Its All President Bush's Fault!!!!?

Question

Ah, yes....... lets review.

Bush takes office and soon a bunch of peach loving Muslims kill thousands of Americans....... Bush's Fault.

Bush gets intelligence from our CIA, the Russians, the British and, yes, even those fun loving French, that the Taliban is behind it and that Saddam has WMD's.... So, everyone reads the reports and votes to go to war... even Dem's... Bush's fault.

Now we are trying to stabilize a Middle Eastern country and keep Iran from getting the bomb so that they can kill all Infidels and push the Jews into the sea.... Bush's fault.

That wacky peace lover in N. Korea whats the bomb.... Bush's fault.

God, what a horrible President!

Steph............... I want to buy you dinner!

Answer 1

THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTING--IT'S SO THOUGHT PROVOKING!

to the bleeding heart liberals and conspiratorationists:

don't speak of the current president bush "causing" a "war" in iraq if you do not address saddambaddman having marched into kuwait at the time that dad was in office, which was outright wrong. saddam wanted a port and he wanted kuwaitan oil so that he'd have further power over the west and shia and kurds.

now remember this: congress is the only power in government that can declare a war. we are occupying iraq to help the people form the democracy that they voted for; however, i will say that i wish we'd leave since then they would all kill one another and we'd have no islamics to worry about.

the attack on our soil on september 11, 2001 was done by followers of bin laden, who should be captured and hung just like saddam was. bin laden admitted that he is the master of jihad and began the taliban, do you remember that? do you know too that his family disowned him and will have nothing whatsoever to do with him? (do you also know that the price of honey went up immediately after 9/11 because osama was such a cheapskate that he had all his money hidden inside of honeycombs in afganistan?)

no, there was NO warning of that attack to our president. why would the president of the united states of america IGNORE a direct warning that suicide bombers would overtake 4 planes to fly towards airforce one (first, to kill the president), and then to destroy the white house, and the pentagon and one of the most visual representation of our country--the WTC? why?

would anyone wishing to even protect only himself ignore a warning that muslims were out to attack airforce one? or wasn't that mentioned in the so called "notice/warning?" yeah, who says so?

and you people that continue to believe that our government had any part in a conspiracy to topple the twin towers are completely and entirely crazy, because you think only one way: conspiracies and paranormal occurrences. maybe you think that aliens attacked the WTC.

and don't doubt that WMD may still lie under the sands of iraq, and perhaps we are still searching for them, because saddam did not use all of them (as he so proudly displayed them all on television--or was that a conspiracy too?) in his war with iraq--he could not have used them all up. he did not use the balance of all those missles on the kurds either. and he did not use all the nerve and mustard gas in iraq's arsenal either on iran or on the poor (yes, i pity them) kurds who don't seem to wish to bother anyone. (maybe i'm wrong about the kurds, but i have a good friend who has lived in jerusalem now for at least 30 years. he told me that the kurds do nothing to harm anyone, but that saddam sure as heck made very vicious and serious war on them. i do admit to ignorance about the kurds themselves, however).

do you people truly believe that simply because bush had been in the middle of a speech to very young schoolchildren at the time we learned that we were under siege that he was part of some conspiracy to withhold warning that we would be attacked? oh, c'mon!

it's so well known from long before bush and even his father held office how much the muslims despise israelis.

and you should be aware of the speeches that osama bin laden gave after 9/11 that spurred on terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, like in madrid (that terrible train crash).

look, we and any other first world country, or, may i say any country that tolerates dissension, even if groups of muslims dressed up in robes with beards stand up on podiums and speak hate against us, have the right to protect ourselves from ever being attacked again.

sorry, charlies, i don't agree that bush is in the least bit to blame for his conduct, even if sometimes he does look or talk a little foolishly. i think it's correct that the UN went into iraq to search for WMD, and if the result is that saddam, the spiteful, murdering dictator that he was, got hung as a result, good.

i think it's good that we (and ALL of our allies) are over in the middle east on the watch for iran testing thermonuclear bombs. i think that north korea's prime mindictatorister is clever, and that ahmadinejamed (jihad) is clever for getting north korea's help in learning how to make a thermonuclear bomb. and do you think that ahmadinejihad (misspelling is intended) is stupid, having taken british soldiers off of a ship that was not, i repeat, not, in the waters of iran, to cause an outrage that would divert our attention from what his real intentions are? which is all so obvious: his intention is to blow up israel and then to attack us. why? because we are the infidel. we simply don't want to be muslim.

i suppose you liberals that want the government to handle everything for you, instead of doing anything on your own volition and willpower and industry, will say that it's bush's fault that the muslims call us roadkill because we don't agree with the pieces of paper that should be used in the washroom instead of us reading them from their holy book filled with killing, 72 virgins, and hatred and intolerance of anyone other than themselves.

i wish one of you crybaby libs would show me why any of the democrats up now for nomination would not have responded the same way once we had been so viciously attacked? which one can step up to the bat in the fight against terrorists that teach their CHILDREN, via after school mickey mouse programs, to grow strong in order to kill off especially the "evil" jews, then to kill off the "infidel," you and i, so that they come clean with their "god" allah on judgment day?

i want to know this: will it be barack obama, will it be hillary clinton, who shall it be that will take oath to protect our country, our people, and the laws that govern our freedoms inside of the constitution, only to turn against our country if we are attacked again?

will they have been part of yet another "conspiracy" to ignore threats made to bomb and destroy us all? prove to me that bush ignored warnings of 9/11.

you simpering liberals make me puke.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTING--IT'S SO THOUGHT PROVOKING!

Answer 2

I think you’re giving a very one-sided view of what happened.

There were warnings during the months before 9/11 of a possible Al Qaeda attack. Bush received a PDB on that possibility. Bush did absolutely nothing. Clinton at least reacted to a PDB about possible hijackings by having individuals meet on the issue and issue airport warnings.

Iraq was supposedly contained or at least that is what Powell and Rice had previously said. The evidence that we now have indicates that Bush and neocons in the White House were looking for a reason to attack Iraq and Bush was able to exploit 9/11 to do so. There were no WMDs. The Iraq war has been extremely costly in terms of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of increased debt for American taxpayers.

Apparently, the invasion of Iraq was planned without knowledge or consideration of the problems and the people in the country and without a plan for occupation. Ignorance is no excuse when you are pursuing a preemptive war against another sovereign nation. In fact, ignorance under such circumstances is a crime. Iraq is a chaotic disaster. Iran has been empowered by Bush's actions. The entire region can become unstable.

Bush’s brand of cowboy diplomacy and taunts led North Korea to react in kind. They threw out the UN inspectors, restarted the reactor that had been shut down, fired off missiles, tested their first nuclear weapon and, in general, greatly advanced their nuclear program. Now, after all of this, Bush decides to try real diplomacy. Bush’s foreign policy decisions are abysmally poor.

Bush should rightfully be blamed for things that are his fault whether through bad actions or inaction.

Answer 3

great introduction,A honorably party member,who knows how to caramelize....steph,s right ,,,you forgot the weather machine.you also forgot the oil deals.go team Bush,victory with no defeat.

Answer 4

Very nicely written and worded. You make an excellent point.

BTW, I don't see any bashing of any democrats and have read through this twice. Am I missing something?

Answer 5

Its not one persons fault which is to blame it is the people whom group up and make the decision to carry out things. Its not just "Bush". Plus the fault also comes down on those who voted for him for they gave him the power of the free world in a sense

Answer 6

What a powerful man he must be. You should be watch what you say about him, he might strike you down with a bolt of lightning from the aforementioned weather machine.

Answer 7

What's the question? All I got out of that rant is you don't like democrats. Show a little respect for the office, it's President Bush.

Answer 8

What's the question?

The point of this forum is to ask questions, not spew your political beliefs. If you want to do that, get a blog.

Answer 9

The moonbats need someone to blame :)

Answer 10

And POWERFUL, too! I heard that he made Obama say that 10,000 were killed in the Kansas tornado...that he caused, by the way.