Has Bush Lied? (Adam)

[Ardhanariswar]

um.... Iraq does not have nukes, nor weapons of mass destruction.

bush's first mission was to get rid of nukes. but then he decided once he couldn't find the nukes, to find saddam. ABSOLUTLY UNRELATED TO 9/11 and OSAMA and the other terrorist organizations.

this *war* is not really about terror. its about how to erradicate power from those who challege the power of the west.

there are other troubles in the world. theres the civil war in Sri lanka. theres *communism* in china. and nk too. gawd. why iraq of all places? there are no weapons!


plus, i think its retarded that iraq cannot have weapons, but the US can. sure, thier intentions may not be correct, but who said bombing nagasaki and hiroshima was good? because of that those nukes have cause permanent damage to Mother Earth (Bhoomi Devi).

i think every country should give up nuclear weapons.

[anders]

Namaste, Gerani,

I agree with you. I only want to point out that the "communism" of China is an entirely new version of that "faith". By now, three countries have acknowledged that China is a market economy.

For this site, it is interesting that there is a major effort going on where the Chinese government pays for a reprinting of the whole Buddhist Tripitaka text canon from old woodblocks on hand-made paper. Altogether, the blocks weigh some 480 tons. ‎The pages, if lined up, could stretch as long as 100 kilometres‎. And a new Catholic church is being built in Beijing.

Regarding nukes, it is a pity that president Reagan just silently left a conference when the Soviet president Gorbachev pleaded for total and world-wide nuclear disarmament.

[Fra.Morelia]

Bah, Iraq has possessed WMDs in the past. FACT. They have used them on:Iran and the Kurds. Fact. If you've never seen someone die by VX, I will tell you this: it is the most horrible death imagininable. I would rather burn first. So, does he have them now? Well, I am not sure. We have found his PLANES buried in the sand, so why not WMDs there too? Will we find them, I dunno. Does he challenge our power? Not really. As I said, it is called a display of POWER, used to deter the crazy man with the nukes. It is a tactic, and tactics kill.
By killing a few in Iraq we save hndreds of thousands of American lives. When decisions are made, sorry to tell you, an American life is worth 10 foriegn lives.
My main concern is not whether or not they had WMDs. This is now a pointless argument, save to stroke ones own philisophical ego. Bush will suffer no indictment, lie or not. He did the right thing. The right thing isn't ever the easy thing. What concerns me is this; the Iraqis did not fight for their own freedom. Thus I do not know if it will mean enough for them to hold on to it. Time and battle will tell.

[Ardhanariswar]

THE IRONY.

i think we should impeach bush. bush has lied. i mean ppl wanted to impeach Clinton just because of an affair that was *his* business. Hes not killing anyone. But Bush... he has tricked the people into going war costing 895 soldiers to die!

hmm... peoples minds are so deranged... they would support a leader who kills for wrong reasons rather than supporting a president who is human.

[LCMS Sprecher]

Clinton comitted perjury, he didn't just have an affair. He was convicted for perjury not for having an affair. Furthermore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been awake on his watch. He had mulitple chances to kill Osama then, but he didn't (and we had reasons to do it too, i.e. U.S.S. Cole, African embassies bombings). Corporate corruption is Clinton's fault too, because he let those guys do that stuff throughout the 90's. He even had a number of those CEO's over to the White House for lunch. Bush has got a bad deal, mainly because the president before him couldn't do his job. Now, as far as Iraq. I figured Bush would go Saddam as soon as he got into office. There is bad blood there, no denying it. However, if not for WMD, was the war not worth it in the amount of lives it saved from Saddams tyranny?

[Ardhanariswar]

first, osama and saddam are different people, and they are not even part of the same terrorist organization!

(P.S. Osama will be found dead this year 2004, i predict that)

his sex life is none of anyones business. the people who elected him in power must realize that they elect humans. not infallible gods.

bush on the other hand did LIE to the people about his intent in going into iraq. perhaps there was no definite reason...

[Sunstone]

I wonder whether Bush out and out lied about WMDs --- or whether he was merely irresponsible in jumping to the conclusion that there were WMDs. Either way, it doesn't speak well for him as a leader. But the second case seems more plausible to me. In effect, I think Bush believed what he wanted to believe.

[Ceridwen018]

Gerani,

LCMS made a ton of excellent points and you expertly skipped around them. What do you have to say in response to his post?

[Ardhanariswar]

Originally Posted by LCMS Sprecher

Clinton comitted perjury, he didn't just have an affair. He was convicted for perjury not for having an affair. Furthermore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been awake on his watch. He had mulitple chances to kill Osama then, but he didn't (and we had reasons to do it too, i.e. U.S.S. Cole, African embassies bombings). Corporate corruption is Clinton's fault too, because he let those guys do that stuff throughout the 90's. He even had a number of those CEO's over to the White House for lunch. Bush has got a bad deal, mainly because the president before him couldn't do his job. Now, as far as Iraq. I figured Bush would go Saddam as soon as he got into office. There is bad blood there, no denying it. However, if not for WMD, was the war not worth it in the amount of lives it saved from Saddams tyranny?

okay, so he lied. he had the chance and power and he did. many men get corrupted by it. no surprise.

the government gets threats every week. bush got a threat that 9/11 was going to happen. he waved it off like every other. than boom!! *waves his arms wildly* people died. DIED.

okay, so clintion didnt stop him. because of clintion (as you say) 9/11 would not have happend rite? i doubt it. osama has many followers, many of them would have bound to bomb something or another sooner or later. it was only a matter of time and how well the US can intercept and manage.

so lcms preacher says that bush has gotten the bad left overs that clinton should have managed.

bush wanted to manage it all right. i sent forces into IRAQ. to find weapons of mass destruction. they did not find those weapons. okay, so why didnt he send them back to the US were thier loving families wanted them??? no. you see, bush has pride. pride he does not want to loose. people look up to him to find revenge against 9-11. thus he decided to go find saddam. saddam is unrelated to al-quida. they found no evidence that they had connects before 9-11.

instead of finding osama, bush is looking for saddam.


resulting in the loss of 890 soldiers. they DIED. thats the size of my catholic hoghschool with teachers. thats A LOT OF PEOPLE. and they died unnecessarily.

im not against the soldiers. you must realize im against thier occupation in a forein land that is NOT THIERS. NK actually has nukes. but iraq DOESNT.

and they havent found osama. but they will. they will this year. and they will find his corpse. now that is usefull.


bush has not done any thing constructive. i wish i knew details, but i know hes building some roads which are killing wildlife. he does not focus on OUR PROMLEMS ON HOME. he thinks about iraq and saddam and MARS. wow, whatever happened to America?

[Ceridwen018]

Gerani,

okay, so he lied. he had the chance and power and he did. many men get corrupted by it. no surprise.

Woah! Lying is lying, and Clinton is guilty of it! The one thing that I hate the most about Clinton supporters is how critical they are of everyone else, and then how nonchalant they are about him! You are so obviously baised here it's ridiculous!

okay, so clintion didnt stop him. because of clintion (as you say) 9/11 would not have happend rite? i doubt it.

No one cares whether you 'doubt it' or not. Of course you would doubt it because it has to do with Clinton. Study up and get the facts for a change.

osama has many followers, many of them would have bound to bomb something or another sooner or later. it was only a matter of time and how well the US can intercept and manage.

First of all, bin Laden and his followers are no match for the US military. Secondly, it was not a 'matter of time' before they bombed something. They had been bombing like crazy all through Clinton's term (that's what we're talking about when we say 'clean up what Clinton let get out of control').

bush wanted to manage it all right. i sent forces into IRAQ. to find weapons of mass destruction. they did not find those weapons. okay, so why didnt he send them back to the US were thier loving families wanted them???

Because the Iraqi people needed to be liberated, not to mention the fact that Saddam posed a very real threat to our nation and other nations as well.

instead of finding osama, bush is looking for saddam.

Newsflash, we have Saddam. While we were looking for Saddam, we were also looking for bin Laden.

and they havent found osama. but they will. they will this year. and they will find his corpse. now that is usefull.

How do you propose to know this?

i wish i knew details,

So do I. It would allow for a much more informative conversation that is not so riddled with one-sided opinions.