what they need to do the job -- unlike our current administration, who thought they could do it on the cheap.

Of course, I don't agree with your choices inthe last two elections or your assessment of the "lesser of the evils"; I think we'd be better off with a chimpanzee than Bush. Nobody could be worse.

 

[OkeeDon]

Of course, had he done that, he would have violated international law. The US led coalition troops were not authorized, by the UN mandate, to persue and destroy Saddam's administration or to topple his government. We were only authorized to get Iraq out of Kuwait and run them back far enough to remove the threat to Kuwait.

And, a pre-emptive strike on a nation that never attacked us is not a violation of international law? I sure know it's a violation of moral law.

 

[Melensdad]

And, a pre-emptive strike on a nation that never attacked us is not a violation of international law? I sure know it's a violation of moral law.

Don, I do agree that it is a violation of moral law. However, as for international law, we actually had a UN resolution authorizing it. The UN then started to balk as the US got closer to actually using the resolution, but the UN never recinded the resolution, therefore we actually had the legal backing of UN (for whatever that is worth). The net effect is that GW Bush had the legal right to invade Iraq.

 

[DAP]

Like it or not ... cynical or not .... by definition, politicians at that level are required to prevaricate ...

Pity to those who think otherwise ...