War mongering is a significant aspect of your legacy, but I think we can conclude, and without much debate, that your legacy will also be one of criminality, failure and a degree of incompetence rarely achieved by any American president, much less one whose deficit of character is rivaled only by his nearly unprecedented lack of humility in the face of his unprecedented roster of inadequacies.
Sorry.
As it turns out, you won't have much control over your legacy and the history of your administration anyway. You might have some cursory input, but no-one really takes you seriously anymore and anything you put forth will be taken as just another work of fiction; another bit of propaganda.
Your legacy will ultimately be written by those of us who have been actively documenting your presidency in real time -- millions of voices authoring the narrative of your awful regime and preserving it with digital clarity one trespass at a time.
And everywhere we look, we can plainly observe your smirking, affectless footprint.
Death, poverty, war, pain, ignorance, blind patriotism, joblessness, and abandoned homes. And guess what? We're writing it down on the Internets. Your history, Mr. President, is being written at this very moment by those of us who are watching our homes collapse in value and our friends and relatives sent to places like Ramadi and Fallujah and, in some cases, Walter Reed or worse. Your history, Mr. President, isn't going to be settled and published decades from now. It's being published immediately and without the fog of memory to obscure the ugly details.
These ugly details are exhaustively researched and easily accessible.
Perhaps we should have a group of Presidential historians who shadow the President at all times (like the Secret Service) to properly document everything that goes on?
Perhaps we should have a group of Presidential historiansinvestigators who shadow the President at all times (like the Secret Service) to properly document everything that goes on?
I would not agree 100% with that statement. I would go so far as to say that any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq was (for all intents and purposes) powerless to do anything and very small in number.
Funny, because the Bush administration used that as one of their pathetic excuses for the invasion. Remember them shouting about thesupposed linksbetween Saddam and Bin Laden? Yeah,funny how that ended up. Also, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Facts are facts, like 'em or not.
Are you saying there was not one single Al-Quada agent in Iraq prior to the US invasion?
Are you saying the U.S. should invade every country in which a single Al-Qaeda agent resides?
Perhaps we should have a group of Presidential historians who shadow the President at all times (like the Secret Service) to properly document everything that goes on?
Are you saying the U.S. should invade every country in which a single Al-Qaeda agent resides?
No, I'm saying your statement that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq is erroneous if one single member of the organization was there.
Prove it then. Prove that one single member of Al-Qaeda was in Iraq (and actively pusuing his terroristic goals with the blessings and aid of the government, not just staying overnight at the Motel 6). Then we'll talk.
You assume I was just talking about Bush.
I'm not assuming anything, because I don't care what you were talking about.
I don't need to prove what they were doing there as I don't care what you have to say on this subject.
Well then, shut the fuck up and stop answering every post.
Right back at ya. No, wait a minute... I don't want you to "shut the fuck up" because I don't believe in silencing people who have dissenting opinions.
I just want to see if HMTKSteve has a reaction to this statement, since he completely ignored it. Also, every nation has terrorist presence, and not just Islamic Extremists. Case in point: Oklahoma City. To say that we are going to have a war on terrorism means that we need to work WITH every nation to make it difficult for these groups to organize, get funding, hide, etc. This means providing incentives and working diplomatically with foreign governments, and only using force if they will not control the terrorists within their borders. To attack a nation that has its terrorist problem under control in a supposed "war on terrorism" is simply counter-intuitive.
Also, every nation has terrorist presence, and not just Islamic Extremists. Case in point: Oklahoma City. To say that we are going to have a war on terrorism means that we need to work WITH every nation to make it difficult for these groups to organize, get funding, hide, etc. This means providing incentives and working diplomatically with foreign governments, and only using force if they will not control the terrorists within their borders. To attack a nation that has its terrorist problem under control in a supposed "war on terrorism" is simply counter-intuitive.
I agree. Iraq is muddied because of the agreements signed after the end of Operation Desert Storm. It's not a simple, "there be terrorists in them thar hills" situation. Afghanistan was that simple.
As for Al-Qaeda not existing ...
Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council,[12] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General,[13][14] the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union,[15] the United States Department of State,[16] the Australian Government,[17] Public Safety Canada,[18] the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[19] Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook,[20] South Korean Foreign Ministry,[21] the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,[22] the United Kingdom Home Office,[23] Pakistan, Russia,[24] the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,[25] and the Swiss Government.[26]
Also, every nation has terrorist presence, and not just Islamic Extremists. Case in point: Oklahoma City. To say that we are going to have a war on terrorism means that we need to work WITH every nation to make it difficult for these groups to organize, get funding, hide, etc. This means providing incentives and working diplomatically with foreign governments, and only using force if they will not control the terrorists within their borders. To attack a nation that has its terrorist problem under control in a supposed "war on terrorism" is simply counter-intuitive.
I agree. Iraq is muddied because of the agreements signed after the end of Operation Desert Storm. It's not a simple, "there be terrorists in them thar hills" situation. Afghanistan was that simple.
Wait, so you admit that Iraq's invasion has nothing to do with a terrorist presence, even-though Bush referrers to it as a front in the war on terror? What then was the point/purpose of invading Iraq as you see it?
Also, every nation has terrorist presence, and not just Islamic Extremists. Case in point: Oklahoma City. To say that we are going to have a war on terrorism means that we need to work WITH every nation to make it difficult for these groups to organize, get funding, hide, etc. This means providing incentives and working diplomatically with foreign governments, and only using force if they will not control the terrorists within their borders. To attack a nation that has its terrorist problem under control in a supposed "war on terrorism" is simply counter-intuitive.
I agree. Iraq is muddied because of the agreements signed after the end of Operation Desert Storm. It's not a simple, "there be terrorists in them thar hills" situation. Afghanistan was that simple.
Wait, so you admit that Iraq's invasion has nothing to do with a terrorist presence, even-though Bush referrers to it as a front in the war on terror? What then was the point/purpose of invading Iraq as you see it?
Don't forget that the Al-Qaeda in Iraq right now is a different Al-Qaeda than the ones who attacked us.
Wait, so you admit that Iraq's invasion has nothing to do with a terrorist presence, even-though Bush referrers to it as a front in the war on terror? What then was the point/purpose of invading Iraq as you see it?
Some people may have bought into the "Iraq is full of terrorists ZOMG WTF!!!" argument but I have always supported the invasion of Iraq based on the agreements signed at the end of operation Desert Storm. It has since become a battlefield in the War on Terror by virtue of the terrorists choosing to fight us there.
Yes Andrew, "Al-Qaeda in iraq" is a different terrorist group than the one that attacked us on 9-11. They are, however, affiliated with the ones who did attack us.
Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. All of these terrorists people are talking about are just independently operating crazies. There is no serious structural organization or affiliation. There is no secret mastermind group. There aren't secret hidden bases a-la James Bond. All of it is made up. It's just that there are crazy people in the world who hate us, and some of them commit acts of terrorism. Our recent actions have caused an increase in hate for us, and an increase in the number of crazies. That's all there is to it.
Wait, so you admit that Iraq's invasion has nothing to do with a terrorist presence, even-though Bush referrers to it as a front in the war on terror? What then was the point/purpose of invading Iraq as you see it?
Some people may have bought into the "Iraq is full of terrorists ZOMG WTF!!!" argument but I have always supported the invasion of Iraq based on the agreements signed at the end of operation Desert Storm. It has since become a battlefield in the War on Terror by virtue of the terrorists choosing to fight us there.
What agreements are you citing here as your reasoning? Please link.
Wait, so you admit that Iraq's invasion has nothing to do with a terrorist presence, even-though Bush referrers to it as a front in the war on terror? What then was the point/purpose of invading Iraq as you see it?
Some people may have bought into the "Iraq is full of terrorists ZOMG WTF!!!" argument but I have always supported the invasion of Iraq based on the agreements signed at the end of operation Desert Storm. It has since become a battlefield in the War on Terror by virtue of the terrorists choosing to fight us there.
What agreements are you citing here as your reasoning? Please link.
I am interested in what 'reasons' you support the war under. Bush's determination to 'get' Saddam because daddy couldn't? The ubiquitous WMD's they found all over Iraq? Bombing brown people? Do tell, Steve.
Numerous resolutions were passed by the UN. Resolutions that Iraq chose not to comply with. Eventually you reach a point where you either act or you confirm that you are just a paper tiger.
Which "numerous resolutions" are you talking about? The disarmament resolution? Hans Blix told the U.N. that there were no WMDs. No WMDs were ever found.
Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Hans Blix reports to the UN Security Council. Blix says, "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found," saying that progress was made in inspections which would continue.. Blix files a 173 page document with the Security Council which says that inspectors discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone, with a wingspan of 7.45 m (24 ft 5 in), suggesting an illegal range beyond 150 km. US satellites tracked test flights of these drones, which were mentioned by Secretary of State Powell on March 5. Powell claimed that the test flight far exceeded the legal range agreed to by Iraq under UN resolutions. The Iraqis showed journalists this 'drone' . It was primitive, and could only be flown within "line of sight". Blix was strongly criticized in some UK and US press for not having found and declared this large model aircraft.
Approximately 248,000 Soldiers and Marines from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers, 1,300 Spanish soldiers, 500 Danish soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers were sent to Kuwait for the invasion. Of those troops, all but the special forces were kept close to bases and required to avoid hostile engagements. The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000.
Are you talking about "The Coalition of the Willing"? That's a complete farce. How much did the Polish troops contribute? How long did the Dutch stay? Are any of those nations even there anymore?
And that doesn't answer the "didn't comply with U.N. resolutions" statement. Blix said that there were no WMDs.
From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.
Know what I find real funny about this? A sewage plant does not make sewage it treats it and makes it no longer sewage. I have no problem at all with this proposal. It is a compliment to say that Bush can take someone elses shit and make better things from it.
It is a compliment to say that Bush can take someone elses shit and make better things from it.
The problem is he (and more properly in some cases Cheney) took the relative prosperity of the late 90's and ran us into the ground. While I've got some beef with Clinton (DoMA, DMCA, CDA, the way Kosovo was handled), there is simply no way it could compare with the garbage that we've been handed by Bush. Clinton never listened in on my phone calls without a warrant, looked up the books I checked out at the library, or started a war in Iraq for what can only be described as a moving target of invasion pretenses, many of which turned out to be either flatly wrong or patently false.
I'm not sure what you would call a Midas touch that turns things into shit, but I'd say he's rocking a pretty intense case of it.
I remember when I was taking goverment in high school back in the year 2000. The big project for that class was to a report about that election year. I also remember how we got our deadline got extended. I was watching one of those messages to the nation. It was not a proper debate. I needed to watch it because it was part of my project and I saw Al Gore. I did not know much about American Politcs back then. But when I listen and read the subs on the screen I was afraid when he said what would happen to American if George Bush was to be elected. But the thing that always stayed in my mind was something in the words that "we will face one of the worst economic problems since the great depression". I was living with my uncle at the time and he was and I think is a republican (he even wanted to take me to an NRA meeting). He told me that was something that a democrat would say in order to put fear on people and that Bush would not let something like that happen. All my aunts vote republican that year only because bush speak some spanish (his spanish is horrible by the way). How wrong they were. I have being trying to look for that on youtube but alas I doubt that recording still out there.
Comments
As for Al-Qaeda not existing ... Wikipedia entry
Yes Andrew, "Al-Qaeda in iraq" is a different terrorist group than the one that attacked us on 9-11. They are, however, affiliated with the ones who did attack us.
Even if you were right, why should the U.S. unilaterally enforce U.N. resolutions? Sounds to me like a problem for the U.N., not the U.S.
And that doesn't answer the "didn't comply with U.N. resolutions" statement. Blix said that there were no WMDs.
Know what I find real funny about this? A sewage plant does not make sewage it treats it and makes it no longer sewage. I have no problem at all with this proposal. It is a compliment to say that Bush can take someone elses shit and make better things from it.
I'm not sure what you would call a Midas touch that turns things into shit, but I'd say he's rocking a pretty intense case of it.
I was watching one of those messages to the nation. It was not a proper debate. I needed to watch it because it was part of my project and I saw Al Gore. I did not know much about American Politcs back then. But when I listen and read the subs on the screen I was afraid when he said what would happen to American if George Bush was to be elected.
But the thing that always stayed in my mind was something in the words that "we will face one of the worst economic problems since the great depression".
I was living with my uncle at the time and he was and I think is a republican (he even wanted to take me to an NRA meeting). He told me that was something that a democrat would say in order to put fear on people and that Bush would not let something like that happen. All my aunts vote republican that year only because bush speak some spanish (his spanish is horrible by the way).
How wrong they were.
I have being trying to look for that on youtube but alas I doubt that recording still out there.