PhotographyREVIEW.com Off-Topic Forum

Anything that's not related to photography, except religion and politics*. Discuss Britney Spears, your Kiss records, swing dancing, salsa recipes. The Off-Topic forum is moderated by walterick and adina.
*Religious and political threads will be deleted
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Princess of the OT adina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    rockin' it in the D
    Posts
    3,853

    Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    I sleep, but I don't rest.

  2. #2
    Film Forum Moderator Xia_Ke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Mainahh
    Posts
    3,353

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Are you really all that surprised and shocked?...LOL
    Aaron Lehoux * flickr
    Please do not edit my photos, thank you.

  3. #3
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Knew it at the time it was happening. Me and a friend used to drink beers on a Friday night and listen to all the illogical claims and charges he and his administration was throwing out just prior to attacking Iraq, just shaking our heads..
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  4. #4
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Sorry, I'm a bit late on this but just to add some balance here...

    Bush and his administration are not the only ones who claimed Iraq had WMDs. Apparently everyone thought so before and after 9/11, including top democrats and Jacques Chirac. Look at the dates of these quotes, which range from 1998 to 2003: http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php.

    And yes, WMDs have been found, just not the amount expected (which could be for various reasons): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html.

    So it is a bit of a stretch to say Bush and his administration lied about Iraq. Misinformed some, perhaps, but so was everyone else. Or, Saddam could have really had them and somehow managed to either sell, give or hide much of what he had stockpiled.

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  5. #5
    project forum co-moderator Frog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    wa state
    Posts
    11,195

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Whether he had them or not is not the point. Whether he was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, (which happens to be a constitutional requisite for armed intervention), is the point.
    I and many others were called traitors when we spoke out against this action before it happened. The president and the congress should all be impeached over it.
    Keep Shooting!

    CHECK OUT THE PHOTO PROJECT FORUM
    http://forums.photographyreview.com/...splay.php?f=34

    Please refrain from editing my photos without asking.

  6. #6
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by Frog
    Whether he had them or not is not the point.
    In the context of this thread it is the point.

    Whether he was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, (which happens to be a constitutional requisite for armed intervention), is the point.
    Well, while I understand how you feel the fact of the matter is that no one has yet been successful in challenging the legality of the war in Iraq...has to do with all that UN stuff and international law and our previous invasion back when Bush Sr. was prez.

    I and many others were called traitors when we spoke out against this action before it happened. The president and the congress should all be impeached over it.
    "Traitor" is much too strong of a word, I agree. The great thing about America is that we can be diverse in our political opinions without being traitors to our country. Now, if you had given aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, then I suppose we would just have to shoot you.

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  7. #7
    light wait photophorous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,910

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    This article is mostly the same, but it has some examples.

    Not all 935, but some.

  8. #8
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Oh for goodness sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by schrackman
    And yes, WMDs have been found, just not the amount expected (which could be for various reasons): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html.
    This article is old news that is talking about traces of degraded munitions found back in 2006. That was later determined to be discarded empty canisters that held agents during the time they were actually used: long before dubya got involved or was even elected. There has been NO evidence of WMDs at all.

    So it is a bit of a stretch to say Bush and his administration lied about Iraq. Misinformed some, perhaps, but so was everyone else.
    How soon we forget. Don't you recall Colin Powell's televised presentation at the UN showing definitive satellite photo "proof" of WMD sites? Photos of trucks coming and going with WMD materials into buldings and bunkers "obviously" built for the purpose? Recall the threat of "they can be hitting us with WMDs within 45 minutes" nonsense? Where did all that come from? Did someone "Etch-a-Sketch" those "definitive" satellite photos to fool Powell and the US? Fake evidence was manufacturered, there was no "only" passive acceptance.

    Let's also not forget that the reason for attacking Iraq has changed many times. First it was to stop the WMDs. Then it was to stop the threat that Iraq posed towards it's neighbors. Then it was to free Iraq from dictatorship and lead the call to freedom. Now its to fight terrorism in Iraq (that didn't exist until we went into Iraq).

    Bush is just like a child caught in a lie: the story keeps changing each time the previous story falls apart. You would expect that from someone so mentally challenged. If we are fighting terrorism, why not Syria or Iran, two nations that brag about funding terrorists? If it's about bringing freedom to countries ruled by dictators, why not North korea and more than half the countries of the world? If it's for stopping the horrible violence in the world, what about the blatant genocide and massive atrocities in Africa that make the Middle East look like a whimsical summer picnic?

    Be honest. Dubya went into Iraq thinking he'd be the hero who conquered the nasty bad guy who defeated his father. He thought it would be a walk in the park just as it was for daddy. Yep, both parties bought his bulls**t. But now, after years of the administration's compulsive lying, obstruction of justice, unethical and immoral felonies, and the trashing of our Constitution, we know. Both parties know. I have no problem with those congressmen who supported the war after the first lies. It's their continued support after the truth about Bush became public knowledge that is the travesty.

    Or, Saddam could have really had them and somehow managed to either sell, give or hide much of what he had stockpiled.
    Uh... this was the argument first proposed by the administration back in the beginning when no WMDs were found. That line of argument was abandoned, even by the most rabid in the administration, long long ago.
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  9. #9
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Oh for goodness sake!
    ............
    MwFanelli - I must agree on what you wrote here. Excellent writing, I must add..

    What's sad is that deliberate distortion of facts seems not only the norm for individual occurrences nowadays, but how the lies go on for years and years and years. Like self denial that lasts a lifetime, instead of for a season.

    Quote Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Oh for goodness sake!

    ............


    Let's also not forget that the reason for attacking Iraq has changed many times. First it was to stop the WMDs. Then it was to stop the threat that Iraq posed towards it's neighbors. Then it was to free Iraq from dictatorship and lead the call to freedom. Now its to fight terrorism in Iraq (that didn't exist until we went into Iraq).

    ...............
    Throw in the claim that Iraq was trying to buy tubes for nuclear weapons (since disproven, though there was tons of evidence at the time that said they weren't), that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda (another lie, since disproven), mobile chemical labs in the back of vans being driven around in the middle of the night in Baghdad (nada).... and on and on and on.
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  10. #10
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    It's funny how easy it is for people fall for political propaganda. Those politicians who claim Bush lied are the same people who were saying the exact same thing about Iraq and WMDs since 1998 and beyond. And because their incrimination of Bush resonates with your political views, you're quick to jump on the same bandwagon. Remember Ted Kennedy? "Lie after lie, after lie, after lie...." He was lying right through his teeth when he said that. I would find your positions much easier to take if it were not for the sheer hypocrisy that some of these politicians demonstrated.

    C'mon now, let's have a little balance here.

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  11. #11
    Senior Member mn shutterbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SW MN
    Posts
    2,386

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Balance? I think you may as well forget about that. Most citizens have by now, caught on to what kind of dictator Bush really is. I agree with Frog. He should have been impeached long ago. I dunno, maybe he thought he could make up for dad's failures. One thing I never could understand is, why we went after Saddam when it was Osama that was responsible for the attack on the WTC.
    Mike
    www.specialtyphotoandprinting.com
    Canon 30D X 2, Canon 100-400L, Thrift Fifty, Canon 18-55 IS 3rd generation lens plus 430 EX II flash and Better Beamer. :thumbsup:

  12. #12
    Senior Member brmill26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Al
    Posts
    1,002

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by Frog
    Whether he was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, (which happens to be a constitutional requisite for armed intervention). . . The president and the congress should all be impeached over it.
    I'm not sure whose Constitution you're reading, but it's not the United States'. If you disagree, please point me to the appropriate Article and Clause, because Art. II Sec. 2, Cl. 1 says absolutely nothing regarding any requirement of imminent threat.


    Quote Originally Posted by mn shutterbug
    Most citizens have by now, caught on to what kind of dictator Bush really is. I agree with Frog. He should have been impeached long ago
    Claiming that Bush is a dictator is absolutely ridiculous, and that is an overstatement in the grossest sense - the simplest evidence being that you: a) were able to access the internet to write that, b) you haven't been arrested for it, c) you're still alive. It is extremely naive make such a claim about this country, nigh insulting to the many millions of unfortunate people who attempt to survive under REAL dictators. If you said such a thing in North Korea, which of course you couldn't because you wouldn't have a computer, much less access to the internet, they would kill you and put your family and children in torture camps. So measure your words and show some respect - even vehement disagreement does not rise to such an accusation.


    To both of you - what grounds do you find for impeachment? By grounds, I mean something with weight - ie, "he lied" doesn't quite qualify for "High Crimes." I, and I'm sure the Democratic party, would be entreated to know them.


    To all - why is everyone so shocked that a government used propaganda to sway public opinion? It's been that way since the beginning of time; why is no one up in arms a/b Clinton's random missile attack on Iraq during his trial - b/c he agreed with your views? The most ironic fact, in light of the "dictator" comments flying, is that we're actually so free that the government may be compelled to tell us it did so.
    Brad

    Canon: Rebel XTi, 70-200 F/4L, 50mm F/1.8 II, Promaster 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5, Peleng 8mm fisheye
    Lighting: Canon 430 EXII, Quantaray PZ-1 DSZ, Sunpak 333D, D-8P triggers
    120 Film: Ricohflex Diacord TLR, Firstflex TLR, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 folder
    35mm Film: Nikon Nikkormat FT2, 35mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/2.8

    My Blog
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/bradleymiller

  13. #13
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by mn shutterbug
    Balance? I think you may as well forget about that. Most citizens have by now, caught on to what kind of dictator Bush really is.
    This is what I'm talking about going along with the "propaganda." A dictator is one who has absolute power. Last I checked, Bush needed congress' help to go into Iraq.

    Thus the reason why balance is so hard to come by on this topic is, frankly, some of you don't want balance. And this is quite evident by your use of the term "dictator" in reference to Bush.

    I agree with Frog. He should have been impeached long ago.
    Why? If the legality of the war in Iraq has not been successfully challenged by those who actually know all the laws that are involved, what makes you think you have any basis upon which to say Bush should be impeached other than your own biased opinion?

    What I can't understand is why people buy into the propaganda that Bush alone is responsible, when the fact of the matter is much of Congress went right along with him, with many on the other side of his party's line were using the very same arguments Bush used before he ever used them. At least Frog is a bit more consistent in that he thinks both Bush and Congress should be impeached, although we know that will never happen.

    One thing I never could understand is, why we went after Saddam when it was Osama that was responsible for the attack on the WTC.
    We did go after Osama when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan. We did more in one year there than what the USSR was able to accomplish in 10 years. So what's the problem? Is it that we have yet to get Osama? If so, that's nothing to complain about. Effectively disrupting the Taliban is a far greater objective; getting Osama would just be icing on the cake, don't you think?

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  14. #14
    Senior Member mn shutterbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SW MN
    Posts
    2,386

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    You're right, I used the term "dictator" a bit loosely. My apologies.



    I realize that we have infiltrated Afghanistan, also. But, we have lost a ton more good people in Iraq. We also had no valid reason for even going into Iraq.

    We are also now headed towards a recession.

    The price on gas and diesel fuel is having a very negative financial impact on the working class to the point where it's getting to be a real hardship. It's not all because of the price per barrel. Exxon Mobil just posted record profits again for 2007. We are getting gouged and I believe the government could and should step in and do something about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumor is true that Bush has part ownership in an oil well.

    Our cost for prescription medications are higher, in some cases 3 times as high, as most countries. There again, the rich are getting richer at the expense of the working class and elderly. Could the Bush administration do something about this? Of course they could. Why don't they? Does the president and his buddies own stocks in the pharmaceutical companies? There again, I wouldn't be surprised. If you look at the Fortune magazine, it shows what companies post the highest profits from year to year. The oil companies and pharmaceutical companies are always at the top of the list. Unfortunately, gas and meds are necessities so they will keep gouging everybody. Many poor people now have to choose between their meds and food. That's just not right. Also, due to the high cost of diesel fuel, groceries are getting much more expensive. There are now fuel surcharges on practically everything these days. Of course, this gets passed on to the consumer.

    All this has worsened since our president got elected into office. Why wouldn't most people blame the Bush administration? We all feel the affects, and it doesn't feel very good.

    OK, off my soapbox. I've vented and I'm done.

    Sidenote: I didn't realize congress could be impeached. Sounds like an excellent idea.
    Last edited by mn shutterbug; 02-02-2008 at 06:21 PM.
    Mike
    www.specialtyphotoandprinting.com
    Canon 30D X 2, Canon 100-400L, Thrift Fifty, Canon 18-55 IS 3rd generation lens plus 430 EX II flash and Better Beamer. :thumbsup:

  15. #15
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    How many people remember the Republican battle cry of "Character Counts" during the Clinton era? Hmmm... since dubya was elected we stopped hearing that. I wonder why.

    IMHO, Bush is a felon and helps to cover up the felonies of others. That's more than clear to me. Worse yet, what about all the stuff that hasn't come to light? Maybe if he slept around a bit he'd mellow out.

    Let us not forget that the Democratic congress are also to blame. What happened to all the change America voted for? The special interests have indeed changed but the corruption is the same. And let's look at how Congress is busy giving Bush almost everything he asks for anyway. Yeah, they scream, complain, wring their hands and lament to the skies. But in the end, so to speak, licking Bush Butt is almost as vigorous as it was during the Republican fiasco years.

    I'll hold my nose and vote for whomever the democratic presidential candidate is. That is, if I vote at all this year. Of course, the last thing this country can stand is four more years of a Bush clone which may force my hand. Thankfully, none of the candidates on either side are even close to being mentally challenged as is dubya. But does anyone really believe that political business as usual won't continue regardless?
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  16. #16
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    I realize that we have infiltrated Afghanistan, also. But, we have lost a ton more good people in Iraq. We also had no valid reason for even going into Iraq.
    But we did have a valid reason. I don't recall all the details, but because of Saddam's violation of certain UN resolutions the US could legally force compliance through military action. And that's just what we did. If you wish to talk about dictators, well, the world is now less one precisely because a ton of good people did their job well.

    HOWEVER, all this is not to say I don't have a personal gripe about the Iraq war and our involvement. My problem with it, however, is less political and more philosophical. Frankly, peace and freedom are far more cherished when a nation has to fight for it themselves, or at the very least, join in on the fight to a large degree. The Iraqis have not had to do this, and in my mind they are really unprepared should another dictator try to come along and take them over. If this should happen again they would cave, because they haven't forged the tenacity necessary to oppose it. And it is in this sense I feel we have done them a disservice by fighting all their battles for them and rebuilding their country for them.

    As for all the other stuff, every presidency has its problems because in reality these are issues that will always be on the table. And what politician doesn't own his own oil well? LOL

    Besides, our real problem today is that we look to government as a panacea when it is not supposed to be. That's why I can't stand what I'm hearing from all these presidential hopefuls. "Who's ready for universal health care?" screeched Hillary tonight. I've always liked Reagan's response to stuff like this:

    To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will.

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  17. #17
    Senior Member brmill26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Al
    Posts
    1,002

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by mn shutterbug
    We also had no valid reason for even going into Iraq.

    We are also now headed towards a recession.

    The price on gas and diesel fuel is having a very negative financial impact on the working class to the point where it's getting to be a real hardship. It's not all because of the price per barrel. Exxon Mobil just posted record profits again for 2007. We are getting gouged and I believe the government could and should step in and do something about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the rumor is true that Bush has part ownership in an oil well.

    Our cost for prescription medications are higher, in some cases 3 times as high, as most countries. There again, the rich are getting richer at the expense of the working class and elderly. Could the Bush administration do something about this? Of course they could. Why don't they? Does the president and his buddies own stocks in the pharmaceutical companies? There again, I wouldn't be surprised. If you look at the Fortune magazine, it shows what companies post the highest profits from year to year. The oil companies and pharmaceutical companies are always at the top of the list. Unfortunately, gas and meds are necessities so they will keep gouging everybody. Many poor people now have to choose between their meds and food. That's just not right. Also, due to the high cost of diesel fuel, groceries are getting much more expensive. There are now fuel surcharges on practically everything these days. Of course, this gets passed on to the consumer.

    All this has worsened since our president got elected into office. Why wouldn't most people blame the Bush administration? We all feel the affects, and it doesn't feel very good.

    OK, off my soapbox. I've vented and I'm done.

    Sidenote: I didn't realize congress could be impeached. Sounds like an excellent idea.
    First, the apology is appreciated.

    The Iraq war is unpopular among nearly every American now, so I think we all grant we'd prefer not to be there. Were there legit reasons for getting in? That's questionable and debatable ad nauseum, and everyone has his own opinion on what a "legitimate" reason is.

    Fuel / pharmaceutical prices - these are 100% solely within the power of the CONGRESS to control, not the President. The fact is, none of them are about to lift a finger to bite at the hand that feeds them - Democrat or Republican.

    As for your rumors on Bush ownership interests, everything you've listed would be public record. You sure as heck would've seen a million reports on it by now if it were true. Bush is the media's favorite voodoo doll, and with record oil prices, you can bet they would relish thrusting in another pin over that. Money is not the President's problem - he knocks down nearly half a million a year with all but 0 expenses - and that ignores family wealth.

    Are you wrong to blame the President? Well, not totally. If a huge company has a bad year, you blame the CEO even though he may have had little to do with it. He's the figurehead, the contact point, the public voice. Naturally, that person takes the blame. Same goes with the President. Even though he is personally without power to do anything about drug or oil prices/profits, he could be spurring Congress to pass legislation or making public comments about profits being too high.

    Congress can NOT be impeached. Constitutionally, the power of impeachment lies solely with the House of Representatives. The only mention of impeachment is in regards to the Executive. It may be possible, in some way of reading, for the House to impeach the Senate, but I think that would likely be prevented by the Supreme Court as not intended by the Constitution.
    Brad

    Canon: Rebel XTi, 70-200 F/4L, 50mm F/1.8 II, Promaster 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5, Peleng 8mm fisheye
    Lighting: Canon 430 EXII, Quantaray PZ-1 DSZ, Sunpak 333D, D-8P triggers
    120 Film: Ricohflex Diacord TLR, Firstflex TLR, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 folder
    35mm Film: Nikon Nikkormat FT2, 35mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/2.8

    My Blog
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/bradleymiller

  18. #18
    mod squad gahspidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    N.Y. U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,368

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    What's shocking to me is how much time and effort these "Non Profit" groups spend still trying to vilify Bush. . .
    please do not edit and repost my photos


    gary


  19. #19
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by gahspidy
    What's shocking to me is how much time and effort these "Non Profit" groups spend still trying to vilify Bush. . .
    Special interest groups that do campaign ads were fully and vigorously supported by Republicans when they were benefiting. Certainly you remember all the attacks, most unfounded, about Billy Clinton (some that continue today). Now, it's come back to bite them.

    In any case, this has been going on since the beginning of time. Remember those nasty comments scrawled on cave walls by the non-profit "Neanderthals for Cro-Magnon Truth?"

    Are you wrong to blame the President? Well, not totally. If a huge company has a bad year, you blame the CEO even though he may have had little to do with it. He's the figurehead,
    You are right but this works for both good and bad. Ronnie got credit for "ending the cold war", Roosevelt for ending the Hoover depression, Bill got credit for the booming economy, Carter for the hostage taking in Iran, etc. It's part of the job and an easy way to summarize complex situations.

    Bush has done many terrible things that has reduced this country in so many ways. Oddly enough, even though he will be blamed for the bad economy and the mindless war in Iraq, it is the advisors he surrounded himself with that did most of the damage. Dubya just isn't bright enough to have done these things all by himself or to understand the moves his handlers instigated.

    .
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  20. #20
    Senior Member Medley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, OR, USA
    Posts
    919

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    I think it's also important to put this in some context. Yes, the Bush administration lied, yes they had faulty intel. But part of the reason for that was that Iraq was also lying about their own WMD, and that the lie was the same. Saddam beieved that the only way to stay in power, and most importantly, to keep Iran at bay, was to perpetuate the WMD myth.

    60 minutes recently interviewed George Piro, an FBI field agent that had more contact with Saddam than anyone else while Saddam was in US custody. Here's a link to that interview: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3749494.shtml

    So you have Bush in the US saying "Iraq has WMD and is a threat to the US", and you have Saddam saying "Yes, we have WMD and we're not afraid to use them if neccessary." So while I suspect that some of the intel was inflated by the US to bolster its case for invasion, I also suspect that some of the "intel" was a fabrication on Iraq's part to further the WMD myth. I suspect that Saddam feared that allowing weapons inspectors full access to sites would debunk the fear of his WMD's. Not doing so was the catalyst that the US needed to spur action.

    Should we have seen through Iraq's attempts to "fabricate" the existance of WMD's? Yes, possibly. Some would say definately, that that is the purpose of intel to begin with.
    But the reality of the situation is that you have a country who's dictator allows as little outside access as possible doing everything they can to bolster the US suspicion that they have these weapons.

    Why we are still in Iraq, and still placing the lives of soldiers on the firing line is beyond me. The current propaganda comming from Washington is that if we withdraw now, we will have failed. Funny that no one saying that can tell me what "success" is supposed to look like.

    But the reason for invading Iraq is not so blurry to me. It may not be as black-and-white as many of us would have liked, but real-world situations seldom are.

    - Joe U.
    I have no intention of tiptoeing through life only to arrive safely at death.

  21. #21
    Senior Member brmill26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Al
    Posts
    1,002

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Remember those nasty comments scrawled on cave walls by the non-profit "Neanderthals for Cro-Magnon Truth?"
    LOL! Quite true. Heck, if people think the politics are dirty now, man, some of the earlier American Presidential elections are just unbelievable.


    Iraq is a very, very difficult situation now, and I think all parties agree on that. Leaving out how/why we got in there, the problem now is an extremely weak democracy propped up on US military power alone - the main issue being, for a democracy to work, the people must want democracy and they must be willing to fight for it. This is very clearly not the case in Iraq. Therefore, unless that mentality changes (it won't), it doesn't particularly matter whether we pull out in a year or 10, the govt. will not be able to control the country because it lacks the power, support, resources, and know-how to do so.

    When that happens, you could have a myriad of problems, the least being a dictator takes over, the worst being a full out religious faction civil war that creates a lawless breeding ground for Terrorists and causes turmoil in neighboring Iran. If you think oil prices are high now, if that were to happen...
    Brad

    Canon: Rebel XTi, 70-200 F/4L, 50mm F/1.8 II, Promaster 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5, Peleng 8mm fisheye
    Lighting: Canon 430 EXII, Quantaray PZ-1 DSZ, Sunpak 333D, D-8P triggers
    120 Film: Ricohflex Diacord TLR, Firstflex TLR, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 folder
    35mm Film: Nikon Nikkormat FT2, 35mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/2.8

    My Blog
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/bradleymiller

  22. #22
    Nikon/SIG f5fstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    80

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    I would not believe anything on MSNBC, even if they admitted they sway the truth to the liberal view. Saddam proved many times, he had weapons of mass destruction. Most of the liberals in Congress believe so. Bill Clinton sure did and I assume his wife agreed with him on this subject.
    Problem is, we gave Saddam too much time to hide them.
    Just a refresher for those who believe that the liberals did not believe Saddamn had WMDs.
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
    From Bill Clinton, September 1998:
    Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
    CLINTON: Good evening.

    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

    I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

    Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

    The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

    The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

    The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

    The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

    Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

    Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

    When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

    I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

    I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

    Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

    The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

    In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

    Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

    Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

    It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

    Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

    Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

    So Iraq has abused its final chance.

    As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

    "In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

    In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

    Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

    This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

    And so we had to act and act now.

    Let me explain why.

    First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

    Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

    Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

    That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

    They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

    At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

    If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

    Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

    That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

    Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

    So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

    First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

    The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

    Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

    We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

    The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

    The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

    The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

    Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

    We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

    Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

    And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

    Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

    Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

    But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

    In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

    Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.




    Got tired highlighting all the comments from Clinton on WMDs.

    John Kerry 1997 (just some highlights here is the complete article: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0401261431.asp


    "Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility."

    "In a more practical vein, Mr. President, I submit that the old adage `pay now or pay later' applies perfectly in this situation. If Saddam Hussein is permitted to go about his effort to build weapons of mass destruction and to avoid the accountability of the United Nations, we will surely reap a confrontation of greater consequence in the future."

    "While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."

    What we all forget is it was not GWB who first stated Saddamn had WMDs. The intelligence he relied on from the US was the same from France, Germany, Russia, Australia, and somewhat, even Israel.

    However, I fully understand that no liberal politician in this day-and-age will accept the truth, and no liberal paper will print the truth. What you read in liberal papers and news stations is not what is really going on in the world, or in the middle east.
    "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free"

    Cameras: D700 | D300| F5 (Retired to the shelf)
    Lenses: Nikkor 20-35 F/2.8D IF-ED | Nikkor AF-S 24-70 F/2.8G EDIF ZOOM | Nikkor AF-S 70-200 F/2.8D EDIF VR ZOOM | Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED
    Flashes: SB20 | SB28 | SB800
    Gitzo Tripod, Markins Ball Head
    Solmeta N2 GPS (2)

  23. #23
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Quote Originally Posted by f5fstop
    I would not believe anything on MSNBC, even if they admitted they sway the truth to the liberal view. Saddam proved many times, he had weapons of mass destruction. Most of the liberals in Congress believe so. Bill Clinton sure did and I assume his wife agreed with him on this subject.
    Problem is, we gave Saddam too much time to hide them.
    Just a refresher for those who believe that the liberals did not believe Saddamn had WMDs.
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html
    Don't site the article and then copy it word for word. People who want to read it are quite capable of going to the link and reading it in a clear, well formatted, manner.

    Read the article again. At no time did anyone say anything about definitive proof that WMDs existed. There are complaints of non-compliance and Sadaam's beligerance in cooperating with outside inspectors. That is what he has always done. In 1998 there was stikll no proof of anything. The extreme radical right really truly wants to believe that they have been "hidden." Even the Bush administration gave that one up. So, all these weapons, enough to destroy the middle east, are still "hidden" after all these years. Give me a break.

    John Kerry 1997 (just some highlights here is the complete article: http://www.nationalreview.com/docume...0401261431.asp
    Once again, link the article, don't copy it word-for-word. And again, this is opinion only. Where is the evidence of WMDs? Where is the "definitive" proof presented by Colin Powell at the UN broadcast live (those faked satellite photos)? Opinions and a dislike of Hussein is not proof of anything and certainly not enough to order the slaughter of thousands of young American soldiers.

    What we all forget is it was not GWB who first stated Saddamn had WMDs. The intelligence he relied on from the US was the same from France, Germany, Russia, Australia, and somewhat, even Israel.
    What I don't forget are those detailed satellite photos. Dance all you want, but they were faked to prove a tenuous point. Let us not forget that agents in the field had lots of doubts about the intelligence. Bush and friends took what they wanted to hear and disregarded the rest.

    However, I fully understand that no liberal politician in this day-and-age will accept the truth, and no liberal paper will print the truth. What you read in liberal papers and news stations is not what is really going on in the world, or in the middle east.
    Oh yeah, here it is. The Vast Liberal Conspiracy! The newspapers are out to get us. Television is out to get us. Radio is out to get us. Ochs to Murdock are out to get us. How do you sleep at night? Get a life, get a clue. Get your information from a source other than drug addicts (Rush), the pardoned traitors (Ollie North), the extreme wackos, screamers, whiners, complainers, and dregs of right wing talk radio. Get some perspective and see that Bush is one of the biggest liberals around.

    Don't tell me, I know what you are going to say. I'm a member of the very "obvious" left wing conspiracy you talk about. I've got you bugged, I'm reading your email, I'm watching what you read and watch and listen to, I report on your friends... oops, sorry. That's not me, it's the Bush administration you love so much!
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  24. #24
    GB1
    GB1 is offline
    Moderator GB1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,960

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    Given all the lively political discussion, I think it's time for a re-post of a December image

    Regarding the model, she's not even political by the way.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...-bushstep.jpg  
    Photography Software and Post Processing Forum Moderator. Visit here!

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Feel free to edit and repost my photos as part of your critique.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My Site

  25. #25
    Senior Member brmill26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, Al
    Posts
    1,002

    Re: Bush ~ Shocking, shocking news...

    I think there are WMDs in this thread, and I'm prepared to fake a picture of them...
    Brad

    Canon: Rebel XTi, 70-200 F/4L, 50mm F/1.8 II, Promaster 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5, Peleng 8mm fisheye
    Lighting: Canon 430 EXII, Quantaray PZ-1 DSZ, Sunpak 333D, D-8P triggers
    120 Film: Ricohflex Diacord TLR, Firstflex TLR, Zeiss Ikon Nettar 515/2 folder
    35mm Film: Nikon Nikkormat FT2, 35mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/2.8

    My Blog
    http://www.redbubble.com/people/bradleymiller

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •