Facts vs Bush-Bashing

I would really like to see an America where Public opinion isn't based on Political Correctness, fear of having different opinions, trendy internet video bashing, comedians jumping on a trendy bandwagon influencing the politically ignorant, and the abuse of media driven ignorant consumers.

Please tell me specifically what makes him the WORST president ever.That's a pretty strong statement. People like IronWood had better start making valid points instead of just showing alot of videos that say he DID something without actually proving it. I only defend him because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence to back these claims.

Evidence, You people think that the written word and numerous claims equals Evidence. It does not. Stop saying EVERYONE knows why he sucks. I don't think they do. I have found that anyone who is totally politically ignorant depending on their background/financial situation will immediately jump to conclusions based solely on hearsay and the opinions of those who are in control of their social well being. Now this site has actual intelligent people with differing views so I am not lumping EVERYONE into this category, rather I am simply stating that everyone I have ever spoken to in person that tells me George W. Bush is the WORST president ever has no actual reasoning for these beliefs.

They will say he is ruining the economy, I am sorry but the numbers don't back that claim.

They will say he is killing ALL our troops. No he isn't. Iraqis are.
He is keeping our soldiers in Iraq. No he isn't, you and I both know what kind of chaos will follow if we just pull out. Then who would you blame for that mess? George Bush again? Of course it's just so fuckin' easy!

I am not saying don't disagree with me. I am not saying you are WRONG I am simply saying that the common approach is to just say things without proof.

Proof, well now proof is a great tool at defeating an opposition in political views. Unless your goal is influence as apposed to truth. It seems that The Anti-Bush Movement is more geared towards influence rather than truth.

Like I said in another post....those 911 conspiracy videos, they did in fact Prove without question that the story we were told was in fact a Lie. To what extent was the president in on it? You can't say he was unless you provide proof. Any further statements in his involvement is merely speculation. Whether it's true or not you have no proof so public opinion should be undecided. That whole bit with the gravitational constant and the speed in which the building fell. It was proven without a doubt that There is no way the building could have fallen in that amount of time without the aid of explosives. However to assume that a president who just got into office had orchestrated such a Evil act with such precision is absurd. Did anyone ever consider that the government had to hide the fact that they had a huge weakness? That there were in fact terrorists that executed an Amazing attack on our own soil? I am not saying it is right. Things of that nature must be told to the public. There are terrorists however that is a fact for sure. There are REAL videos of CHILDREN being forced to Kill other Humans.Westerners Like ourselves.The threat is REAL. The Enemy Is REAL. Who knows what REALLY happened that day. In order to find out we must first assume that we know NOTHING until we have EVERY LAST FACT.

Why is that absurd? Lets take a look at some things that libs have pointed out.

You say Bush is a LIER. He always lies and is terrible at it at the same time? You know when he lies....well Is that a true flaw? Politicians ALL must lie. Every President has lied. Why? National Security does in fact depend on some level of secrecy.

If he is THAT stupid and THAT bad at Lieing...how in the fuck could he pull something off like that?

He isn't stupid, He is a terrible lier. It simply isn't in his nature. He does wanna be a badass. He works like most good ole boys do. When your right you can kick the shit out of whoever is wrong. He isn't Willfully doing anything that he feels is Wrong or Immoral. He isn't EVIL.(Not saying others in his administration are not. I haven't put all that much thought into them.)

Now about the whole lack of media coverage on the real bad guys....You are attacking George Bush who clearly isn't the root cause of the problems. Stop putting ratings over truth. Stop allowing trends to influence opinion. Your wasting time pointing fingers at the wrong man. You are contradicting yourselves. He lies all the time? Yet his lies are see through huh? Would you prefer a Bill Clinton Lieing to your face with a reassuring smile?

The evidence that George Bush Caused the recession isn't there. Why is it that no one considers the fact that maybe just maybe the problem had been building since before he took office? Look it up. Clinton was a terrible president. He was famous for his ability to Lie, he was Trendy so the ignorant people Liked him, and trusted him because they could relate to him. Bill Clinton Used Lies and Quick fixes.

I am asking anyone out there to accept the challenge to provide evidence on this forum as to why George Bush is a Bad man or why he is Ruining the country. If you truly care that much about it then tell us all why it is true. Not that it is true. But WHY. Facts, Data, List recourses for everyone to research on their own. Please do not waste everyones time by just making broad general statements that are trendy and clever. This isn't the time or place for misinformation tactics. There are plenty of people out there willing to be brainwashed and tricked into believing things because their primary goals in life is the acquisition of material objects and the truth or pursuit of knowledge is far too distracting to them to maintain their IMAGE for the rest of the Trendy people in their lives.

I can't wait to engage in a real debate driven by real Ideas as apposed to each side regurgitating the same old garbage back and forth.

What facts do you feel are in dispute?

So far I've primarily heard you make generalized and unfocused complaints about the behavior of and information provided by, others. While simultaneously doing almost every single thing you just complained about.

You state opinion based facts, so far as we can be aware because you provide no evidence, like you so vehemontly demand of others.

Perhaps you can shed some light on why you defend Bush's character as if you know him personally and intimately enough to allay all accusations to the contrary of his innocence as well as my notion that your assertion is both derived from believing what others have told you as well as basing it on absolutely no evidence or personal experience as I have also heard you complain of others.

I believe you have honest intentions and ultimately want both the truth and to do what is right. Well, that's what we all want.

I think you are just stuck because you still cling to notions built on lies you are beginning to face.

I'm not a Bush basher nor a liberal when I act disgusted by things I hear and repeat about the Bushes. I had no negative predisposition to Bush, I didn't know a thing about him, but eventually I heard some disturbing things, looked into it them to varying degrees, and became fairly upset and indeed disturbed.

I don't know what you have or haven't heard of the Bush family, nor am I sure how much of what I have heard is true, in all directions of neutrality, pro, or con. I just know that I have heard some very fucked up shit that hasn't been well addressed let alone disproven as well as some even proclaimed proven.

And if even half of it is true, this man is by all my known definitions of the term, evil.

That's if. Ultimately, how the hell would I know. But again, we base our arguments on what we feel is the best or most convincing information and claims of evidence that we encounter.

What have I heard that makes me so weary and possibly disgusted by Bush and his family?

There is historical evidence that anywhere from hints at to blatant accusations that he and or members of his immediate family of...

Involvement in numerous government related scandals, from a Fascist plot to overthrow the government and assassinate the president during WWII, trading with the enemy charges with assets ceased in dealings with Nazi Germany after declaration of illegality was instituted, to JFK's murder, to all sorts of highly contested CIA related activities, to heavily gay child sex rings.

They are war profiteers to the extreme as well as getting rich off the imprisonment of americans.

You have expressed having learned that at least part of the story behind 9/11 is wrong and or a lie.

I don't know what all you think you have heard is true or false so cannot address your specific concerns, and I cannot possibly cover all points of why Bush is considered the worst president by those who feel this way.

Take some time to go back and do some reading and or simply ask some specific questions.

But to give a basic overlay, I've seen more convincing information that Bush and his administration have either created or allowed a "new pearl harbor" to scare the public into going along with the invasion and occupation of multiple countries all while giving in to the destruction and undermining of the constitution and all forms of governmental checks and balances, our rights and freedoms inch by inch, as well as the destruction of the country as we know it through progression of an american union.

I simply cannot cover everything, its pathetic.

Well that's my point exactly, Innocent until proven guilty. Stories are stories and He shouldn't have to disprove all these stories until evidence is brought up against him.

I just think that it is the job of the accusers to bring forth the evidence. Not the other way around. I cannot possibly begin defending all the little stories against him, there are a couple every day being constructed.

As for his general character anyone could actually listen to what he actually says as apposed to only watching the daily show or others like it. You can see his demeanor and the way he carries himself. I have watched all the major debates he had with Kerry, and Gore. He simply kicked Kerry's ass. He acted in a way that led me to believe that he did In fact seem to care about the things he was saying. I noticed that in one on one conversations the man doesn't come off as foolish at all. Because that is actually him speaking and not a prepared document like when he has to talk to the press. This would lead me to believe that he slips up sometimes and comes off a bit like he doesn't know what he is saying simply because he is uncomfortable with prepared speeches. Most liers and cons do great when prepared and terrible when they are forced to express their true opinions, such as John Kerry. John Kerry got his ass handed to him. He not only is a moron but a bad politician. Clinton was a moron but a good politician. A very very good politician. What makes a good politician? The ability to Lie cover up details that make you look bad. George Bush is terrible at those things. Clinton was amazing. Doesn't mean Clinton Did a better Job with what he was really doing..Although he gave the US a much easier time to continue fucking things up. Thats all he did. Clinton made us look good when we were doing the same old shit. That over all is I suppose a very important job of a president. Although to me that is wrong...it's seems like not only is that what people support but also what they need.


What I am trying to point out here is that the claims against bush are Illogical. Evil? no. Arrogant? Yes. Stupid? No. Bullheaded? Yes.

We cannot Put the Blame on him for Iraq. Blame the whole government. They were not lied to by Bush. Bush was in the same boat as all of them when he was lied to as well. Blame those of which that are truly in power.

Wouldn't it seem more likely that a president that can only be in office 8 years would have less power than those behind the scenes that are gonna be in control forever? Also Do you honestly believe that this man who clearly wants to be seen as a heroic defender of peace would go attacking people without just cause? No. I find it to be much more likely he was given the opportunity presented by a group of people with special interests that knew he would jump at the opportunity to be a hero. WE WERE ALL LIED TO HIM INCLUDED. The Iraq "war" didn't get hardly any US soldiers killed. It was the rebuilding of Iraq.

None of us that were told we had to remove Saddam thought that it would mean we would be stuck their for 30 years. Putting Blame on one man is not only foolish but useless. All that does is make it easy for weak people to sleep at night. It takes off all the responsibility of those actually at fault. If people truly care about where the problem. However Saddam had it coming.

He was a "threat" not debating the degree....I feel Iran is a much greater threat, which I am sure is why we are in Iraq in the first place, to have US troops in afghanistan, and Iraq now. We got people on both sides of Iran. IF this is the true motives of why we are in Iraq in the first place, wouldn't you agree that the whole thing started before Bush even went to Iraq? Now Bushes men are pushing him to start with Iran. Why? Well It's obvious. Make the man everyone views as the warmonger Initiate the war. Why? Because that way when he is gone so Is the Problem. The Immediate government wants the Blame to follow Bush. If you continue blaming the wrong man you are gonna let the real Criminals go.

However I must say, I am sure that a big part of why we are going to war is for our overall interest. That is just the way of the world. Things have always had more than one benefit for doing something in the grand scheme. Always. Politicians are opportunists they will spin every single last detail in their favor.

Bush has failed in a few areas. He is actually responsible for REAL problems he could have avoided. But don't leave the media out of the equation either. The media is preying on everyones ignorance. They infact encourage ignorance.

I am so sick of songs saying shit like Why is the US attacking other "Nations". Nations? We didn't attack France or Germany. We "attacked" the government of Iraq. They did infact deserve it. They did infact need to lose their control. Saddam Did chemically attack his OWN people. We "attacked" an evil government. We attempted to do what we did with Germany and Japan with Iraq. The Iraqis Are far more ignorant and stupid then we imagined. Look at Germany, how did they great us in their country? Where did it get them?

Look at Iraq. How did they greet us? Where did it get them? Exactly. They want Filth. They want Murder. That is the way of the mideast. Stop acting like the middle east is a peaceful place with peaceful nations. They have literally been killing themselves since they settled in there. All Iraqis? No. But Far too many for us to count. Our own media is spinning the casualties over there to seem as if we are causing them. We aren't. The deaths will always occur.

People will say, well they wouldn't be killing their own people if we weren't there. O'Really? Hmmm, let us step back and think this through. If Iraqis invaded us, would you go and blow up your neighbor? No. You would only blow your neighbor up if you already hated him in the first place. Therefor logically you must and have to admit that We are not the problem. Do we add to it? Some. Would it be worse without us there? Hahaha of course.

Those evil bastards Killing eachother and themselves are going to be the ones Ruling the country when we leave. Why? Because the Iraqis have 0 responsiblity for what is going on. Why? Because the media and the ignorant masses are blaming the us for the Iraqis problems. If the Iraqis were blamed for their own misdeeds then they would be far more likely to start fixing their own problems.

That woman in a video Ironwood posted said that the military are so sick of being there and if we care sooo much about this cause we should reinstate the Draft. Bad fucking Idea. I got a few points on this topic too.

#1 Illegal immigrants. 0 responsibility in this issue yet they still reap all the rewards of being in the us. That is a total mountain of bullshit. Trust me if you want problems instate a draft with Illegals partying here. See what happens. People are literally gonna go insane and start offing other people because they will figure they will die anyhow. It isn't fair at all to have Illegals doing whatever they want while forcing us to go die for Iraqis who don't give a shit about their own country. Why in the fuck should honest hard working law abiding tax paying US citizens have to go over to Iraq because people are getting tired of being over there? That is not the answer.

#2 What kind of insane notion is it to draft US citizens to Rebuild IRAQ. Iraqi soldiers Come and go from the Iraqi army when they want. They aren't help Liable for anything, Bet alot of you didn't know that one. When they get their monthly check they disapear till they need more money. Now Why is it that the actual Iraqi army isn't even held responsible for its own rebuilding? So we are gonna ignore their POS army. Allow their citizens to sit on their ass while Us civilians come over there and die for Ungrateful Iraqis that won't even rebuild their own country? Once more. Your taking people and putting them in a crazed mindset. Iraqi civilians will then actually be killed by us soldiers. They aren't killed by us soldiers now. DO you know why? Because those soldiers knew when they signed up they would possibly have that responsibility. Civilians are not safe to have their. plain and simple. It would create chaos and they would severely misrepresent our Armed Forces.

#3 Our Economy. Think about it people. What in the fuck would that do to our way of life? There is no reason to every instate a draft for a rebuilding of a nation.

I could literally go on for hours, however I am sure I would lose alot of the people I am trying to reach out to, so if anyone would like to pick a certain Point they would wish to discuss feel free. Any Ideas on specific topics I will post in a more concise thing however, I was responding to a general statement....which was a response to my general statement.

Interesting points

quote:

---

As for his general character anyone could actually listen to what he actually says as apposed to only watching the daily show or others like it. You can see his demeanor and the way he carries himself.

---

Hmm, yes I noted the almost frantic {fanatic} defence of our being in Iraq to defeat Al-Q
(sorry, can't remember how to sp. it)

quote:

---

. That over all is I suppose a very important job of a president, to make us look good when we were doing the same old shit.

---

Yes I will agree that deception is a major function of governing rather than serving the people.

quote:

---

What I am trying to point out here is that the claims against bush are Illogical. Evil? no. Arrogant? Yes. Stupid? No. Bullheaded? Yes.

---

Just for the record, this statement is being more specifically applied to G.W. Bush?

quote:

---

We cannot Put the Blame on him for Iraq. Blame the whole government. They were not lied to by Bush. Bush was in the same boat as all of them when he was lied to as well.

---

Yes, does present a problem? Was he Lying or was he lied too? Kind of ends up in a shell game, doesn't it.

quote:

---

Blame those of which that are truly in power. Wouldn't it seem more likely that a president that can only be in office 8 years would have less power than those behind the scenes that are gonna be in control forever?

---

Right, it is not those who govern but rather it is our system of government. Yes, you do have a valid point there.

quote:

---

None of us that were told we had to remove Saddam thought that it would mean we would be stuck their for 30 years. {there?}

---

On the other hand it may be why we didn't take Saddam out as a matter of principle after the Gulf War? Then note that we could have let (left?) after removing Saddam, leting the Iraqis form their own union But Bush ( & others) didn't like leaving a government with anti-american attitude in power, we want an anti-Iranian & pro-american union, right?

quote:

---

I am so sick of songs saying shit like Why is the US attacking other "Nations". Nations?

---

Hmm, ever listen to the Marine Corp hymn(sp)? From the Halls of . . . to the shores of . . . we fight our country's battles . . note the pluaral forms?

quote:

---

We didn't attack France or Germany. We "attacked" the government of Iraq.
They did in fact deserve it.

---

Oh, yes how rightly justified! We supported a despot in Iran but when they over threw that government then we supported another despot in Iraq, right? Granted they had along history of anamosity, did we encourge it or discourage it? But I have to admit that Bushes presidency has done more to end their hatred for each other, by giving them a more hated mutual enemy.

quote:

---

Well that's my point exactly, Innocent until proven guilty.

---

That's how a trial works, that has nothing to do with the fact of the matter, either someone is guilty or they are not, regardless of whether it is proven or not. This is why cover ups are so effective and why there are innocent people in jail.

And speaking of facts, you have not progressed one bit away from providing opinion based facts with no evidence for any statement you have made, this is your own requirements you are failing.

You feel you don't need to do what you ask of others.

quote:

---

Stories are stories and He shouldn't have to disprove all these stories until evidence is brought up against him.

---

Evidence has been, most of what I mentioned has gone through some degree of a trial or congressional investigation. But because of a corrupt system, that indeed in not all Bush's fault, most evidence will never see the light of day, and that which has, will generally be dismissed or twisted.

Your assumption that they are just stories is your problem, your assumption that that which you espouse as fact, is fact, is a problem.

You probably believe that the media is full of lies and disinformation, yet you will sit here and quote things told to you from media sources as fact. That doesn't fly.

I bet not one single attempt at a factoid you present comes from your own investigation and experience, mine sure don't. I may read books and look at mainstream, alternative, right, left, and independant sources, but they are all forms of media and contain "facts" that I cannot verify. And you would probably be in all kinds of agreement with the idea that any "fact" I present would be wrong because of it, but what about yours?

quote:

---

As for his general character anyone could actually listen to what he actually says as apposed to only watching the daily show or others like it.

---

Thankfully only idiots judge people by what they say rather than what they do.

quote:

---

You can see his demeanor and the way he carries himself.

---

No, you can see whatever you want in someone's demeanor and this is pure speculative nonesense.

quote:

---

What I am trying to point out here is that the claims against bush are Illogical

---

You haven't even touched any claims against him, you refused to becuase you feel its too much work and others need to do it for you, even though much of it has been done and you won't even look into it, that you are righteous in your posistion and others need to do work to prove you wrong. I mean, god forbid you end up having to do more than make a judgement off of his speaches and responses in interviews.

quote:

---

Evil? no. Arrogant? Yes. Stupid? No. Bullheaded? Yes.

---

Facts, no. Speculative opinion, yes.

quote:

---

We cannot Put the Blame on him for Iraq.

---

Yes, we can. This "war" was brought to congress and the people by him and his administration, then foolishly allowed due to fear and lies.

quote:

---

Blame the whole government.

---

Only those who intentionally decieve and or lazily allowed.

quote:

---

They were not lied to by Bush.

---

What evidence do you have to support this notion, because off hand, I can think of evidence to the contrary such as the Downing street memo and testimony from intelligence officers who have proclaimed his administration intentionally manipulated intelligence.

quote:

---

those behind the scenes that are gonna be in control forever?

---

Who are you refering to in this highly ambiguous statement?

Because I doubt you mean those who actually are, of which Bush and his family are a part of.

quote:

---

Also Do you honestly believe that this man who clearly wants to be seen as a heroic defender of peace would go attacking people without just cause?

---

If he isn't blamed for it, then it doesn't tarnish him does it? Hell, you have questions about 9/11 now but W. still has your vote.

You answered your own question.

quote:

---

No. I find it to be much more likely he was given the opportunity presented by a group of people with special interests that knew he would jump at the opportunity to be a hero. WE WERE ALL LIED TO HIM INCLUDED.

---

And untill you look into him and his family you will probably continue to believe this.

quote:

---

The Iraq "war" didn't get hardly any US soldiers killed. It was the rebuilding of Iraq.

---

Obviously the battle or "war" is not defined by terms of arrogant americans.

quote:

---

None of us that were told we had to remove Saddam thought that it would mean we would be stuck their for 30 years.

---

But those who questioned what they were told were more than able to find this out. That this was the plan all along and that you were told lies.

quote:

---

Putting Blame on one man is not only foolish but useless.

---

No one is putting all blame on one man, Bush is the "elected" representative who bears responsibility, one day you will understand this.

quote:

---

All that does is make it easy for weak people to sleep at night. It takes off all the responsibility of those actually at fault.

---

One day you may also see that it is your attempt to protect Bush is what is doing this very thing for you.

quote:

---

He was a "threat" not debating the degree

---

Of course you are debating the degree, because that would undermine your entire argument.

quote:

---

I feel Iran is a much greater threat

---

As anyone leaning towards a right wing bias would. Because this is what you are being told and not questioning as usual.

quote:

---

IF this is the true motives of why we are in Iraq in the first place, wouldn't you agree that the whole thing started before Bush even went to Iraq?

---

What whole thing, any involvement in the middle east? Of course, but he is still guilty of his part. I never said he was alone in his guilt.

quote:

---

Now Bushes men are pushing him to start with Iran. Why? Well It's obvious. Make the man everyone views as the warmonger Initiate the war. Why? Because that way when he is gone so Is the Problem. The Immediate government wants the Blame to follow Bush.

---

Bush is responsible for "bush's men".

You convolute the immediate government, bush's men, and bush in such a fashion that your statement loses coherency.

Perhaps you could clarify your beliefs about how you think things are run and by whom.

quote:

---

If you continue blaming the wrong man you are gonna let the real Criminals go.

---

This goes for you as well, your notion that Bush is so innocent is obviously blinding you to at least his guilt. But again, I have no notion that Bush is alone in his guilt.

quote:

---

However I must say, I am sure that a big part of why we are going to war is for our overall interest. That is just the way of the world.

---

We know people start wars for personal interest, that's why we hang them as war criminals.

quote:

---

Bush has failed in a few areas. He is actually responsible for REAL problems he could have avoided.

---

Like?

quote:

---

But don't leave the media out of the equation either. The media is preying on everyones ignorance. They infact encourage ignorance.

---

No shit, it comes across in most of what you say in defense of bush.

quote:

---

I am so sick of songs saying shit like Why is the US attacking other "Nations". Nations? We didn't attack France or Germany. We "attacked" the government of Iraq.

---

Now you are slipping into stupidity. Iraq is a Nation, we most certainly did attack, invade, and occupy it.

quote:

---

They did infact deserve it. They did infact need to lose their control. Saddam Did chemically attack his OWN people.

---

Then maybe we shouldn't have helped Saddam into power, maybe we shouldn't have helped him gas people, by the way, he was fighting Iranians when he gassed people, and he wasn't the only one doing the gassing, and all of them got their supplies and aid from western powers such as us.

If Saddam and these acts were so horrible maybe we should have done something about then instead of increasing our aid to him.

Your condemnation when it suits you mentality only serves to further undermine your arguments.

quote:

---

We attempted to do what we did with Germany and Japan with Iraq.

---

Ya, but not in the way you think.

quote:

---

Look at Iraq. How did they greet us?

---

The better question is why?

quote:

---

They want Filth. They want Murder. That is the way of the mideast.

---

You are a sad individual if you truly believe this.

quote:

---

Stop acting like the middle east is a peaceful place with peaceful nations. They have literally been killing themselves since they settled in there.

---

But why? You are leaving out some very important factors, like outsiders.

Sure, the entire planet suffers from empirical and ideological bullies who invade, kill, and conquer. What you fail to account for in the middle east is western influence and involvement.

Besides fighting with themselves, which does occur, they fight outsiders and much of their internal fighting has to do with outside factors that are lost on you.

Westerners built Iraq as it is today over a hundred years ago. Your notions of middle east affairs are totally devoid of all western involvement and that's why it is you who are ignorant, not the Iraqis.

quote:

---

Our own media is spinning the casualties over there to seem as if we are causing them. We aren't. The deaths will always occur.

---

What the fuck do you think our troops are doing, baking cookies? Your assertion that we are innocent of killing mass civilians is absurd. Iraqis don't carpet bomb themselves, they don't litter Iraq with depleted uranium nor destroy all their key infrastructure, that was all us.

quote:

---

Therefor logically you must and have to admit that We are not the problem.

---

It means we are not the only problem. They have to sort out their own differences, just as we had to. But people like you won't let them.

The question is, what is the bigger problem.

quote:

---

Those evil bastards Killing eachother and themselves are going to be the ones Ruling the country when we leave. Why? Because the Iraqis have 0 responsiblity for what is going on. Why? Because the media and the ignorant masses are blaming the us for the Iraqis problems. If the Iraqis were blamed for their own misdeeds then they would be far more likely to start fixing their own problems.

---

You cite their history of violence, however you again do not cite the history of our involvement and what all that entails. You ignorantly assume that any mention of our wrong doing is baseless propaganda with no possible historically accurate context.

The middle east hasn't even had the opportunity to sort itself out because western powers are always there trying to control it all.

And they know we are corrupt and therefore are defending themselves from us.

You have no historical context of our actions over there except I'm sure "fighting communism" and now "terrorism" for our "national interests".

You seem to think that somewhere in that that our bombings, wars, have no meaning or backlash. That everything america has ever done is just, pure, and innocent.

You are a naive young man guilty of all the slander you throw at Iraqis.

But as your learning progresses about the issues or corruption within our government continues, I feel this will change. But you are in dire need of stopping and thinking about the accusations you have tossed at members of the government on these issues, everyone but bush in your case, and what those accusation do and can possibly mean.

But I cannot continue at the moment as I must leave for work. Hopefully this is not over, it certainly isn't on my end.

I won't be contributing to the war of graphs again, this has been done. What we've found here at this site is that contradictory statistics can be found from equally federal and or credible sources.

What I would like to know, is how it is rationalized that a exponential increase in defense spending doesn't affect the debt?

Unemployment rates aren't as much the issue yet in terms of jobs, thanks to policies before Bush but exacerbated by him most jobs worth a shit are either shipped over seas or have imported labor, not always legal labor either.

Wages are down, hours are cut, benefits are becoming a thing of the past as Wal-Mart remains the model for ruthless corporate efficiency.

What I hear from the right is that they don't understand that yes, there is a economic boom of a sort happening, big corporations are raking in dough by cutting benefits, hours, tenured laborers, wages etc. But this all at the detrement of the middle class.

And equally missed and important is inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. Meaning that sure, there is more american dollars being tossed around, not in the hands of the middle class still, but these american dollars today aren't worth shit.

Regardless of happy horseshit about a great economy, we are on the brink of a great depression. Our dollar is worth dirt and the world is ditching it. And they have good reason to.

I haven't heard anything of interest about crime other than the US imprisons the highest percentage of its citizens in the world and that private prisons are springing up everywhere, and that Bushes make tons off of it.

And I don't give a rats ass about abortion rates.

As for who's killing who in Iraq, I have to admit, that link is impressive, however, I don't see where you get the notion that it backs up your claims rather than doing just the opposite.

I took some time looking over that, much is highly ambiguous, "bodies found shot dead". Most instances of gunfire are attributed to one source or another. But what was so amusing and confusing given your use of it as a source was its contention that the US and US formed Health ministries lied constantly about civilian casualties and that numbers were deflated while they would openly challenge local counts even making claims that they eventually back away from that the locals counts were inflated. Repeatedly accounting how in particular in Falluja majorities of bodies were women, children, and elderly males.

I bet you want me to cite your source for you so as to provide proof.

quote:

---

Logical reasoning for this is most attacks are not against Americans, they are against Iraqis trying to live a Democratic life. So how are they due our presence? It is our INFLUENCE on Iraqis that they are upset about. This is their war on Democracy. It is time to wake up to the fact that the Iraqis are Killing for Power and Control.

---

This is a posistion only supportable by half truths that do exist. But its the rest of the story that changes the context.

Why would Iraqis be fighting eachother and why would they be upset about our influence?

Though you are right to contend that there are indeed power struggles taking place you are forgetting the biggest force fighting for control of power in the region, us.

You make assertions as to how things would play out if we were not there, but cannot adequately do so since we have not not been there for decades even centuries when lumped with allied or general western influence.

You make analogies of if we were invaded would we attack our neighbor, but you do not add to the equation that if Iraq or someone invaded us and your neighbor took up arms in support of this foreign army as they perhaps designated you an aid to terror, then what?

I hear from the left and right accusations of treachery and traitors pondering whether eachother should be treated as terrorists or not. So I don't think your analogy holds up too well.

And much more importantly, I can almost guarantee that you are not accounting for our covert activities as well as what local and foreign forces we hire, train, or influence to do our bidding, in multiple directions within and around Iraq.

You express ideological opposition to "crazy" people gaining wmd's and threatening neighbors and harboring terrorists or protecting others that do. All things the US is guilty of ten fold, though you don't seem to concerned or aware of this. You speak as if we haven't invaded multiple countries under declaration of self righteous protection of democracy, threatening to use nukes on iran while protecting pakistan with its military dictatorship harboring terrorists and threating to nuke india in their back and forth squabble.

Apparently you have also missed the multiple reports of our hiring of known terrorists to operate in both Iraq and Iran and god only knows where all else. Some were even accompanied by US assurance that they had denounced their allegiance to terrorism, because when they suicide bomb for the US, its apparently not terrorism.

But that's ok, because since I don't cite every source of this, for the tenth time on this forum (a point you have yet to get or I have yet to properly articulate), I'm just making it all up, and or it was never credible to begin with.

A fight against democracy? How about a fight against one of the most corrupt and pervasive forces on the planet.

quote:

---

3,500 us soldiers died as a result of this 4 year war.

---

I would love to know how you verify numbers from the most secretive and deceptive government possibly ever to have existed in this country. Offhand, on this particular issue I heard tell, yep, not declaring as fact that which others say just because they say so, that there are all sorts of fun factors that fuck this number up. Things such as, if a soldier dies in a helicopter inches off the ground, not counted, or in hospitals outside of iraq etc. But this number is definitely displaced by factors such as survivability over previous conflicts due to medical achievements etc.

quote:

---

Most of you reading this will probably ignore me and assume that someone manipulated those studies. For the most part those are based on or directly from Federal studies. When in fact YOU are the ones being lied to by YOUR sources. Your sources are strictly based an speculation and manipulation. They are from Special interest sites. Sites and sources with agendas.

---

Do you realize how much of this can be pointed right back at you? Federal studies are indeed often proven manipulated because of special interests and to assert that a federal policy maker and their studies don't have agendas is just silly.

This is not to say all your studies are totally incorrect, not at all, especially those not pertaining to the war, I'm taking particular issue with you comparing data with that which is from the war because of the laughability of credibility on that issue.

I'm sorry, but this president has been accused and proven to buy off more people to produce more propaganda than perhaps any other.

They have scientists coming out in droves against this, some of these scandals even made main stream press, like the no child left behind pay offs, fake news stories supporting policies on health care, not to mention war propaganda.

quote:

---

When in fact YOU are the ones being lied to by YOUR sources.

---

Who are my, or our, sources? Who are yours which I do not claim to know as you point out I do not?

But sure, tons of bad stuff happening here too...

quote:

---

You guys are complaining about Iraq and worrying about Iraq would you should worry about what is going on in your own backyards. America has real problems, perhaps it's time to focus on them.

---

Indeed, and one of the biggest things to deal with first is our institutionalized corruption and the resultant "wars" we are fighting both abroad and at home creating much of the havoc you are so concerned with.

quote:

---

The Big Lie Theory. Who used it? Adolf Hitler did about the Jews. And now people are using it against American and Bush. Sure say Bush is using it against Iraq. He isn't. It isn't broadcasted EVERYWHERE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie Lemme know if that looks familiar. Notice where it was Hilter saying Jews were using that technique. Remember this before Pulling an Adolf Hitler and passing the same accusation onto the bush administration.

---

This is gold right here. Holy shit man, do you even realize what you've done here? Hitler was the one in power promoting his big lies, even accusing those HE was attacking as promoting the big lie to undermind him.

Bush is promoting big lies against those whom he is attacking, claiming that they are promoting big lies to undermind him.

But you would be right to argue that there is another faction involved here at home promoting big lies as well to undermind bush, the problem here is, the big lies aren't that Bush is corrupt, but that those who are claiming to want to save us from him are not.

Remeber this before Pulling a Nazi German and passing the same accusation onto those who would try to stand up to tyranny.

quote:

---

Lets see…who's lie is HUGE and whos lie is EVERYWHERE. You cannot go online for 10 minutes without and ANTI BUSH advertisement. Anti Bush is ALL OVER the media EVERYWHERE.

---

Bullshit. Yes, it is everywhere online, not everywhere in the media. Online is still, though this is changing, the cumulative voice of the people unfiltered. Mainstream media, even those most accused of left wing bias are nowhere near the anti bush proponents that you proclaim, with the obvious minority exceptions, which can be said in reverse for the net, and mainstream media is by no means any where near the voice of the people.

quote:

---

No one WANTS war.

---

Bullshit again, those who make rediculous amounts of money from it do. You would do well to look into the struggles of good patriots against war profiteers in this country. This is where you will learn of Bush history as well.

quote:

---

He makes direct statements and leaves it at that. Is his message of war flooded by the media?

---

Um, yes, constantly.

quote:

---

Sometimes he is wrong but he isn't outright Lieing. He may pass Lies off as truth, however he himself was lied to about the WOMD. EVERYONE believed the lies why is he the only one to blame? That as far as I can tell was the only thing he said that wasn't proved to be true

---

Oh? Why did both Condi Rice and Colin Powell the of and before 9/11 say Saddam was no threat to us or his neighbors unable to reconstruct any means of wmd or projectable force?

Why did the Downing street memo say the US was fixing its policy around the war? As well as being corroborated by intelligence officers?

How about the link between Saddam and Osama?

How about "MIssion Accomplished"?

quote:

---

Also Lets be fair and agree Saddam Insane Gave us very good reason to believe he had something to Hide.(Which he probably moved them before we got there considering he never let the UN in to inspect until he had already emptied the sites.) Of course we were forced to take action when he wouldn't cooperate. I mean how long have we asked him to play ball? Years and Years and Years, that isn't smart to do to a country that was just attacked by Middle Eastern Terrorists. Everyone will agree that's just plain stupid to tempt a nation that was just attacked. IF he had nothing to hide then why hide? The cause was still there to attack.

---

How about Scott Ritter, you know, the UN weapons inspector who says your full of shit, because the UN generally had the access it needed and primarily ran into problems because the US was infesting the UN team with CIA against the agreement and using the intell to bomb Iraq under Clinton almost killing UN weapons inspectors as well?

95% of all the weapons that we helped provide them were found and destroyed, most of the rest was degraded and useless, and the contention of his ability to rebuild without our knowledge or in secrecy proved patently false due to the ability to detect such substances, radiation etc in ways that you have probably never heard of, me as well.

Again you cite a one sided propagandistic posistion ignoring all contested information, unless of course you are simply unaware which isn't your fault, completely. Not that I'm saying I am not ignorant of many things, I'm just bringing up things that it would appear that you may not know, or perhaps you have good evidence against and will share for mutual benefit.

quote:

---

You say I am wrong you say you are right. You have “Theories” and hearsay. You have emotional philosophical garbage instead of hard evidence or logical thinking. Your not trying to understand motives or reasoning for carrying out any acts made by anyone. You are merely regurgitating Well circulated Propaganda.

---

I have no doubt that there is information that I cross and reference that is indeed propaganda and misinformation, I hold a firm conviction that we cannot verify fact regardless of source, charts, or presumed credibility, this is why I claim to seek the truth rather than have it. One day you may learn to do the same.

As it stands I will direct your above quote right back at you, because regardless of whether you are aware of it or not, you are guilty of your own accusations.

quote:

---

That is the whole Basis on why you say Bush is an idiot.

---

I didn't say bush was an idiot, nor do I think this, I think he is a criminal.

quote:

---

No actually I gave you very detailed reasoning why I feel that is his demeanor

---

And it is a detailed description of what you want it to mean.

quote:

---

You must explain to me why he IS a bad man

---

Again, if he is guilty of even a little of what he is accused and evidenced to have done, then there you go.

quote:

---

Really how would you know what I have and have not read or seen?

---

I was referring to my presented "evidence" and sourced material within this forum, you have made semi legitamite complaints of more recent postings of videos, this is where I have progressed after years of posting charts and articles and documents etc that you appear to not have read, I make no claim of knowledge of your readings.

quote:

---

The war wasn't just about the WOMD it was Saddam's whole Regime and unlawful dictation of his people and the middle east.

---

So in other words we are in need of invading most countries on the planet including our own, sensible.

quote:

---

“W” had my vote because Kerry was actually an Idiot. Had no views of his own. And would have actually destroyed this country in a time of war.

---

Man, those libs must have gotten to you with all that name calling, its infected you.

I feel anyone is an idiot who buys into the charade that is our bought and paid for election process and the scripted bull shit they spew. Those two are cousins multiple times over as well as secret society buddies so mired in big money corruption and scandal they might as well be brothers.

quote:

---

“And untill you look into him and his family you will probably continue to believe this. “


I have, His bro was our governer.(who sucked) It isn't really relevant anyways.

---

Wow, that was deep. Just as inconsequential as who funded 9/11 as surmized by the "independant" 9/11 commission eh?

So if the Bush family history contains Nazism, corporatism, cronyism, war profiteering, election rigging, child sex, and just as much lies and deciet and god knows what else, that wouldn't matter? Than what are you so upset about Saddam and other Hitler types for.

quote:

---

Well we know who didn't make these lies. It wasn't Bush.. If you think not PROVE it was.

---

How do you know that? What PROOF do you have?

I've seen the plan that is currently in place that depicts most true intentions of these invasions, its all in the PNAC documents written by half of Bush's administration, including his bro. They just needed that new pearl harbor to get it all moving.

But even they appear almost undermined by Bush's direction towards the complete death of america as he pushes towards his father's dream of a new world order. You are aware that he has done far more than just make bad decisions about the border right? He's trying to get rid of them all together. The SPP is the first step there.

quote:

---

One man is actually in charge of every last detail? Hmmm that's odd.

---

How did you get that from me stating that not all blame was on one person?

quote:

---

Too bad this government was formed in a way that no one man had all the power.

---

For one, I specifically meant responsible for the acts of himself and his administration, not congress or other governing bodies.

Secondly, Bush has done the most to undo those very restrictions you note. There has been more centralizing of power and destruction of the constitution under this president than any as well.

My, won't you be shocked when this promised next attack that all these years of defense building, domestic liberty crackdowns, and war are supposed to protect us but apparently won't, comes to pass and all the new legislation that isn't as open and isn't already enacted becomes so.

quote:

---

“Of course you are debating the degree, because that would undermine your entire argument“.


You are twisting the argument either intentionally or out of ignorance.

---

Actually, I meant to say aren't.

quote:

---

Read my post I'm not a right winger. I am a free thinker.

---

Didn't say you were, said you leaned to right wing bias, as you yourself said in another thread as well as demonstrated numerous times.

quote:

---

People use the war that is already going to happen to Gain things for themselves.Not start them.

---

What war was already going to happen? Bush chose to invade Iraq, he started it.

quote:

---

Don't you know? I'm not gonna do your job for you…you try and answer that one

---

I know of plenty, I figured the list be shorter and less time consuming if you just mentioned which you actually agreed with.

quote:

---

(other than fox and they are just in the middle not on either side)

---

quote:

---

When is the last time you have seen a pro bush cartoon.comic, comedian, or late nigt show, news cast

---

Right wing radio is full of it. Again, the fact that pro bush is lacking doesn't equate soley to left wing dominance of the media, which aside from the mentioned exceptions is true. This argument was more effective before the left wing media tanked after Fox news took over popularity, and before they both tanked from people getting more actual free press on the internet.

Again, your point is valid in reference to left wing media, but not the masses on the internet.

quote:

---

Stupidity, I'm glad this is no longer a friendly conversation. We liberated Iraq from an Evil Dictator. Get it straight. Go ask the Iraqis how good Ole' Saddam was treating them!

---

Uh, I was arguing your point that we didn't invade a nation. Gee wiz man.

quote:

---

This is about Bush and Facts remember? Stay on topic….damn this is getting old telling you this over and over again.

---

Wow, way to dodge that one. So I'm off topic when I reference Sadam and his gassing in response your very same reference, but you are not?

quote:

---

They did infact deserve it. They did infact need to lose their control. Saddam Did chemically attack his OWN people.

---

Tsk tsk.

quote:

---

If they were so horrible? Woah. Now you've traveled deep into the realm of stupidity friend They were VERY evil.

---

You have no historical context on this do you? An analogy of the situation without even all outside factors is if Mexico declared war on us and all the illegals took up arms and we killed or gassed them, yep, americans would die too. I can probably bet this to have happened at some point in our wars with mexico too.

quote:

---

Wrong in the same way we helped germany and japan. The Iraqis have too many people who want to take over the country as apposed to have peace and prosper as one unified nation.

---

They have too many people who don't want our corruption.

quote:

---

Good question. Why did Iraq greet us like they did? Hmmmm because they wanna run the country like the thugs they are.

---

This is retardedly ignorant hate speach. I don't mean hate speach in the P.R. ooh your a bad man for saying it, I'm saying you've bought into propaganda leveled at you by our government. This situation is far too complex and delicate for such and simplified and assinine conclusion.

quote:

---

Well the dead bodies in the Iraqi streets are my proof to this claim. Where is yours to prove me wrong? Stop acting like the middle east is a peaceful place with peaceful nations. They have literally been killing themselves since they settled in there.

---

The absurdity of your insinuation is derived from the fact that, once again as I have to point out, they are not just fighting themselves. And half the reason they are fighting eachother will be forever lost on you if you don't come to understand the plan the US had in place when invading, to split up the country, incite sectarian violence, to destabilize the region so we had and excuse to stay. Read the Project For A New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" if you want to see it.

We aren't and haven't been building permanent military bases because we ever intended on leaving.

quote:

---

The Bullies are in their own country

---

I know, that's why I, and they, want us out.

quote:

---

I am sure they appreiciate you defending those men that are killing their own people.

---

I only defend our troops because they were indeed lied. As for Iraqis on Iraqis, I support those who are defending themselves from those who indeed seek to fight for unjust power, as well as those who defend themselves from our occupying forces, as well as those who defend themselves against militias and terrorists that we hire and those that we create from our rediculous wars.

quote:

---

Well our troops sure as hell aren't killing civillians.

---

Bullshit. That is the biggest load ever. One cannot conduct a war without it happening no matter hard they try.

Gotta go. TBC

Bush Tyranny
Taking away constitutional rights one executive order at a time.

This order (as yet unnumbered) makes you and anyone subject to seizure of all of your property if the Secretary of the Treasury THINKS that you MAY commit a violent act IN THE FUTURE that is designed to or has the effect of negatively impacting the war effort in Iraq. War protesters and other dissidents - watch out!


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

It's funny, you keep laying accusations against me. But when I look back I see that it is you that is guilty of them.

So first I'm going to get back to basics, then I might ramble.

Someone felt they recieved no facts proving Bush is the worst president ever and or a Bad man.

Right now I'm going to clarify that in my definition of Bush as the absolute worst president ever, which I will maintain and defend, I will specify that I mean that like I mean all things, with full knowledge that I am speaking only in regards to what knowledge I have obtained and that I know that no one can know just how bad those were who got away with most of what they did. Because we may not even know about it.

In simple terms and no need to even provide a link because of the open availability and media status of my points, I will answer and prove this. But I will add that any information that you desire your evidence to only needs a google search. If you find that inadequate or too difficult you may for maybe the third time, but never in response to my responses, you may ask for a specific point clarified and or linked to whatever as of yet undefined evidence you are apparently actually willing to accept.

My president has started and continued two open and known military conflicts/ occupations violently overthrowing two questionably deserving governments that were of absolutely no credible conventional military threat to my country, as his own administration is on film testifying prior to 9/11. This conclusion was based on a previous invasion and war, sanctions, and inspections that litterally destroyed all credible threat.

To top it this off, this invasion in particular was based on evidence proven false and in direct conflict with prior testimony. And continues years after, even after the removal of the tyrant incorrectly charged.

All while making drastic changes to the constitution at home affecting such long standing staples of rights securing laws and writs such as habeous corpus, posse comentatus, the restrictions against detaining suspects indefinitely, kidnapping entire families and torturing them with cruel and usual punishment and interrogations violating long standing international treaties that we have punished others under.

This plus the assertion of the ability to start pre-emptive wars with any country deemed worthy with no accountability even when intell is admittedly deemed wrong.

And declaring that these cases for war and new constitutional laws can be created in secret with evidence and information secured by national security and masked by propaganda.

Of course there is plenty more, but these are international war crimes and crimes against the constitution and humanity. And they trump any watergates or blowjobs that followed the road of impeachment, making Bush the worst president ever.

quote:

---

I knew you would say that the graphs and national data is wrong.

---

I said no such thing, I said that I have witnessed contradictory results in debates on this very site and that they can be manipulated. This means I have run in this circle before and so you can have all the fun with yourself because unlike you, I don't trust government stats which is actually irrelevant to the actual uselessness of the stats you provided.

quote:

---

cooking data, sloppy or deliberately distorted analysis,
the use of methods or concepts designed to obtain a predetermined result... these more traditional
forms of harm are far more common... One set of traditional harms that are of particular concern to government statisticians are those
associated with attacks on the statistical system, its outputs (including, data, concepts, and
classifications), staff, and the leadership of the system. These attacks are often related to
improper political influence

http://www.uwm.edu/~margo/govstat/wss.pdf

---

I think where this whole thing got turned around is you had the notion that any of the links you provided or your non-linked, and thereby by your logic non factually justifiable statements as you proclaim of my own, either specified agreement with your assertions or that they somehow affected my judgement and points of judgement against Bush, when clearly they do not.

Not to mention that some of your links refuted your own claims as well as providing no direct evidence to your claims. Posting a link to labor statistics without providing the specific evidence within that you proclaim exists and bolsters your argument is not providing facts.

But for example of the sheer contextual irrelevance of your links, the notion of a farily stable economy at the moment, abortion rates, and crimes rates, do not deter from the fact that he invades multiple countries and attacks our constitution. Just like Hitler.

You know your source about who is killing who in Iraq that clearly shows...

quote:

---

Well our troops sure as hell aren't killing civillians.

---

Well, this is your links response to you, not mine.

quote:

---

Excerpt: Notes on the calculation of IBC entry "x360" for the April 2004 siege of Falluja


1. The calculation is based on cumulative figures reported in the media rather than incompletely reported individual events on specific days and times.

Because reporters were barred from entering the city during the April 2004 siege of Falluja, IBC's estimate of 572 - 616 civilians killed during the siege is based on reported cumulative totals rather than a series of individual reports: these are necessarily incomplete even under "normal" conditions in the occupation, but under the restrictions just noted could only provide glimpses of the totality of events that took place inside Falluja. (Nonetheless IBC has gathered and made available to the public the most comprehensive collection of information related to the human impact of the siege in its IBC Falluja Archive, which catalogues many recorded incidents - from attacks on ambulances to sniper fire on children - as reported in nearly 300 news stories.)

2. The calculation uses figures reported by local hospital and NGO sources rather than those produced towards the end of April by the Iraqi Health Ministry

There were two competing "final totals" produced for the human toll of the siege. One set of cumulative numbers was derived from growing hospital and NGO figures which had reached 600 by the 12th and ultimately passed 800, swelled by deaths during a series of nominal "ceasefires" as well as by the gradual recovery of bodies buried in the rubble of destroyed buildings or in makeshift graves in private gardens. These numbers were reported widely in mainstream sources, and the first 600 deaths included a breakdown showing that 160 women and 141 children under the age of 12 were among the dead.

The other "final total" was produced by the Baghdad-based Iraqi Health Ministry (IHM), apparently at the behest of US authorities who had dismissed the locally-reported numbers as "somehow filtered through some of the local propaganda machines that are operating inside Fallujah" and said they would ask the IHM to "get a fair, honest and credible figure". (Gen. Mark Kimmitt, 12th April 2004).

The IHM announced their tally little more than a week later, on the 21st of April: 264 dead, including 28 children and 24 women. This number was incrementally increased soon afterwards to 271 and finally 280, but never reached much beyond about a third of the locally-produced numbers. The official who first released the IHM figure asserted that his widely-quoted colleague in Falluja had been under "political pressure" to inflate the numbers of dead, and that the new count had been obtained from the very same doctor; the claim of inflated numbers [1] was repeated the following day by US-appointed Health Minister Khudayer Abbas, who told the Associated Press (AP) that the death figures in Falluja

"were exaggerated for political factors. There was some parties and elements who were pressing on the people working in Fallujah hospitals to present exaggerated numbers.'' (AP 22nd April).

But the Falluja medics in question have yet to alter their tallies when directly interviewed - see for instance AP 30th April, Newsday 2nd May, and Knight-Ridder 9th May:

Dr. Rafe Hyad al Esawi, director of the Fallujah General Hospital, said the number of people killed exceeded 800 with more than 3,000 wounded. U.S. authorities say those figures are exaggerated, but al Esawi stood by his numbers and said they are growing because many people could not reach the hospital during the fighting to report deaths. "Some of the families buried their dead in their gardens," al Esawi said. "Now they are starting to come to the hospital to register."

Until recently both sets of numbers stood unrescinded by either party, making it difficult to choose between them without making subjective judgements (although the weight of evidence has always tended to support the local count, not least because of its plausible growth during the siege, but also the size of several temporary mass graves, as can be reviewed in the IBC Falluja Archive). It was also difficult to obtain a useful IBC estimate that integrated both numbers: the two sets of statistics diverge not just three-fold on the total, but six-fold on the number of women and children killed (301 vs. 52), which has meant that any range estimating the possible civilian count (including male civilians) could diverge even further, resulting in a final IBC estimate on the order of between "80 - 600."

A recent report however indicates that the IHM no longer includes any Falluja statistics in its official counts for April 2004. The IHM official who had produced the tally of 264 dead in Falluja had in the same interviews during April told reporters of statistics gathered for the same period in Baghdad (235 dead) and the rest of the country (57), making a total of 556 throughout Iraq between April 5th and the date of his first interview on the 21st.

But recently released statistics from the IHM show only 344 violent deaths from the 5th to the 30th of April throughout Iraq (except for three relatively untroubled Kurdish provinces), as revealed in a detailed 25th September Knight-Ridder report [2] providing monthly breakdowns of IHM statistics. We judge it inconceivable that this number of 344 still includes the data claimed for Falluja. Our judgement is based on three converging sources of evidence, which are analysed in detail in Note [3] below.

The sole conclusion consistent with all the evidence is that for some undeclared reason the IHM's April "Falluja count" no longer appears in their statistic of 344 for that month, and only the better-documented figures from Baghdad and elsewhere remain. It may be that the original figure, which was conceivably produced in haste by an office which had only just been brought into existence, is now considered unreliable, incomplete or inconclusive; in any event, as that number no longer appears to contribute to official records IBC cannot use it in its calculations (just as we would remove from our database any entry that had been solely based on a number later withdrawn by its source).

The only figure that remains viable for use is therefore the consistent and unaltered count which ultimately reached 800 and came from local medical sources. This is however a record of total deaths - IBC, given the priorities of its work, still needed to establish an estimate of the civilian dead among that number.

3. The calculation assumes that civilian males died in direct proportion to the reported totals of deaths of adult women.

Of the 800 reported deaths, a breakdown giving the number of women and children killed was available for the first 600 up to April 12th, most of whom were killed before there were any real opportunities for them to evacuate the city. Because the proportion of women and children killed was exceptionally high, we conservatively assumed that civilian adult males would have been as badly affected as their female counterparts, and accordingly assigned to them the same number of deaths as recorded for women (160 each). This is conservative because there are reasons other than participation in combat for men to be killed in higher numbers than women and children, including that they more commonly venture outdoors where they may be exposed to cross-fire, and are more likely to be mistaken for combatants by military forces. This still left a "surplus" of 139 adult males killed - some 23% of total deaths, and 46% of all adult male deaths. These we designated as having been insurgents, whom we therefore excluded from our count.

This left 200 "undefined" deaths which were recorded in Falluja from April 13th onwards. Six unambiguous deaths of women and children recorded in the weeks after the 13th were identified in the news stories collected in the IBC Falluja Archive, and subtracted from the 200, leaving 194. For the remaining "undefined" 194 deaths we assumed that the proportion of fighters among the dead remained at at least 23% of all deaths to the end of the siege, but because areas of the city were being emptied of women and childrenin a mass exodus (but not "military age males", who were forbidden to leave), we held that the proportion of fighters may have climbed toward 46%, their proportion in relation only to other adult males killed.

Reducing 194 by 46% and separately by 23% produced 105-149 as an estimate, expressed as a range, of non-combatant civilians in the "undefined" 194. To these numbers the six deaths of women and children known to have occurred after the 13th of April were then added, producing 111-155 as the range of civilians among the 200 whose deaths were recorded after the 13th. These could then be added to the 461 earlier extracted from the pre-13th count of 600, resulting in a final IBC Min-Max for x360 and the siege of Falluja of 572 - 616.


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

Additonal Notes:
[1] That Iraqi hospitals often exaggerate casualties is a standard claim by US military officials, but this is merely asserted or conjectured, and has never been demonstrated nor supported by evidence of any kind. In fact the usual "inflater" of casualty statistics is the US military, although these are always only of the "insurgents" or "bad guys" killed - the LA Times reported on 29th April (IBC link), for example, that "U.S. officials believe that the Fallouja insurgents have raised their profile militarily, but have set themselves up for a larger defeat... [and that] the fighters already have suffered 1,500 to 2,000 deaths, by U.S. military estimates." We judged the claim by Iraqi Health Ministry officials, despite the political context of their statements, to require taking more seriously.

[2] These may be the last such reports we see from the unit responsible for collating casualty statistics within the IHM: immediately after the date of the detailed and extensive statistics obtained by Knight-Ridder (all of which, from May onwards, are consistent with other reporting, and which had also been widely released in summary form to other major media during September), the unit was told to stop speaking directly to the press. (AP 23 Sept.)

[3] Reasons for discounting the IHM estimated total of casulaties for Falluja in April 2004:

Firstly, the IHM September total of 344 cannot include both Falluja and Baghdad, the other major location for deaths during April. We have already mentioned that the official who had released the count of 264 cited another 235 in Baghdad, and a total of 556 country-wide by April 21st. A day later his superior, Health Minister Khudayer Abbas, told the press that according to the IHM's nation-wide compilation, 576 "insurgents and civilians" had been violently killed in April throughout Iraq, Falluja included (AP 22nd April). So, between April and September, more than 230 deaths have been removed from the April count without explanation.

Secondly, the Baghdad city morgue alone recorded more than 300 deaths due to gunfire and explosions throughout April - not unusual for this violence-wracked city since the invasion - and the morgue figures would be well-known to the Health Ministry. A 24th May AP survey of Iraqi municipal morgues from which this figure is taken, and which was able to obtain data from just four of Iraq's 18 provinces (partially dealt with in IBC database entries x334 and x350), including Baghdad but not Al Anbar province, where Falluja is located, counted 413 deaths in April (graphic). There are thus, even within a partial survey encompassing just 4 Iraqi provinces excluding Al Anbar, more recorded deaths than IHM's September-released statistic of 344 for April which covers 15 provinces including Al Anbar. These IHM totals must be missing Falluja.

Thirdly, the cessation of hostilities (albeit temporary) in Falluja immediately after the withdrawal of US ground forces at the end of April means that the city's contribution to IHM statistics for May would be negligible. However instead of a reduction in the number of deaths, the recently published IHM numbers jump more than two-fold from 344 in April to 749 in May (KR 25 Sep). This is inconsistent with all other reporting. May, too, was violent, and the statistic of 749 is not unrealistic, but April is widely acknowledged as one of the most violent of the entire occupation - not least because of the siege of Falluja. In fact, if we subtract the IHM's highest April count of 280 for Falluja from the newer IHM statistic of 344 for April - leaving 64 - and accept that Falluja contributed little or nothing to IHM statistics during May, then the rise in violence throughout Iraq (excluding Falluja) from the end of April to the end of May is more than 11-fold. There is no independent evidence which would remotely support such a sharp rise. A tally comparing April 2004 with May 2004 derived from the media-reported incidents in IBC's public database suggests a ratio of approximately 1:1 between these two months, rather than the 1:11 which would be implied by the IHM figures.

If details later emerge that are of relevance to any of the calculations above, IBC will adjust its figures accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Excerpt: Note for IBC entry x453 (Falluja post-November 2004)

"The number of civilians killed is unknown."

This is the most often-repeated statement, in the press and elsewhere, regarding the fate of civilians during the second major US assault on the city of Falluja which commenced in the first week of November 2004. There have been limited reports of individual civilians killed, but these have offered little more than glimpses behind the curtain screening a city which is to this day virtually off-limits to journalists.

The only well-sourced number (citing the director of Falluja General Hospital) to have appeared in mainstream outlets regarding these deaths comes from a report by Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a UN agency. This report has been carried in only a few other major web outlets, including Reuters' Alertnet and other UN-funded institutions such as ReliefWeb and UNAMI (UN Assistance Mission for Iraq). It is unusual not only in putting fairly firm numbers to the civilian death toll, to be discussed below, but in providing a comment on these numbers from the Iraqi Ministry of Health:

Ministry of Health officials told IRIN that they are in the process of investigating the number of deaths, but claim that a very small number of women and children were killed, contrary to what doctors in Fallujah have said.
While this may or may not be the case, in the more that two months since this report appeared the Ministry of Health has never publicized competing numbers of its own, and until it does so will have to be considered to have redacted itself from this matter. IBC has through careful research uncovered at least one earlier instance where Health Ministry figures for Falluja were claimed to contradict those produced by local doctors, then quietly dropped from the Ministry's statistics altogether [link] .

We are therefore forced to work with the best data that is available, which remains the IRIN report, itself unlikely to provide the full picture: it is limited to bodies recovered "from rubble where houses and shops stood", doesn't include earlier recoveries of bodies from open areas and streets, and is confined to 9 of 27 neighbourhoods. IBC is therefore publishing this entry as "provisional", pending the availability of better and more detailed information. It is being published in conjunction with an incident involving the bombing of a health clinic (IBC code k572), with which there is possible but uncertain overlap.

While the first attack on Falluja involved greatly restricted press access and reporting, this time there has been an even tighter lid kept on information, quite deliberately so. In a little-noticed report published on the 14th of March, the UN calculated that the assault on Fallujah led to $493 million in material damage to homes. The full human cost has yet to be calculated.

The IRIN figures:

700+ ("more than 700" ) bodies recovered
550+ "were women and children"
"a very small number of men were found in these places and most were elderly"

700-550=150 - ie., 150 of the bodies were of men. If of these men "most were elderly", using 60% as "minimum" definition of "most" then 90 were elderly; using 80% as a "maximum" definition of "most", 120 were elderly. 550+90=640; 550+120=670, leading to an unadjusted IBC entry for the post-November assault on Falluja of 640 (min) 670 (max). To adjust for k572's 59 deaths this entry's Min is reduced by 59 (to allow for the possibility of an overlap) but its Max is left untouched (to allow for the possibility that there is no overlap). This leads to a final range of 581-670.

Note:
The above calculation doesn't establish that the 30-60 non-elderly males whose bodies were recovered by the hospital emergency team were combatant males, it only allows for the possibility.

While these figures include only a very small number of fighting-age men, lower than would be demographically expected, it has to be remembered that this was not the first recovery-and-burial operation in the city, as the hospital director himself makes clear:

[Al-Iyssaue] explained that many of the dead had been already buried by civilians from the Garma and Amirya districts of Fallujah after approval from US-led forces nearly three weeks ago, and those bodies had not been counted.
This accords with other reports of earlier burials, possibly of more exposed bodies, including by US Marines:

The first task after the fighting ended was to clear human remains from the debris. The marines found more than 400 bodies and laid them temporarily in a local potato factory. Eventually they buried them in mass graves, with their heads toward Mecca and an imam's prayer.

The marines say most of the bodies they found, often without identification papers, were those of insurgents. A few residents this week found the decaying remains of relatives who had stayed during the fighting. (Altogether, American officers estimate, perhaps 5,000 residents remained in the city and are still scrounging a living there.) NYT 06 Jan 2005
None of the foregoing, of course, establishes which proportion of the persons buried by US Marines were in fact insurgents, but shows (on the 60%=minimum definition of "most" assumption) that at least 240 were males of fighting age, and could (rightly or wrongly) be described as insurgents.

Finally, although some of the deaths reported by IRIN may have been caused during December, too little is known about them to assign dates with any precision; as the major assault on Falluja took place in November, it is to this month that we have assigned these deaths.

As with all of its published records, IBC will revise this entry if new information becomes available.

---

quote:

---

Excerpt: Note for IBC entry k1848

...these governments' responsibility doesn't stop â€' in fact, doesn't even principally reside in â€' the outcomes of the invasion. It is much more present in the means by which these governments chose to effect “regime change” in Iraq â€' namely by military conquest and dominion over the country.

And it is very much this particular means which is at the heart of the matter for IBC, for ours is a record of deaths resulting directly from military intervention in Iraq.

From this perspective, it is irrelevant how “noble” our governments' intentions were, nor if their proclaimed goals were successfully realized; it doesn't even matter if Iraq ultimately becomes some sort of earthly paradise. What matters is the human cost of the particular means employed by the US/UK governments and their coalition partners.

---

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount_count_down.php

__________________________________________________________________

Man, I thought getting my ass kicked was supposed to hurt more...

Again, all your accusations fit most firmly on yourself. Stop pointing fingers because people are standing up to you.

You apparently are the one in desire of people simply aggreeing with your posistion.

I will repeat that you have not touched one claim, link, or "fact" presented by anyone in response to your challenge. The closest you came was demanding proof when information was provided such as the Downing Street memo. You demanded proof of that which is the proof, did you need a link provided for you? I can not even be sure you are aware of this information because of your refusals to actually debate or acknowledge presented evidence.

You have simply laid out what you felt was your case in support of Bush as something other than the worst President ever, while ignoring and or dismissing all points to the contrary as presented by others because they didn't respond to the links you provided regardless of the fact that your links were either not in context to, or actually in direct support of others points, claims, opinions, facts, and posistions that challenge your own.

If it is your desire to leave as a whiny bitch, you are welcome to do so, I obviously underestimated your desire to learn and grow.

It is funny how you declared the equivalent of "Mission Accomplished" when obviously the fight was not over. But your desire to "cut and run" puts you in even a more cowardly posistion than your non idol.

quote:

---

I am saying YOU are not right to assume you are 100% correct without having any proof.

---

Two things, one, I would never make such an assumption, two, what EXACTLY do you need proven? And EXACTLY what kind of evidence do you want?

quote:

---

If what you say is true then there is somewhere proof and some way to prove your claims.

---

What EXACTLY are you talking about? If WHAT? of what I say is true? I have listed many things, most directly evident in the public domain, what more do you want, what EXACTLY are you seeking about what point.

What are you in saying is not or probably not, or not adequately evidenced enough, true, please SPECIFY.

Did you try the google thing? Its not perfect but its pretty darned efficient.

I'm literally at a loss to your sudden of inability to directly engage any points made.

quote:

---

Lets not waste time going back and forth it is clear that no matter what I say you guys are gonna take it any way you want.

---

There is no back and forth going on, you speak, you expect to be agreed with, and then you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

quote:

---

So this is pointless.

---

Sure turned out that way, but it doesn't have to end like that, that is your choice.

quote:

---

I hope my posts stay up here for all to see,read and check out for themselves.

---

Me too, so hopefully you get to come back to them someday.

quote:

---

I only urge those of you who believe bush to be wrong and evil to PROVE that he is. You are Witch Hunting.

---

What kind of proof would you like sir?

quote:

---

Facts. Prove guilt. Do I have fact to prove innocence? Some....however this is America Innocent until proven guilty.

---

quote:

---

Excerpt: The "Downing Street memo" (occasionally DSM, or the "Downing Street Minutes", sometimes described by critics of the Iraq War as the "smoking gun memo", contains an overview of a secret 23 July 2002 meeting among United Kingdom Labour government, defense and intelligence figures, discussing the build-up to the warâ€'including direct reference to classified United States policy of the time. It clearly states that, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

---

Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses.

These are the people that Bush put in charge of his foreign policy, this is the model he adopted.

It boils down to taking over the world by force to create "utopia".

A quote about it that caught my eye.

quote:

---

Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored until after the war was over.

---

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

quote:

---

Excerpt: Partial list of people associated with the Project For The New American Century.

- People are identified as being connected to the PNAC because either they are listed on the organisation's web site, or their names appear as authors/contributors on official PNAC documents. Information current to Dec. 2004. [back to main document]

Abramowitz, Morton - Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation.

Abrams, Elliot - National Security Council â€' top advisor on the Middle East. Alumnus of the Heritage Foundation.
History: As Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under Reagan, was responsible for covering up war crimes committed by the U.S. backed Contras. Was charged in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and pled to lesser charges. Was later pardoned by Bush Sr. The British media reported Elliot was behind the attempted Chavez coup in Venezuela.

Allen, Richard V. - member: National Security Advisory Board, and the Defense Policy Board. President of the Richard V. Allen Company (consulting firm). Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute.
History: founding chairman for the Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center. Founding member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Former board member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Assistant to the President for National Security affairs during the Reagan administration, but forced from office over suspected financial misconduct.

Anderson, Mark A. - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Armitage, Richard - Deputy Secretary of State.
History: Former board member of CACI, the private military contractor whose employees were responsible for torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs during the Reagan Administration. Named by the government as one of the people guilty of supplying weapons in the Iran Contra Affair, but never charged.

Au, Andrew Y. - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Bang-Jensen, Nina - executive director of the Coalition for International Justice.

Bao-Lord, Bette - member of the Council on Foreign Relations (director until 2003). Chairman of Freedom House. Wife of ex-ambassador to China Winston Lord, who is Co-chairman of the International Rescue Committee.

Barnett, Roger - professor at the Naval War College (a government facility).
History: Vice President of the National Institute for Public Policy. Professor at Georgetown University.

Bauer, Gary â€' founder of the Campaign for Working Families, president of American Values.
History: past president of the Family Research Council. Under Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration.

Bennet, William J. â€' co-director of Empower America, co-director of Partnership for a Drug-Free America, Distinguished Fellow of the Heritage Foundation. Writer.
History: Secretary of Education under Reagan.

Bergner, Jeffrey - study group member of the Commission on National Security 21st Century. Member of the board of trustees for the Hudson Institute, and the Asia Foundation. His lobbying company represents a number of weapons contractors, among other major corporations.
History: Staff Director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the Reagan administration.

Bernstein, Alvin - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Bernstein, Robert L. - Professor at the National Defense University (a government facility).
History: worked at the Naval War College (government facility), and in the Defense Department.

Biddle, George - member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Vice President of the International Rescue Committee (allegedly a relief organisation).

Bolton, John R. - Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
History: Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute. Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs for the Department of State under Bush Sr. Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan.

Boot, Max - Senior Fellow of the National Security Studies. Contributing Editor for the Weekly Standard.
History: editor of the Wall Street Journal, writer and editor for the Christian Science Monitor.

Bork, Ellen â€' Deputy Director of the PNAC.
History: Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund.

Boschwitz, Rudy - Presidential appointee to the Holocaust Memorial Council. One of the top fund-raisers for Bush Jr. in 2000. Founder of Home Valu Inc. Minnesota Senator (1978-1991).

Buckley, William F. Jr. - owner of National Review magazine.
History: CIA agent in the Fifties. Hosted the television show Firing Line.

Bush, Jeb â€' Governor of Florida.
History: Banned convicted felons from voting in the 2000 presidential election, using an extremely inaccurate system to remove voting rights; allowed ineligible absentee ballots to be counted.

Cambone, Stephen A. - Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Special Assistant to the Secretary and Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation â€' Department of Defense.
History: Special Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld just prior to current appointments. Director in the Defense Department during the Bush Sr. administration. Past deputy director in SRS Technologies (Defense contractor).

Carlucci, Frank - Chairman Emeritus of the Carlyle Group, and Nortel Networks. Member of the board of United Defense Inc. Considered a protégé of D. Rumsfeld.
History: Chairman of the Carlyle Group (1993-2000). Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration. Deputy Director in the CIA. CIA agent. Accused of being behind the assassination of Congo Prime Minister Lumumba during the Sixties, but never charged.

Cheney, Dick â€' Vice President. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Employee(?) of Halliburton â€' draws a one million dollar per year salary.
History: worked for D. Rumsfeld in 1969. Presidential assistant to Gerald Ford. Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr. Halliburton CEO 1995 to 2000; gains the company 3.8 billion dollars in federal contracts and guaranteed loans. Upon becoming Vice President, Halliburton receives billions of dollars in Iraq contracts not tendered to other companies. Behind installing Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Elliot Abrams into their current positions in government. Wife Lynne is a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. Daughter Elizabeth is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs.

Clemons, Steven C. - Executive Vice President of the New America Foundation.

Cohen, Eliot A. - professor at Johns Hopkins University. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: professor at the Naval War College. Previously worked for D. Rumsfeld.

Cropsey, Seth - Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
History: Director in the Heritage Foundation. Visiting Fellow in the American Enterprise Institute. Assistant Editor of the Public Interest (1976-77). Hudson Institute researcher. Deputy Under Secretary in the Department of the Navy during the Reagan administration.

DeConcini, Dennis Webster - Chairman of the Board of Directors for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
History: eighteen years as Senator from Arizona. Member of the Balkan Action Committee.

Dale, Helle - Director in the Heritage Foundation.

Decter, Midge â€' Writer. Heritage Foundation director. Wife of Norman Podhoretz. Claims to worship Donald Rumsfeld, and has written a book for Rumsfeld admirers.

Dobriansky, Paula - Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
History: Senior Vice President (Washington office) of the Council on Foreign Relations prior to appointment. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs for the Department of State in the Reagan administration.

Donnelly, Thomas â€' Deputy Executive Director of the PNAC.
History: Director of Strategic Communication and Initiatives for Lockheed Martin Corp. (weapons contractor).

Eberstadt, Nicholas - consultant for the State Department, consultant for the Bureau of the Census. Member of the American Enterprise Institute.

Edgar, Robert (Rev. Dr.) - General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ. Ordained as an United Methodist. Former Congressman.

Epstein, David - employee at the Office of Secretary of Defense â€' Net Assessment.

Etzioni, Amitai - founder of the Communitarian Network, and editor of their magazine. Was Senior Advisor to the White House on Domestic Affairs during the Carter administration.

Fautua, David - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Feulner, Edwin J. Jr. - Heritage Foundation.
History: advisor to President Reagan.

Forbes, Steve â€' President, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine.
History: campaigned twice for the Republican nomination for president. Directed the dissemination of propaganda on Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty during both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Fradkin, Hillel - member of the Advisory Committee on International Education â€' Department of Education. Part of Benador Associates, a publicity firm handling clients such as PNAC members R. Perle, J. Woolsey, F. Gaffney, C. Krauthammer, and M. Boot.
History: Fellow in the American Enterprise Institute prior to government appointment.

Friedberg, Aaron - Vice President's Deputy National Security Advisor.
History: Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Consultant for the CIA.

Fukuyama, Francis - President's Council on Bioethics. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Gaffney, Frank â€' President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, Washington Times columnist, brother of Devon Gaffney-Cross.
History: worked for Richard Perle during the Reagan administration.

Gaffney-Cross, Devon - member of the Defense Policy Board (Pentagon). Member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Sister of Frank Gaffney.

Gejdenson, Sam - owns Sam Gejdenson International. Congressman (D) 1981 - 2000.

Gerecht, Reuel Marc â€' Senior Fellow of the PNAC, Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
History: former CIA agent (1985 â€' 1994). CBS News consultant on Afghanistan.

Goldman, Merle - Adjunct Professor for the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department.

Goure, Daniel - consultant for the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. Vice President of the Lexington Institute. Was a Study Team Leader for the Institute of Peace (1990-91).

Halperin, Morton H. - director for the Council on Foreign Relations, and for the Open Society Institute.

Hefferman, John - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Hooper, James R. - Executive Director of the Balkan Action Council.

Ikle, Fred C. â€' Distinguished Scholar for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Reagan administration.

Jackson, Bruce â€' President of the Project on Transitional Democracies. President of the Committee on NATO.
Member: Council on Foreign Relations, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Board of Advisors for the Center for Security Policy.
History: Director of Strategic Planning for Lockheed Martin Corp. (weapons contractor). Worked for Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney during the eighties.

Joyce, Michael S. - founder of Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, an organisation created to help push through Bush Jr.'s “Faith-Based Initiative”. Member of the Research Council of America. Was part of the Presidential Transition Team for Reagan.

Kagan, Donald â€' Hillhouse Professor of History and Classics at Yale University. Writer. Father of Frederick and Robert Kagan.

Kagan, Frederick - Professor of military history at West Point.
History: co-wrote, with his father Donald and other PNAC contributors, “While America Sleeps”.

Kagan, Robert - co-founder of the PNAC. Contributing Editor for the Weekly Standard and the New Republic; columnist for the Washington Post. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Husband of Victoria Nuland, Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President.
History: Deputy in the Department of State under Elliot Abrams during the Reagan administration.

Kampelman, Max M. - Lawyer. Member of the Board of Trustees for Freedom House. Member of the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Karatnycky, Adrian - member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Freedom House.
History: worked for the New York Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times.

Kemble, Penn - Department of State â€' Head, Eminent Persons Group, Sudan Slavery Commission. Senior Fellow in Freedom House.

Kennedy, Craig - President of the German Marshall Fund.

Khalilzad, Zalmay - Ambassador to Afghanistan, Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan, and Special Presidential Envoy to the Free Iraqis.
History: Senior Director of the National Security Council (2001 â€' 2003). Accused by candidates in the Afghan elections of arranging President Hamid Karzai's victory. Worked for Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department in 1984 â€' 1985. Advisor to Unocal for their proposed gas pipeline project through Afghanistan (1997).

Killebrew, Robert B. - Colonel (retired)
History: Security Strategies study member for PNAC. Consultant to a variety of army and private institute military projects.

Kirkpatrick, Jeane - on the executive committee of Freedom House, and the board of advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on the Present Danger. Former U.S. Ambassador. Member of the National Security Council under Reagan.

Koh, Harold Hongju - Dean of Yale.
History: Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Clinton administration.

Kovler, Peter - Nixon Center Advisory Council. Balkans Action Committee.

Krauthammer, Charles - Presidential appointee to the President's Council On Bioethics. Columnist for the Washington Post. Contributing Editor for the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard. Member of the Editorial Board for the National Interest, and the Public Interest.

Kristol, William - co-founder of the PNAC. Columnist for (and co-founder of) the Weekly Standard.
History: Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, Secretary of Education Chief of Staff under William Bennett during the Reagan administration.

Lagon, Mark P. - Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.
History: fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Deputy Director of the House Republican Committee. Senior advisor to Jeane Kirkpatrick - American Enterprise Institute.

Lasswell, James - Employee of GAMA Corporation (war games, military training via software).

Lehrman, Lewis E. - on the Board of Trustees for the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute. President and co-founder of the Citizens for America.

Libby, I. Lewis - Assistant to the President, and Chief of Staff to the Vice President.
History: after graduating law school, went to work for Paul Wolfowitz (1981 - 1985) at the State Department. Hired again by Wolfowitz in 1989, this time at the Pentagon.

Lindberg, Tod - Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute. Editor of Policy Review journal.

Mack, Connie III - Congressman for Florida. Previously served in the Florida House of Representatives (2000 - 2003).

Maletz, Christopher â€' Assistant Director of the PNAC.

Markey, Mary Beth - Executive Director for the International Campaign for Tibet. Worked in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to 1996.

Martinage, Robert - consultant for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

McKivergan, Daniel â€' Deputy Director of the PNAC.
History: research director for The Weekly Standard (1995 â€' 1997). Legislative director for Senator John McCain (2000), and for Congressman Dan Miller (1997).

Meese, Edwin III - Heritage Foundation.
History: Attorney General during the Reagan administration. Investigated for his involvement in the Iraq Bechtel pipeline deal (which also involved D. Rumsfeld) - not prosecuted, but resigned.

Meilinger, Phil â€' U.S. Naval War College.

Muravchik, Joshua - Resident Scholar for the American Enterprise Institute. Member of the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Owens, Mackubin - professor at the Naval War College (a government facility).

Owens, Wayne - Deceased (December 18, 2002).
History: eight years as Congressman (D) for Utah.

Peretz, Martin - owner and Editor-in-Chief of the New Republic magazine.

Perle, Richard N. - Pentagon Policy Advisor (resigned February 2004), member â€' Defense Policy Board.
Member: Balkan Action Committee, Committee on the Present Danger, American Enterprise Institute associate. On advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
History: Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan. FBI suspected Perle of spying for Israel in 1970 - not prosecuted.

Pletka, Danielle - Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy for the American Enterprise Institute.
History: senior staff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (1992-2002).

Podhoretz, Norman - member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Husband of Midge Decter, father-in-law of Elliot Abrams.

Porter, John Edward - member of the RAND board of Trustees.
History: Congressman until 2000.

Quayle, J. Danforth - was Vice President under Bush Sr.

Rodman, Peter W. - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
History: Staff Director of State Department Policy Planning under Reagan.

Rosen, Stephen P. - Harvard professor.
History: professor at the Naval War College. Director in the National Security Council under Reagan.

Rowen, Henry S. - member of Department of Defense Policy Board. Presidential appointee to the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
History: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under Bush Sr. RAND Corporation president 1967â€'1972.

Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense.
Member: Hoover Institution board of trustees, RAND Corporation, Empower America board, Freedom House board, Balkan Action Committee, Committee on the Present Danger, Center for Security Policy.
History: Congressman from 1962 to 1969. Member of Nixon's cabinet. Member of Gerald Ford's cabinet and Secretary of Defense. Chaired Ballistic Missile Threat (“Rumsfeld”) Commission in 1998.

Scheunemann, Randy â€' on PNAC Board of Directors, U.S. Committee on NATO Board of Directors. Treasurer for Project on Transitional Democracies. Lobbyist.
History: Office of the Secretary of Defense - Consultant on Iraq Policy (2001).

Schmitt, Gary â€' Executive Director of the PNAC. Consultant to the Department of Defense.Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO. Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institute. Adjunct Professor at John Hopkins University.
History: Executive Director of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Reagan.

Schneider, William Jr. - Chairman of the Defense Science Board for the Department of Defense. President of International Planning Services, works for the lobbying company Jefferson Consulting Group. Previously served on the “Rumsfeld Commission”.

Shaw, Sin-Ming - resident scholar at Oxford University's Oriel College.

Shulsky, Abram N. - Director: Defence Department's Office Of Special Plans, a division created by Paul Wolfowitz.
History: Worked for the RAND corporation. Worked under Richard Perle in the Defense Department during the Reagan administration.

Shultz, Richard - Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School. Holds Chairs at the Naval War College and the U.S. Military Academy. Fellow at the Institute of Peace.

Simon, Paul - Deceased (Dec. 9/03). Former Democratic Senator.

Sokolski, Henry - Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Education Center.
History: was Resident Fellow in the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. Was a Senior Legislative Aide for Senator Dan Quayle.

Solarz, Stephen J.- vice chairman of the International Crisis Group. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: Congressman for New York (1975-93)

Sonnenfeldt, Helmut - Brookings Institution.
History: member of the National Security Council. Advisor to President Nixon.

Sussman, Leonard - executive director of Freedom House. Was a journalist in New York.

Sweeney, John J. - President of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Taft, William Howard IV - Chief Legal Advisor to the Department of State.
History: assistant to Casper Weinberger in the Nixon administration.

Thornburgh, Dick - Lawyer. Past governor of Pennsylvania. Attorney General in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Tkacik, John - Heritage Foundation. President of China Business Intelligence. Worked in the State Department during the Reagan administration.

Turner, Ed - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Vickers, Michael - Director of Strategic Studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Creator of “Future Warfare 20XX” games. Former CIA agent.

Waldron, Arthur - board member of Freedom House, member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: professor at the Naval War College (1991-97).

Wallop, Malcolm - Heritage Foundation. Founder and Chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom.
History: part of the Rumsfeld Commission. Senator for Wyoming (1977 - 1995).

Watts, Barry D. - Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation â€' Office of The Secretary of Defense.
History: before government appointment, was a director in Northrop Gruman (weapons contractor).

Webb, James - was Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration.

Weber, Vin - member of the National Commission on Public Service. Member of the German Marshall Fund â€' board of trustees. Co-founder of Empower America. Partner in Clark & Weinstock.
History: Congressman for Minnesota 1980 â€' 1992.

Weigel, George â€' Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
History: co-founded National Endowment for Democracy.

Weinberger, Caspar W.â€' writer.
History: past publisher and chairman of Forbes magazine. Secretary of Defense under Reagan. Indicted on felony charges for his participation in supplying missiles to Iran, but pardoned by President Bush Sr.

Weyrich, Paul M. â€' President of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. National Chairman of Coalitions for America.
History: co-founded Heritage Foundation. Co-founded the Moral Majority. Past treasurer of Council for National Policy.

Williams, Christopher A. - Department of Defense â€' Special Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld. Lobbyist for Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corporation (weapons contractors).
History: member of Pentagon's Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and member of Pentagon's Defense Policy Board during Bush Jr. administration.

Windsor, Jennifer L. - Executive Director of Freedom House.
History: previously held various positions at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Wolfowitz, Paul - Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Assistant to the Vice President.
History: Head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff under Reagan. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs under Carter.

Woolsey, R. James - member of the Defense Policy Board, member of the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and member of the National Commission on Energy Policy. Trustee for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Freedom House. Honorary Co-Chair of the National Security Advisory Council.
History: Director of the CIA during Clinton administration.

Wortzel, Larry - Director in the Heritage Foundation.

Zakheim, Dov S. - Member of the advisory board for the American Jewish Committee, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adjunct Scholar for the Heritage Foundation. Under Secretary and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense (resigned April 15, 2004).

Zoellick, Robert B. - U.S. Trade Representative and member of President's Cabinet.
History: Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff in the Bush Sr. administration.

---

decius is a dickhead who deleted my entire side of the arguement

quote:

---

decius is a dickhead who deleted my entire side of the arguement

---

You don't know what the word entire means do you?

No, most of your argument is right there, making sense to only those who believe what you do.

I'm not saying your points aren't understandable given your apparent beliefs of what is happening in this country and this "war". For again, I believed you may actually want the truth and to do what is best.

What I am saying is that your beliefs are in question, as well as some of your facts.

And untill you ever address anyone else's views or provided "facts" including from your own sources and indeed other's addressings of your "facts" and sources, while continuing to whine, you will be treated like the bitch that you are acting.

Not that I condone deletion, I think all your nonsense should be on display for everyone to pass their own judgement on you and or add their two cents for or against your points.

How many farewells should we be expecting from you anyway? I'd love for you to stick around and actually engage in debate. So stop teasing me like you may actually stay. I don't get to debate those who hold your views often here. Not that I've really gotten to do it with you either, but we can both work together to fix that.

Heh, well, come to think of it, subconciously, I guess I want to be proven wrong. I keep looking into this shit but much more passively as I allow myself to try to crawl back into more comfortable frames of mind, and it scares the shit out of me. Because it doesn't stop with this war or the death of America etc.

I don't want to be the next German citizen who was either apathetic or complicit, just like Dane warned, though in a drastically different context. A term he would do well to learn.

But to be honest, I can't really say I want to have to be the German who is faced with either of those choices or the only other, fight back.

But I know full well, it is my belief, that though I am human and suffer, as well as benefit, from fear and cowardice to varying degrees, ultimately I believe in truth over lies and deceit, justice based on the golden rule, and freedom, as well as my right to defend myself from those who would take them away.

Superman was my hero growing up, I'll always want to save the world.

And he was a sucker for trying to help those who didn't always seem to deserve it, turned out to be one of his biggest challenges.