Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on December 15, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics




Yesterday George W. Bush, out of his own mouth, documented that he is a Buffoon!
For the very first time he admitted he took this country to war, the most important decision any president can make, based on faulty information. These are the Presidentâ own words, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."BR>
That would have been an important admission had Bush stopped there. However what followed is hard to believe. His next statement was, "Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."BR>
If the information that said he was a danger was incorrect as the President admitted, how was Saddam a threat? What possible justification for going to war existed with a country that did not have the means to be a threat? There are many tyrants in this world that wish others harm. They are NOT a threat if they do not have the means of being a danger.

Even when Bush admits he was wrong, according to him he was right. How foolish Bush make himself look. This great country deserves a leader that can take responsibility for their mistakes not one that acts like GWB.

Comments (Page 2)
8 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Dec 15, 2005
Clinton did not invade Iraq that was Bush predicated on incorrect information. Again, the Action Bush took was an error because Saddan did NOT pose a danger the US. Not that he was a Evil Dictator or that he violated UN resolutions or even that he killed his own people. Not to give the Iraqi people a chance to vote. Non of that was the justification Bush used to go to war. It is time for Bush and his supporters to admit the war in Iraq was a mistake and that when we invaded, Iraq was NOT part of the War on terrorism!

How Many People Has Saddam Killed?
By John F. Burns
The New York Times | January 27, 2003

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.
on Dec 15, 2005
Clinton did not invade Iraq that was Bush predicated on incorrect information.


I never said Clinton invaded. He and the democrats said Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. Were they lying also col?

And col, a NYT article is not proof. However I see that even 500,000 is not enough for you. Pathetic.
on Dec 15, 2005
If 500,000 were enough in Iraq, why have we not liberated a number of countries in Africa that are killed millions today. The reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Iraq was a danger to this country. That was NOT true as Bush now admits, so our invasion was an error.

Clinton was just as wrong as Bush about WMD. The difference is that Clinton did not send American Troops to their death Bush did.
on Dec 15, 2005
If 500,000 were enough in Iraq, why have we not liberated a number of countries in Africa that are killed millions today. The reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Iraq was a danger to this country. That was NOT true as Bush now admits, so our invasion was an error.


Col, that rhetoric is typical liberal bs. If 500,000 have died in Africa why hasn't the U.N. done anything? You can ask stupid questions all day it doesn't prove your point.

And col, Bush didn't say that in his speech that Saddam wasn't a danger, he said some of the intel was faulty. That's it. You are making things up like the NYT does.

Proved wrong again col, how many times does that make it today?
on Dec 15, 2005
The intel that was wrong was that he had WMD. Without WMD he does not the means to be a danger. Bush was wrong and nothing you Bushies can say changes that. Your support of his actions show that you too are Buffoons!
on Dec 15, 2005

There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam.


Oh REALLY? Then please explain this! That is "if" you can:


GENEVA (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces must protect the sites of mass graves discovered in Iraq and allow forensic experts to preserve evidence for possible prosecutions, the top United Nations human rights official said Thursday.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello said action was especially urgent because families were already picking through piles of bones, believed to be of victims of ousted president Saddam Hussein's rule.

"The high commissioner has urged the government of the United States and coalition partners to ensure the immediate protection and integrity of mass graves sites and other evidence," Vieira de Mello said in a statement.

"Equally, appropriate access to these sites by independent forensic experts will be vital in preserving the integrity of such evidence."

For some families, the discovery of graves across Iraq has brought a bitter conclusion to years of worry about the fate of relatives who went missing under Saddam, toppled by U.S.-led forces last month.

But human rights groups are concerned that evidence of the atrocities could be lost forever.

Vieira de Mello said the evidence must be given to the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Iraq and to any "jurisdictions that might be established to deal with grave violations of human rights committed by the former regime."
on Dec 15, 2005
The intel that was wrong was that he had WMD. Without WMD he does not the means to be a danger. Bush was wrong and nothing you Bushies can say changes that. Your support of his actions show that you too are Buffoons!


Col, 19 people on Sept. 11 didn't have WMD and they were a danger. The ignorance just amazes me again.

Your support for retreat and your support for terrorists show us who is the buffoons col.
on Dec 15, 2005
Your support of his actions show that you too are Buffoons!


We "may" be buffoons but.... your side is full of idiots!
on Dec 15, 2005
There was no War on Terrotrism in Iraq prior to the invasion. Bush and Cheney said we were in danger BECAUSE Saddam had WMD and would likely use it aginst us (Mushroom Clouds). That was incorrect since there was no WMD. That is what GWB admitted yeaterday,. Thus the reason for the war was wrong and that makes the war wrong. We have not captured or killed the people that were responsible for 9/11 because we have the majority of our forces in Iraq.
on Dec 15, 2005

There was no War on Terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion.


That was one of the problems.

If Saddam had actively fought terrorism like the new democratic government of Iraq does, instead of financially supporting terrorists, there would have been little reason to believe that Saddam was a danger to be removed from power.
on Dec 15, 2005
That was incorrect since there was no WMD. That is what GWB admitted yeaterday,. Thus the reason for the war was wrong and that makes the war wrong. We have not captured or killed the people that were responsible for 9/11 because we have the majority of our forces in Iraq.


Col, Bush admitted intelligence was faulty. That's all. It's never been proven that Iraq didn't have WMD. In fact, there is still much WMD's that haven't been accounted for according to the U.N.


We have not captured or killed the people that were responsible for 9/11 because we have the majority of our forces in Iraq.


Actually col, we have killed or captured many people in al-qaeda that helped plan Sept. 11.
on Dec 15, 2005
The intel that Bush admitted was faulty was that Saddam had WMD. Without WMD, Saddam was no danger and the war was an error.
on Dec 15, 2005
Well they say be careful what you wish for. X-mas came early for Col. You got what you wanted Col. By a long shot Bush actually admitted to having bad intel. Itel that went thru Britain, thru Crongress, thru Australia and best of all thru Liberals.

I will not argue with you on this one cause Bush admitted it himself. Still whats done is done, like I have always said, we already removed Saddam and now it is our responsability to make sure Iraq becomes as stable as possible, keep in mind I said as possible and that from a mistake a better Iraq can rise.

All I can say is that you got lucky. Although if I were in your shoes I would have rather been wrong no matter how much I would have hated Bush. But that's just me.
on Dec 15, 2005
If GWB had been President on Dec 7, 1941 he would have invaded China. After they are all Orientals.

What is a problem for the future is since Bush does not see that he should not have invaded Iraq, he could make the same mistake again.
on Dec 15, 2005
Well Col in the end we live in a world where people lie all the time to get their way. I'm sure you have done your fair share of liying to benefit yourself somehow and if you say you haven't you are a liar. Still this does not chage the fact that things are going pretty good in Iraq and you may have gotten this one little thing but this is about as good as its gonna get for you.

What is a problem for the future is since Bush does not see that he should not have invaded Iraq, he could make the same mistake again.


Well then I would have to say that in that case the real problem is not Bush but the American people themselves. If we allow such a mistake to be done twice then we are worse than Bush, whether you voted for him or not. So I would have to believe that such a situation would not repeat itself cause I don't think Bush considers himself that lucky.

Enjoy this one 2 pointer for your team of one. For now.
8 Pages1 2 3 4  Last