Re: I Don't Hate Bush, I Just Hate His Policies

> "UN failed to 
> uphold the terms of the cease-fire, and allowed the problem of Sadam to 
> manifest itself to what it was earier this year.  It is the fault of the 
> UN for not being responsible to their duties and agreements."

What terms do you mean? In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the UN
confirmed there was no evidence to suggest Iraq possesses WMD's. There
is still no credible material evidence. Iraq fulfilled the terms of UN
disarmament before the US ever declared war on Iraq. The US invasion
of Iraq is illegal by the letter of the law.

Also, there is no evidence to link Iraq (Saddam Hussein) with
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. In fact, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have
always regarded Iraq as a dictatorial puppet state of the US, and Bin
Laden himself pronounced Hussein an enemy like the US. Hussein, a
secular dictator, was not ever a devout practicing muslim to my
knowledge and Iraq is not a muslim state. Iraq was not involved with
fanatical terrorist groups. It has only been since the occupation that
Al-Qaeda and similar terrorist groups have taken root in Iraq.

Has George Bush lied or been complicit in a lie? Almost definitely. He
has failed to disclose that the CIA already knew in 95 that Iraq had
lost its capacity to produce nuclear wmd's and that later
investigations had shown by 2000 that even their capacity to produce
biological WMD's was in question.

Also, why has George been so uncooperative with the investigation into
the security breakdown of 9-11? Why has he classified the documents
relating to the deployment of aircraft to intercept the off-course
hijacked passenger jets?
Why weren`t normal protocols followed - Will we ever know

This is all a classic bait and switch that Bush has used very
successfully to further an agenda that looks suspiciously like
establishing military and economic hegemony over resource rich areas
of the world (like the US-backed attempted coup of democratically
elected Venezuelan leader Chavez, which we didn't hear much about last
year).

Anyhow, I have come to believe the enemies of freedom, prosperity and
peace are the idealogues and fanatics. We need loyalty to people, not
ideas.
Any pragmatic thinking person can see that the unpopularity of the US
worldwide under this adminstration is the largest foriegn policy
failure in US history. After 9-11, the US had the sympathy and support
of most of the world. Now, the US is viewed with fear and suspicion,
and so many empty promises later, the terrorists keep winning ground
with the hearts and minds of those ̣thers who feel disenfranchised.
Like, what happened to the nation-building promises in Afghanistan. To
date, all that`s been done to rebuild the country is some roads were
fixed, an oil pipeline was built and a few schools and hospitals are
planned. This is not what Bush intimated when he suggested the new
foreign policy of America would focus on bringing certain
disenfranchised peoples of the world into the fold, as it were.

Anyway, I`m rambling here. I can see that America is not any more
secure than it was 10 years ago, only now civil liberties are being
messed with. I can see that America with the long reach of military
technology can kill vastly greater numbers of indiscriminate victims
than so-called terrorists. America calls itself the land of the free
and the home of the brave. But freedoms are being limited here and
elsewhere and bravery is nowhere to be found in the hallowed halls of
Washington. Bush himself, is a total coward. Any man who has the gall
to lead other men to die but won`t risk his own life is a coward.
(Bush used influence to avoid the Vietnam draft, but served a short
stint in the Nat`l Gaurd instead).

Anyway, I`m obviously not a fan of Bush, but my opinion of his
character, (or anyone else`s for that matter), is not an issue. The
issue has to do with his governance, what his policies and
accomplishments are. If you look at foreign policy, domestic economy,
debt, resource management, fiscal & legal reform, etc, Bush`s grades
don`t score too high on the report card. Besides, he wasn`t elected by
the electorate, he was effectively installed as president by the
courts, who refused to allow all ballots to be counted. This is not
what the founding fathers intended - I am sure we can all agree on
that. Something should be done about it to prevent such an aberation
again, otherwise you can have a situation where a despot gains power
by a bloodless coup.

Bush is the first president in US history to be installed by the
courts. Any leader with decency and respect for democratic process
would call a reelection when it came to light his main rival actually
had more votes in favour.

I enjoyed your post. Please don`t take my refutation as anything
personal.

Regards, Paul






Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Chris wrote:
> 
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> >wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>At least you are honest.  An idiot, but honest.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >So is George W. Bush's dad an idiot but honest too? What do you think of 
> >George Bush Sr.? He had quite a bit to say just a few years ago on what 
> >a bad idea it would have been to go after Saddam Hussein, and what mess 
> >we'd get ourselves into after trying. Seems he was dead nuts on.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> 
> You are taking facts out of context. 
> 
> G Bush Sr., was in Iraq under a UN mandate.... to liberate Kuwait.  Bush 
> Sr. was correct then, to not remove Sadam, and extend the war beyond 
> that which was established and authorized by the UN.  Personally, I wish 
> he had done that, but it does not change the argument that President 
> Bush Sr. did the right thing then.  It was not his charter, nor was 
> America threatened by terrorism directly connected to Iraq.
> 
> 12 years have passed, no I'm not blaming Clinton, but the UN failed to 
> uphold the terms of the cease-fire, and allowed the problem of Sadam to 
> manifest itself to what it was earier this year.  It is the fault of the 
> UN for not being responsible to their duties and agreements.
> 
> Now this President Bush believes that the dynamics of terrorism as a 
> direct threat against the US has changed, and does include Iraq as a key 
> component.  I do not wish to get back into another hypothetical argument 
> about what he knew, and if he lied, as none of anything I have ever 
> heard in any of the mainstream media supports this.   I will have to 
> trust that you have other insight that leads you to that conclusion 
> (beyond simple anti-Bush bias).