What is George Bush's Legacy?

[jackattack]

You guys all sound pretty crazy. Do you actually read what you write? Unless President Bush had his own private intelligence agency separate from the government he didn't lie about the war. Go back and look at the NIE's from before we went to war. For a guy that is supposedly so stupid, he must be a genius to trick Bill Clinton's CIA director who said that it was a "Slam Dunk" that Saddam had WMD's, House democrats, Senate Democrats, and members of his own administration. All to get Iraq's oil? I think they are still producing less oil per day than they did before we invaded. And how on earth would getting Iraq's oil benefit him anyway?

[Alg]

 

NOO!!!

 

 

 

Dear God, we did not go to Iraq for Oil!!! We get most of our oil from Canada, Venezuela and I think Mexico. Not that much from Iraw, we may get a little. And besides, I think that if they didn't have WMDs when we went in, they had them earlier.

 

Price of gas when Bush went into office-$1.46

 

Price of gas now-$2.59

 

 

 

Gas was nearly $4.00 per gallon near me at one point.

 

 

 

And you tell me it's not about oil...

 

^We were bordering on $5 per gallon at one point. It's just now gone below 4.

 

OT:

 

Things can change in 8 years. You can't really blame a man for Time, can you?

 

Really, speculation probably had a lot to do with that. You go to war with a country that everyone believes is oil-rich, even if what Saruman44 says about where we get out oil is true, it's going to have consequences.

[user1991]

He will probably be the President known for the War on Terror, and for being put through the crucible the most times of any President. Few Presidents have had to deal with this much crap.

 

 

 

As for waterboarding and unfair treatment of prisoners: Abe Lincoln did much worse, fyi. He didn't suspend the rights of POW's like Bush did, he suspended the rights of EVERYONE. Down to freedom of speech.

 

 

 

Polk wasted a huge amount of money going to war with Mexico when the Texas Rangers could have easily defended Texas. He occupied Mexico needlessly, and pretty much stole half of Mexico at gunpoint.

 

 

 

And as much as you may say that Bush was an idiot, plenty of presidents were worse. Taft and Garfield come to mind.

 

 

 

The reason we are knocking on Bush so much is the internet. Clinton didn't have all that bad of an approval rating before the internet really became popular, then he was crucified. From now on, this easy exchange of information (whether true or more often not) will make the Presidency a major hotseat.

 

 

 

If Lincoln or FDR or Kennedy had the internet to deal with, they'd of been in trouble, too. Especially FDR, if the fact he had lied about his health had broken while he was still alive.

 

 

 

I think you're right on a lot of things.

 

 

 

The internet is a place where presidents/politicians are pretty much ripped to shreds and a lot of what they do good isn't noticed. We notice the bad much more than the good.

 

 

 

BUT, when it comes to Bush. I don't think he is nearly as stupid as most people try and make out - I still don't think he's very intelligent, but granted, he isn't a [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

Although, he did say that they were going into Iraq because they had serious intelligence that they had WMDs. Either he lied, or he was misinformed by other foreign intelligence agencies, or the foreign intelligence agencies were actually part of the lie. Personally, I think that Bush's team/Blair's team manipulated public fear (after 9/11), manufactured this whole "45 minute" WMD attack situation (Look up David Kelly, he even said that some of the so called "weapons manufacturing facilities" that our governments were talking about were CLEARLY not "weapons manufacturing facilities"). I think this is plainly obvious, whether he personally lied or not doesn't matter because the government partook in creating a climate of fear in order to get both another 4 years in office and invade Iraq under the guise of "protecting the nation." He brought in the PATRIOT act, the fact that it is even called the "patriot" act is testament to the fact they are openly manipulating people with nationalistic propaganda. He claimed that God told him to invade Iraq (CLEARLY manipulating the Christian majority in America).. Whether he lied specifically about the claim that they had WMDs is entirely irrelevant because he blatantly took part in manipulation of the people, which is just as bad as openly lying to them.

 

 

 

The motive? Probably not oil, most likely territory/or a strategy to create a climate of fear in order to get a stronger majority of people voting on the neo-con side of the spectrum and therefore get more power in the future. Quite frankly I don't know. But to claim that they DIDN'T manipulate the people is just ridiculous, they do it all the time, most politicians do it, and I think with Bush people decided to draw the line.

[megakiller32]

The people who say the war in Iraq is for oil have a weak argument. Oil is far too expensive, and some can argue its worth fighting for!

 

But I personally believe it is a war on terror in the whole region of the middle east. I would define terrorism myself as people who want to needlessly and pointlessly cause grief and harm to other people and races.

 

 

 

Not to say I agree with the American's method, marching in and pushing all thier Strong American Democracy values on them.. [/satire]

[dangeresque]

 

NOO!!!

 

 

 

Dear God, we did not go to Iraq for Oil!!! We get most of our oil from Canada, Venezuela and I think Mexico. Not that much from Iraw, we may get a little. And besides, I think that if they didn't have WMDs when we went in, they had them earlier.

 

Price of gas when Bush went into office-$1.46

 

Price of gas now-$2.59

 

 

 

Gas was nearly $4.00 per gallon near me at one point.

 

 

 

And you tell me it's not about oil...

 

You sort of just confirmed his statement ;).

 

 

 

Why would we have went into Iraq for this oil if we had so much gas anyways and it was cheap? The reason that gas went up so much is because of all the scary global events that made people want to jack the price up, don't know why but it's true. And also the people drilling the oil realised that there was such a dependence on oil that they could drive the price up and people would still buy it. The only reason it is going down is the sharp decline in demand.

[baalboy5]

Those saying stuff about Bush let me add on.

 

During the 2004 elections, republicans distrubed letters to alot of voters, this letter stated that if you moved or didn't give your real address, then your vote wouldn't count. The Rep's took out anyone that replyed.

 

Mexicans in mexico had about 20k voters declined because of simple mistakes.

 

Same goes for Blacks in the U.S.

 

I need to go find this source, brb.

[jackattack]

He will probably be the President known for the War on Terror, and for being put through the crucible the most times of any President. Few Presidents have had to deal with this much crap.

 

 

 

As for waterboarding and unfair treatment of prisoners: Abe Lincoln did much worse, fyi. He didn't suspend the rights of POW's like Bush did, he suspended the rights of EVERYONE. Down to freedom of speech.

 

 

 

Polk wasted a huge amount of money going to war with Mexico when the Texas Rangers could have easily defended Texas. He occupied Mexico needlessly, and pretty much stole half of Mexico at gunpoint.

 

 

 

And as much as you may say that Bush was an idiot, plenty of presidents were worse. Taft and Garfield come to mind.

 

 

 

The reason we are knocking on Bush so much is the internet. Clinton didn't have all that bad of an approval rating before the internet really became popular, then he was crucified. From now on, this easy exchange of information (whether true or more often not) will make the Presidency a major hotseat.

 

 

 

If Lincoln or FDR or Kennedy had the internet to deal with, they'd of been in trouble, too. Especially FDR, if the fact he had lied about his health had broken while he was still alive.

 

 

 

I think you're right on a lot of things.

 

 

 

The internet is a place where presidents/politicians are pretty much ripped to shreds and a lot of what they do good isn't noticed. We notice the bad much more than the good.

 

 

 

BUT, when it comes to Bush. I don't think he is nearly as stupid as most people try and make out - I still don't think he's very intelligent, but granted, he isn't a [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

Although, he did say that they were going into Iraq because they had serious intelligence that they had WMDs. Either he lied, or he was misinformed by other foreign intelligence agencies, or the foreign intelligence agencies were actually part of the lie. Personally, I think that Bush's team/Blair's team manipulated public fear (after 9/11), manufactured this whole "45 minute" WMD attack situation (Look up David Kelly, he even said that some of the so called "weapons manufacturing facilities" that our governments were talking about were CLEARLY not "weapons manufacturing facilities"). I think this is plainly obvious, whether he personally lied or not doesn't matter because the government partook in creating a climate of fear in order to get both another 4 years in office and invade Iraq under the guise of "protecting the nation." He brought in the PATRIOT act, the fact that it is even called the "patriot" act is testament to the fact they are openly manipulating people with nationalistic propaganda. He claimed that God told him to invade Iraq (CLEARLY manipulating the Christian majority in America).. Whether he lied specifically about the claim that they had WMDs is entirely irrelevant because he blatantly took part in manipulation of the people, which is just as bad as openly lying to them.

 

 

 

The motive? Probably not oil, most likely territory/or a strategy to create a climate of fear in order to get a stronger majority of people voting on the neo-con side of the spectrum and therefore get more power in the future. Quite frankly I don't know. But to claim that they DIDN'T manipulate the people is just ridiculous, they do it all the time, most politicians do it, and I think with Bush people decided to draw the line.

 

 

 

When did President Bush ever say he invaded Iraq because God told him to? Could you not just make stuff up please?

[l0l0lpur32]

The war on terrorism

[magekillr]

 

When did President Bush ever say he invaded Iraq because God told him to? Could you not just make stuff up please?

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml

[Range_This11]

 

When did President Bush ever say he invaded Iraq because God told him to? Could you not just make stuff up please?

 

Oops, you fail.

[jackattack]

So who should I believe, Scott McClellan and the President or the foreign minister of Palestine? I think I'll go with the White House.

[magekillr]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 09925.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Had enough yet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you'll believe Scott, you say? I mean, when Scott came out with his book you certainly were singing a different tune. Speaking of Scott, he endorsed Obama.

[jackattack]

That's the same time as you said before.

 

 

 

But Shaath said the Palestinians at the meeting did not think the president was suggesting that God actually spoke to him. "I think it's a manner of speech," Shaath said. "I don't think he meant an actual call from God. He was talking about a commitment. The man wasn't saying there was an angel hovering over his head talking to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important.

[dangeresque]

 

 

 

 

When did President Bush ever say he invaded Iraq because God told him to? Could you not just make stuff up please?

 

 

 

Oops, you fail.

 

 

 

did you miss your fail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I doubt that Bush invaded Iraq solely because God supposedly told him to.

[megakiller32]

Another thing, This summed it all up for me:

 

 

 

http://thisisourpresident.ytmnd.com/

[dangeresque]

Another thing, This summed it all up for me:

 

 

 

http://thisisourpresident.ytmnd.com/

 

 

 

What the hell is that supposed to prove?

[Range_This11]

 

 

 

did you miss your fail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't miss any fail, I just fail to see the point in me reierating mysef to the naves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush invades a country that is a member of OPEC and gas prices go up. Since we've already established the fact that Bush did not care if he was misinformed and invaded for the wrong reasons, we can also assume that he is there for something entirely different. What would be the obvious assumption? Oil. Or in the case that has been stated already: God. Just because Iraq or Saudi Arabia doesn't supply the U.S. with 99.9% of our oil, doesn't mean we don't want to control the oil we do get from them.

[Barihawk]

I don't think FDR should be looked down upon for his decision to conceal the fact that he had a wheelchair. He was president in one of the hardest periods of American history, and the American people wanted someone they thought of as strong. Even though it shouldn't affect that, he knew that it would undermine him if they knew. The media also had an agreement with him not to photograph him torso down. Heh, can you imagine today's media doing something like that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the point I was driving at. If it became public he would have been destroyed. But he lived in a time without 24/7 media coverage. Nowadays it's really easy for skeletons to jump out of the closet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oops, you fail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you would like to join us in the big boys and girls debate table, please present an actual argument. One that doesn't make you look like a moron off the bat should help a little. I'm sorry. I am sick of this :twss:, fail, and other 4chan bullcrap. Don't drag us down to that level.

[dangeresque]

 

 

 

 

did you miss your fail?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't miss any fail, I just fail to see the point in me reierating mysef to the naves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush invades a country that is a member of OPEC and gas prices go up. Since we've already established the fact that Bush did not care if he was misinformed and invaded for the wrong reasons, we can also assume that he is there for something entirely different. What would be the obvious assumption? Oil. Or in the case that has been stated already: God. Just because Iraq or Saudi Arabia doesn't supply the U.S. with 99.9% of our oil, doesn't mean we don't want to control the oil we do get from them.

 

 

 

Why would we invade a country for oil when we have the most and cheapest oil in almost, if not the whole world? I'm not a fan of the war in Iraq and how we jumped into it and have handled it, but to say we went in there for oil is completely ridiculous. And it's not like America directly would be getting oil, it would be different companies from all over the world trying to get in on it, which is predicted to happen after we leave.

[user1991]

That's the same time as you said before.

 

 

 

But Shaath said the Palestinians at the meeting did not think the president was suggesting that God actually spoke to him. "I think it's a manner of speech," Shaath said. "I don't think he meant an actual call from God. He was talking about a commitment. The man wasn't saying there was an angel hovering over his head talking to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All politicians manipulate, but Bush and his gang took it to the next level, and people got sick of it. Your voting system, it's just so hilariously ridiculous. If you watch the American news channels, all they seem to care about is the individual and not the policies. Whether McCain has seven houses or whether Obama lived on the same street as Bill Ayers like 20 years ago. (Who the hell even cares...? I don't care about someone's life (well as long as they aren't like a rapist or anything) as long as they have good policies.) If America is really full of these "swing voting" single issue people then... jeez, I guess that really is bad. Even when you discuss policies you can't go long without some crazy religious nut coming on and saying that stem cell research shouldn't be allowed because embryos have souls. Sure, not all Christians believe that, but for a country such as America, their huge presence is still surprising. Here in the UK, we don't have such a religious majority but we still have a pretty bad voting system, this faux democratic pile of garbage where you realistically only have a choice between two people. In the US, to be president you have to, in reality, be a millionaire Christian. I endorse Obama only because I think Sarah Palin is actually a [developmentally delayed] and if McCain died, then the world would end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The system of voting and power seems to be designed to make it extremely difficult for anything other than the traditional consensus to be heard. Democracy at it's purest I guess.. the majority crushing the minority.

[Deiophobus]

Oh, sorry Barihawk, I thought you were implying FDR was a bad president for not revealing his health.

[Saru Inc]

 

That's the same time as you said before.

 

 

 

But Shaath said the Palestinians at the meeting did not think the president was suggesting that God actually spoke to him. "I think it's a manner of speech," Shaath said. "I don't think he meant an actual call from God. He was talking about a commitment. The man wasn't saying there was an angel hovering over his head talking to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..?

 

 

 

You act like Christians are athiests. There are some epic battles in the Bible; pretty gory too. God isn't afraid to get his hands dirty.

[user1991]

 

 

That's the same time as you said before.

 

 

 

But Shaath said the Palestinians at the meeting did not think the president was suggesting that God actually spoke to him. "I think it's a manner of speech," Shaath said. "I don't think he meant an actual call from God. He was talking about a commitment. The man wasn't saying there was an angel hovering over his head talking to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..?

 

 

 

You act like Christians are athiests. There are some epic battles in the Bible; pretty gory too. God isn't afraid to get his hands dirty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever happened to "turning the other cheek"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you Christians actually listened to what Jesus said, the world would be a much better place. I think that in a few hundred years, what he actually meant will become clear. Capitalism and our hold on the material must go first. You can't have both.

[ThurinEthir]

 

That's the same time as you said before.

 

 

 

But Shaath said the Palestinians at the meeting did not think the president was suggesting that God actually spoke to him. "I think it's a manner of speech," Shaath said. "I don't think he meant an actual call from God. He was talking about a commitment. The man wasn't saying there was an angel hovering over his head talking to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..?

 

 

 

...Constantine. Just wanted to say that.

 

 

 

Haven't all the past presidents been Christian, one sect or another? And haven't a good deal of them been involved in war? Of course, I doubt any (Except Bush apparently?) was told to declare war by God, but if you really expect all presidents to turn the other cheek, then there would never have been any wars in American history.

 

 

 

(Because turning the other cheek when Pearl Harbor was bombed, or after 9/11, would be a really great idea...)

[user1991]

 

 

That's the same time as you said before.

 

 

 

But Shaath said the Palestinians at the meeting did not think the president was suggesting that God actually spoke to him. "I think it's a manner of speech," Shaath said. "I don't think he meant an actual call from God. He was talking about a commitment. The man wasn't saying there was an angel hovering over his head talking to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anytime anyone says they hope they are doing God's will or that they are serving him atheists all try to go "What a loony! he thinks he talks to God? What a nutjob!" And nothin Scott McClellan said was really news. It was just Keith Olbermann who jumped all over that. I can see where McClellan is mad about Valerie Plame but that is really the only thing he said that was important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, let's just assume you're right here, and Bush actually meant "I believe that I am doing God's will.", instead of what he actually said, which was "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I mean, I don't know why he would mean the first thing when he said the second, but maybe, just maybe he did. Let's assume you're right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't you think that Bush saying that he thinks he is doing God's will by invading a country is manipulating the Christian majority.... just a little bit..?

 

 

 

...Constantine. Just wanted to say that.

 

 

 

Haven't all the past presidents been Christian, one sect or another? And haven't a good deal of them been involved in war? Of course, I doubt any (Except Bush apparently?) was told to declare war by God, but if you really expect all presidents to turn the other cheek, then there would never have been any wars in American history.

 

 

 

(Because turning the other cheek when Pearl Harbor was bombed, or after 9/11, would be a really great idea...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As said previously, you can't institute Jesus' teachings into a system in which they don't work. You first have to change the culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus' teachings are pretty much to be used for the transitional stage from an amazing society to utopia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I read what he said, sometimes I actually do think, holy crap, this guy can't be human. The problems arise when you try to compromise what he said. When he said "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." - I'm pretty sure he meant it as such..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not a Christian, but I can sort of get why people are. Not the fundamentalists like Saruman..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As said earlier, I think that Jesus teaching's are genius.. But Christians don't apply them, simple as really. They compromise between Jesus' teachings and a capitalistic society, and it doesn't work.