This just in: Bush doesn't believe in the fourth amendment

[abc006]

The only thing I'm going to say is this: The other day I was driving and saw a car w/ multiple bumper stickers. Most flaming the President and the war on Iraq. One bumper sticker did say Free the Opressed. Wether you think the war is wrong or right, that is what this war is trying to do. Free the IRaqis from oppression. Saddam was pure evil and ruled with fear. no matter what you say this world is safer w/o him in power.

There's a difference between freeing the people who are oppressed and getting into a pointless war killing numerous innocent people while making the people even more oppressed than before. Yeah, when Hussein was in power (By the way, why is it that everybody always calls him by his first name, like you would about a friend or your favorite baseball player?) people were getting killed for no reason and unjustly, but there was, as Bush once said about something nothing to do with what I'm talking about now, "relative peace." Meaning there wasn't a full fledge war going on that would kill much more innocent people than when Hussein was in power who "only" killed a handful of people unjustly, as opposed to more than 70,000 civilians killed.

[Friedman]

The only thing I'm going to say is this: The other day I was driving and saw a car w/ multiple bumper stickers. Most flaming the President and the war on Iraq. One bumper sticker did say Free the Opressed. Wether you think the war is wrong or right, that is what this war is trying to do. Free the IRaqis from oppression. Saddam was pure evil and ruled with fear. no matter what you say this world is safer w/o him in power.

Pulling our forces out immediately would only allow the terrorists to flock to the region. A free Iraq is what the world needs.

For two forum members to believe they now everything and call BS is a sure sign of ignorance. I have differing viewpoints, but I can listen and hear valid points without namecalling.

Are you kidding me? Wow, you are the most brainwashed believe-everything-Bush-says person I have ever heard. There is absolutely no way that the Bush administration cared about the Iraqi people for one second. This war was all about oil, and U.S. economic interests in the Middle East. The free Iraq thing was the biggest cover-up I have ever seen.

The region is not better off without Hussein. There are more people getting killed now, and there is more terrorism in Iraq than there was when Hussein was in power.

[Jerryluo]

That's probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Sure, we can go kill as many people as we need to, as long as it works in the end. You're statement makes just about as much sense as if I decided to kill all people in the middle east, so we can get rid of the Islamic terrorist organizations.

And by the way, it's never going to work. Bin Laden is going to die never being captured by the U.S. or any of its allies. The day Bin Laden is captured is the day I become a Red Sox fan. Both presidents (Clinton and Bush) screwed up in their attempts to get Bin Laden, and to counter terrorism. But at least Clinton didn't get America involved in some stupid-**** war and mess that makes absolutely no sense.

I'm just saying, if the laws work (as in keep from another 9/11), people are happy and they'll keep letting him.

[meteamo]

The Democratic Point of View expressed by most liberals would be the stupidest thing I ever heard if it wasn't for the verbalizations of the Republican Party. The Foolish People like me who spend their time talking here deserve what they get. A Congress that spends a day and a half condemning the New York Times Betrayus article when most of them haven't read it and I know this to be a fact because they freely admit they don't read most of the Bills that they pass.

They all jump to their feet claiming this article dishonors the military, then turn around and spend 15 minutes debating whether those same troops should be allowed to spend as much time home as they spend in Active Duty. Anybody who thinks they are a True Patriot and believes in this War should be demanding that our Government reactive the Draft so that we will have a Strong Army and ALL the people would share in the Burden.

[hmsrenown]

Iraqi people were rich under Saddam Hussein, but not under American control

[ixcuincle]

Anyways , I just want to respond to a comment previously made which suggested Bush was the worst president ever. People , you can hate him , you can call him an idiot , but worst ever? What about that guy who lied about an affair with an intern and is notorious for "It depends on what your definition of is is" , or that other guy Carter? Remember him?

-----------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120101509.html

Bush worst president ever :jester:

[el_jefe061]

What about that guy who lied about an affair with an intern and is notorious for "It depends on what your definition of is is"

To quote the bumper sticker: "When Clinton lied, nobody died". What do you care more about, sex in the oval office, or someone lying to get us into a costly and out of control war?

[hiheat32]

Whoa , who lifted the ban on political talk? When I used to frequent this forum 2 years back political talk was verboten. A lot has changed since then.

Anyways , I just want to respond to a comment previously made which suggested Bush was the worst president ever. People , you can hate him , you can call him an idiot , but worst ever? What about that guy who lied about an affair with an intern and is notorious for "It depends on what your definition of is is" , or that other guy Carter? Remember him?

-----------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120101509.html

Bush worst president ever :jester:

i and mr bush agree

[Sean O]

. Anybody who thinks they are a True Patriot and believes in this War should be demanding that our Government reactive the Draft so that we will have a Strong Army and ALL the people would share in the Burden.

HAHAHAHAHA.

[krawhitham]

but worst ever? What about that guy who lied about an affair with an intern and is notorious for "It depends on what your definition of is is"

Blowjob VS 655,000 dead civilians

yeah hard choice

[hiheat32]

Blowjob VS 655,000 dead civilians

yeah hard choice

i would take the bj over war, but i dont think bush is the worst president ever. Lets look at the vietnam war:

Total dead: ~1,101,000

Length: 16 years

Winner: no real victor, us troops withdrawal, vietnam falls to communism

according to the stats, lbj could be considered worse than bush.

just my thoughts

[Rome-o-phobe]

Iraqies were poor under Saddam, not rich.

[ixcuincle]

Blowjob VS 655,000 dead civilians

yeah hard choice

Those numbers are under question though.

From David in the comments section of article

This article biases is quit evident. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraqs government Anecdotal evidence is not a body. You can not consider this a scientific survey. This is what happened: Larry, Yes, my friend Bob died from a bomb. Mark one down. David,Yes, my friend Robert died from a bomb. Mark one down. Bob and Robert are the same person. Anecdotal evidence is not a body. You can only count a body not oral repots of such. It might be believable if they might of counted obituaries, autopsies, hospital reports.

And this is probably the last time I'm going to get into Iraq because this is a baseball forum and we shouldn't be dividing ourselves over politics like this. But I think the Iraq War , despite many of the errors committed , could still be a success. Forgive my optimism , but when you look at Anbar (and I know people say that can't be generalized to the whole country) you see faint signs of hope. I see a lot of people claim this war is a failure. When we pull out , when the Sunnis and Shiites start fighting again , and that country drives deeper into chaos , then I'll call it a failure. You may call it a failure now because Iraq looks like that now. Again , Anbar , the province where pundits once said "had no hope"...

[krawhitham]

Those numbers are under question though.

OK whatever

Blowjob VS 1 dead civilian

yeah hard choice

are you going to deny at least 1 dead civilian

[Sean O]

Those numbers are under question though.

From David in the comments section of article

So, let's say he was off by a factor of 6. A blowjob vs. 100,000 dead civilians. Off by 12, bj vs. 50,000 dead. It's ridiculous either way.

At least Clinton attempted to stop some genocide around the world, better than what pretty much any other president can say.

edit:

kraw, you're freaking me out here. we're supposed to be on opposite sides of everything.

[HCaray]

when i picture Bush as a kid, I always see him as Reese from Malcom in the Middle.

[hiheat32]

sorry, my numbers were off for the casualties of the vietnam war:

the point im trying to make is that there have been other wars that have lasted too long and have ended up as a failure. this is just a part of the history of our nation, and although bush has made some bad decisions, he shouldnt be deemed the worst president of the united states.

[Sean O]

sorry, my numbers were off for the casualties of the vietnam war:

the point im trying to make is that there have been other wars that have lasted too long and have ended up as a failure. this is just a part of the history of our nation, and although bush has made some bad decisions, he shouldnt be deemed the worst president of the united states.

1). started a pointless war in Iraq with no exit strategy.

2). in doing so, ignored afghanistan, letting the taliban recover.

3). did nothing in the 9 months leading up to 9/11, including never once meeting with Richard Clarke, head of anti-terrorist activities.

4). after 9/11, instigated the worst assault on American civil liberties since Lincoln.

5). ruined any international good will following 9/11 by refusing to be a part of any international organization.

6). A ton more, but i'm lazy.

LBJ was just a patsy. Lincoln was a tyrant, but he did some good. Carter had the iran disaster, but he actually tried to help the middle east. Reagan was undeniably horrible, but at least his ridiculous overspending brought down the USSR.

[ixcuincle]

OK whatever

Blowjob VS 1 dead civilian

yeah hard choice

are you going to deny at least 1 dead civilian

No , but while we all know Clinton knowingly pulled a Rafael Palmiero , it's questionable whether Bush knowingly lied about the WMD's , since he was getting the intel from CIA and company. And there are a bunch of other negativities about the Clinton presidency that I won't get into here. I just found it doubtful that Bush could be the worst president when others arguably did worse. (As someone said before , does the 1 million deaths in Vietnam make Kennedy / LBJ bad presidents?)

And this is all I'm going to say about the "Geneva Controversy"

[hmsrenown]

Reagan did some good to his own state, though the same cannot be said to Gorbachev and Bush.

Vietnam wars lasted through a ton of presidents, don't miss that point

[hiheat32]

Reagan did some good to his own state, though the same cannot be said to Gorbachev and Bush.

Vietnam wars lasted through a ton of presidents, don't miss that point

Kenedy: started war after successful containment of communism in korea

LBJ: dragged out the war way too long after realizing communism and the NLF could not be contained

Nixon: started vietnamization, which was the slow withdrawal of us troops from vietnam (which is most likely what the succeeding pres to bush will do)

also, i believe this withdrawal of troops we will probably see will take many years. you cant just take all the troops out of iraq at once, like some people believe. it will probably be a slow process.

[Guildster]

Anyways , I just want to respond to a comment previously made which suggested Bush was the worst president ever. People , you can hate him , you can call him an idiot , but worst ever? What about that guy who lied about an affair with an intern and is notorious for "It depends on what your definition of is is" , or that other guy Carter? Remember him?

I was wondering how long it would take for the Clinton bashing to start. When are you right-wing butt corks going to get over it? Is it Clinton you don't like? Or is it blow jobs you don't like? Under the direction or your great leader Newt Gingrich, you succeeded in wasting millions of dollars and three years of a presidency with huge possibilities. That is the crime. And why the hell should Carter be considered the worst president ever? Oh, I know, because he is a Democrat. Remember a president named Nixon? Well, in my book, he is right behind George W. Bush as worst, and most dangerous, president ever.

[SeanRobinson]

Naw.

William Henry Harrison EASILY tops those guys. Clearly the worst.

[ixcuincle]

I was wondering how long it would take for the Clinton bashing to start. When are you right-wing butt corks going to get over it? Is it Clinton you don't like? Or is it blow jobs you don't like? Under the direction or your great leader Newt Gingrich, you succeeded in wasting millions of dollars and three years of a presidency with huge possibilities. That is the crime. And why the hell should Carter be considered the worst president ever? Oh, I know, because he is a Democrat. Remember a president named Nixon? Well, in my book, he is right behind George W. Bush as worst, and most dangerous, president ever.

But I'm not a "right-wing butt cork" , at least not to the degree that Hannity and Limbaurgh are. I'd consider myself in the middle of the party spectrum . This is probably the reason why politics should be verboten from this forum , it turns us all into nasty name-calling monsters. :protest:

I don't like Newt either. That's just another generalization that's often thrown around in political debates such as "All Republicans like Newt Gingrich" or "All Liberals support Hillary Clinton / Global Warming / [insert democratic cause here]".

[SeanRobinson]

I think the key issue is that there's a fundamental difference between the scandals surrounding Clinton and the scandals surrounding Bush: Clinton lied about a private sexual affair--as he strongly implied at the time, his lie was a mistake made in an effort to turn the focus back to the important national issues at hand. Is lying about a seemingly minor issue a cause for concern that the liar could be...lying...about bigger issues? Sure. Is it an impeachable offense? Hardly. What we saw there was an orchestrated attempt to bring down the man who dared break the conservative 12-year hold on the presidency, from day one. NB, that's actually been documented--from the second he won the election, "Elves" (Ann Coulter being the chief among them) started looking for something, ANYTHING, that would take him down.

Bush, on the other hand, did an admirable job leading us through the days after 9/11. I fully support his decision to invade Afghanistan, though I wish things had been planned just a tad better on that front. What he has done since then is abysmal: he and his administration has consistently perpetuated "facts" that they know to be false (see "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff; they basically ignored or twisted existing Iraq intelligence to fit their case for war and put extreme pressure on the intelligence agencies to get the sort of result they wanted), bribed reporters (Jayson Stark, anyone?), and played petty, retaliatory political games (Valerie Plame) that have endangered national security. Further, as the Iraq conflict becomes a bigger fiasco by the day (don't get me wrong, I'm not convinced that pulling out at this point is the best idea), the Bush blindly pushes on, insisting that we're meeting all his goals. Bob Woodward (a.k.a., the man who broke Watergate) puts it best with the title of his late-2006 book: the administration is in a "State of Denial."

More disturbing than all of this, of course, is that he has consistently sought to create some sort of Orwellian state by which he can do whatever he pleases in the name of "national security"--precisely the situation that our forefathers sought to prevent when they crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, many early citizens argued AGAINST the idea of a Bill of Rights in 1789, out of concern that future generations would take the absence of a particular right in the Constitution would be construed to mean that that right did not exist.

And now, having put in my $0.02, I respectfully bow out of the debate/conversation.