Tweet
I don't know what this thread is about anymore, but if I had a vote in the US elections, I would not vote for Bush simply because he is not mentally fit nor has the mental capacity for the job (Is Bush insane? http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity.html).
Bush is already a traitor, or at least impeachable for these acts:
1. For leading the US into a war based on false information, for causing the (unnecessary) death of so many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians - information that millions around the world knew was false and protested about on Valentines day 2003. Congress gave him the power to go to war if and only if all other means have been exhausted (including a fresh round of weapons inspections, which did not occur). Reports now show the UN prevented Saddam from producing or keeping any WMDs and was no threat to anyone in the region. It only took a few days to beat Saddam's "military might", with many generals defecting to the US side. If the US really wanted to get rid of Saddam, they could have used it's influence to incite an internal revolution of Iraqis against Saddam. Based on current evidence of Saddam's weak military strength and lack loyalty within even Republican Guard ranks, it would not have been too hard for the revolution to succeed (with US support, maybe even some military support) and would certainly avoid the problem of the insurgency experienced now, as most of the insurgents (Sadr's Militia, for example) are anti-Saddam forces. I have always supported this method of getting rid of Saddam, so it's nothing new, except given what we know now, it would have been easier than what was previously thought. Remember that Bush went to war against the advice of some in the Pentagon and his own military advisors, and for this fact alone, should be held personally responsible for the death of the soldiers and the destruction of a country.
2. For not paying attention and allowing 9/11 to happen. He paid absolutely no attention to the issue of Islamic Terrorism when he first came into power. Clinton held weekly meetings on this issue, and the Bush administration didn't even mention this issue in all the months prior to 9/11. The whole administration hinted that their biggest enemy was China and Iraq, but Islamic Fundamentalism. Dick Cheney also rejected a security overview that would have improved airport security and prevented box cutters onto planes. The administration also tried to prevent any investigation into 9/11, as well as the forming of Homeland Security. Even the intelligence failures that everyone accept occured is the fault of the Whitehouse, as that's where the buck stops isn't it? If Bush and co. couldn't prevent 9/11, given all the evidence and warnings they received, what makes anyone think that they will prevent another terrorist attack now that the terrorists are stronger and better prepared for such an attack?
3. By attacking Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, not pressuring Saudi Arabia to crack down on Al-Qaeda, not wasting all the International support after 9/11 to go after the terrorists and instead going on this adventure in Iraq and alienating traditonal allies in the process, Bush allowed Al-Qaeda to regroup and they have now transformed themselves into something that is much harder to destroy. Instead of having a central group, they are now split into regional terror organisations, each with many cells operating in different areas. All these "affiliates" work with the same aim as Al-Qaeda, with financial and technical support, but no direct command and control - a change from how Al-Qaeda used to operate. The terror attacks in Madrid, Turkey, Beslan (all of them were planned by Al-Qaeda affiliates, but not by Al-Qaeda themselves) are all results of this regrouping that should and could have been prevented. The world is now a whole lot unsafer than it was straight after 9/11. Also, what about North Korea's nuclear program? Iran's nuclear program? Both countries are now in a much stronger position than they were 4 years ago, thanks to the neglect by the Bush administration. The US can no longer scare these countries using it's military might because it is being bogged down in Iraq, and these countries know it (and are taking advantage of it)!!
4. For destroying democracy in the US. I have lived (albeit only in my younger years) in a country without democracy (China, prior to all the reforms during the late 90's), and what I read and hear about what's happening in the US sounds very much like what was (and in some cases, still is) happening in China. All the stories about arresting people because they wear anti-Bush t-shirts, people getting abused because they show their support for Kerry publicly, the "no protest" zones, all the false arrests and detention in Cuba (those that have been released without charge), the information tipping program, the scare tactics - Saddam would have been proud.
5. For neglecting the economy, the environment, healthcare, and all other domestic issues. A country is only as strong as it is internally, and with this in mind, the US has become much weaker than before (a bad combinations if you consider the alienating of allies as well, which has weakend the US externally).
Bush can be considered a traitor because he did all of the damage above in return for his own self interests (and the self interests of countries and companies that supported his policies). And there are still many areas I haven't covered. If Bush were holding any other job, he would have been fired (or arrested) ages ago. So why should Americans settle for anything less in regards to the most important job of all?
Even the American Conservative magazine has endorsed "liberal traitor" Kerry for President, not because of how good Kerry is, but how bad Bush is (and if you really believe all those "stories" about Kerry, than Bush must really be bad):
Pat Buchanan is an editor at this magazine, so I don't think anyone can accuse this magazine of having a liberal bias. And Slate has this to say about the "documentary" Stolen Honor:
Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but he never divided the US as much as Bush. Remember that his approval rating were always above 60 (even during the witch hunt days), whereas Bush's approval rating has fallen to as low as 44. The US also enjoyed high international support and approval when he was President, whereas now, it is hated by a majority of citizens in the world (the BBC conducted a poll, and only Israel and Australia had approval ratings for the US above 50%).
This is all I have to say about this issue, so I won't post anything else in this thread anymore (not much time left anyway before the election). I don't hate the US. If I do, I wouldn't bother typing all of this, and I would be happy that the US is intent on destroying it self (this is perhaps why Iran is supporting the re-election of Bush - Associated Press: http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/187838-8290-010.html) . I just don't want to see the US head down this blind alley, as a weak US is not good for anyone.
Bush is already a traitor, or at least impeachable for these acts:
1. For leading the US into a war based on false information, for causing the (unnecessary) death of so many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians - information that millions around the world knew was false and protested about on Valentines day 2003. Congress gave him the power to go to war if and only if all other means have been exhausted (including a fresh round of weapons inspections, which did not occur). Reports now show the UN prevented Saddam from producing or keeping any WMDs and was no threat to anyone in the region. It only took a few days to beat Saddam's "military might", with many generals defecting to the US side. If the US really wanted to get rid of Saddam, they could have used it's influence to incite an internal revolution of Iraqis against Saddam. Based on current evidence of Saddam's weak military strength and lack loyalty within even Republican Guard ranks, it would not have been too hard for the revolution to succeed (with US support, maybe even some military support) and would certainly avoid the problem of the insurgency experienced now, as most of the insurgents (Sadr's Militia, for example) are anti-Saddam forces. I have always supported this method of getting rid of Saddam, so it's nothing new, except given what we know now, it would have been easier than what was previously thought. Remember that Bush went to war against the advice of some in the Pentagon and his own military advisors, and for this fact alone, should be held personally responsible for the death of the soldiers and the destruction of a country.
2. For not paying attention and allowing 9/11 to happen. He paid absolutely no attention to the issue of Islamic Terrorism when he first came into power. Clinton held weekly meetings on this issue, and the Bush administration didn't even mention this issue in all the months prior to 9/11. The whole administration hinted that their biggest enemy was China and Iraq, but Islamic Fundamentalism. Dick Cheney also rejected a security overview that would have improved airport security and prevented box cutters onto planes. The administration also tried to prevent any investigation into 9/11, as well as the forming of Homeland Security. Even the intelligence failures that everyone accept occured is the fault of the Whitehouse, as that's where the buck stops isn't it? If Bush and co. couldn't prevent 9/11, given all the evidence and warnings they received, what makes anyone think that they will prevent another terrorist attack now that the terrorists are stronger and better prepared for such an attack?
3. By attacking Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, not pressuring Saudi Arabia to crack down on Al-Qaeda, not wasting all the International support after 9/11 to go after the terrorists and instead going on this adventure in Iraq and alienating traditonal allies in the process, Bush allowed Al-Qaeda to regroup and they have now transformed themselves into something that is much harder to destroy. Instead of having a central group, they are now split into regional terror organisations, each with many cells operating in different areas. All these "affiliates" work with the same aim as Al-Qaeda, with financial and technical support, but no direct command and control - a change from how Al-Qaeda used to operate. The terror attacks in Madrid, Turkey, Beslan (all of them were planned by Al-Qaeda affiliates, but not by Al-Qaeda themselves) are all results of this regrouping that should and could have been prevented. The world is now a whole lot unsafer than it was straight after 9/11. Also, what about North Korea's nuclear program? Iran's nuclear program? Both countries are now in a much stronger position than they were 4 years ago, thanks to the neglect by the Bush administration. The US can no longer scare these countries using it's military might because it is being bogged down in Iraq, and these countries know it (and are taking advantage of it)!!
4. For destroying democracy in the US. I have lived (albeit only in my younger years) in a country without democracy (China, prior to all the reforms during the late 90's), and what I read and hear about what's happening in the US sounds very much like what was (and in some cases, still is) happening in China. All the stories about arresting people because they wear anti-Bush t-shirts, people getting abused because they show their support for Kerry publicly, the "no protest" zones, all the false arrests and detention in Cuba (those that have been released without charge), the information tipping program, the scare tactics - Saddam would have been proud.
5. For neglecting the economy, the environment, healthcare, and all other domestic issues. A country is only as strong as it is internally, and with this in mind, the US has become much weaker than before (a bad combinations if you consider the alienating of allies as well, which has weakend the US externally).
Bush can be considered a traitor because he did all of the damage above in return for his own self interests (and the self interests of countries and companies that supported his policies). And there are still many areas I haven't covered. If Bush were holding any other job, he would have been fired (or arrested) ages ago. So why should Americans settle for anything less in regards to the most important job of all?
Even the American Conservative magazine has endorsed "liberal traitor" Kerry for President, not because of how good Kerry is, but how bad Bush is (and if you really believe all those "stories" about Kerry, than Bush must really be bad):
Pat Buchanan is an editor at this magazine, so I don't think anyone can accuse this magazine of having a liberal bias. And Slate has this to say about the "documentary" Stolen Honor:
Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but he never divided the US as much as Bush. Remember that his approval rating were always above 60 (even during the witch hunt days), whereas Bush's approval rating has fallen to as low as 44. The US also enjoyed high international support and approval when he was President, whereas now, it is hated by a majority of citizens in the world (the BBC conducted a poll, and only Israel and Australia had approval ratings for the US above 50%).
This is all I have to say about this issue, so I won't post anything else in this thread anymore (not much time left anyway before the election). I don't hate the US. If I do, I wouldn't bother typing all of this, and I would be happy that the US is intent on destroying it self (this is perhaps why Iran is supporting the re-election of Bush - Associated Press: http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/187838-8290-010.html) . I just don't want to see the US head down this blind alley, as a weak US is not good for anyone.
I see the same thing in the Republicans, Ormonde...it all goes to maxim: " money is the lifeblood of politics". Every election the democrat formula is to whip up class envy and hatred to get you to run to the polls to vote AGAINST those "evil" "rich" guys. But the reality is...the leadership of the democrat party are the richest people in America. To keep from being eaten themselves, they concoct a myriad of crises to keep you channeling your anger and emotion on a number of useless "issues" to keep you chasing your tails...and not focusing on who THEY are. THEY only want power...and will promise anything in order to acheive it. The reason you think all politicians lie is they never deliver on their promises. Republicans don't accept lying in their candidates (except in national security matters). The difference can be seen in how Nixon was treated compared to Clinton. Nixon wouldn't have been chased out of office, were it not for the fact his own party doesn't abide crooked behavior. But the reality is...to run for President you need a lot of money behind you. It's the democrats who have the "big bucks" supporters like Soros...the Republicans rely mainly on millions of $20 contributions from little guys, like me...which make them, in reality, the "people's party". But, somehow, the media has been able to spin this the other way.
Comment