BUSHY THE INSANE CLOWN PUPPET

IS AT AGAIN

THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED

This is something that happened nearly two years ago. It's a little late to be bitching about it now.

However...

If the choice is waterboarding a terrorist to get information or letting him keep it to himself while thousands, perhaps millions of American citizens die from a terrorist act, I'd say Achmed goes for a swim.

It's not about the WAR CRIMES it is that the stupid son of a bitch is trying to pardon himself. If he and the other bastards are so sure they did nothing wrong then why do they need a pardon??

I figure if you are a soldier of any form, including terrorists, you should either expect to be tortured, or kill yourself before captured. This whole idea of "civilized war" is silliness to me.

But slickjay is right. There is the Geneva convention in place and GW is trying to pardon himself.

slickjay12 wrote:

It's not about the WAR CRIMES it is that the stupid son of a bitch is trying to pardon himself. If he and the other bastards are so sure they did nothing wrong then why do they need a pardon??

Yeah baby!

slickjay12 wrote:

It's not about the WAR CRIMES it is that the stupid son of a bitch is trying to pardon himself. If he and the other bastards are so sure they did nothing wrong then why do they need a pardon??

Perhaps they're concerned with those who would convict and execute them without knowing all the facts. People like you, for example.

The Other One wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

It's not about the WAR CRIMES it is that the stupid son of a bitch is trying to pardon himself. If he and the other bastards are so sure they did nothing wrong then why do they need a pardon??

Perhaps they're concerned with those who would convict and execute them without knowing all the facts. People like you, for example.

So it should be ok for Bush to do what he condemns our enemies for?

Ratzilla wrote:

So it should be ok for Bush to do what he condemns our enemies for?

I heard the other day that there are people out there advancing the notion that Bush and Cheney blew up the levees in Iowa, just like they did in New Orleans, but for a different reason. This time it was because they wanted to wipe out the corn crop so it couldn't be used for ethanol, thereby keeping oil prices high.

On the other hand, the same people say that Bush is a monumental moron.

Just because there's loonies out there doesn't mean that Bush isn't doing some of the same things he condemns others for. He expected Saddam to meet all the expectations of the UN, yet Bush ignored what the UN wanted him to do. GW's daddy said it was wrong for world leaders to try to assassinate one another, and Junior condemned Saddam for his attempts on daddy, yet GW sure tried to kill Saddam. He condemned mistreatment of US soldiers and civilians, but he saw no wrong in roughing up captured enemy combatants. There's alot of other things too, but I had a rather tough asthma attack this eve and don't feel like typing a long post.

I think he's really worried a democrat in office would come back to haunt him if he doesn't get that pardon.

this link is very interesting

clicky thingie

Presidents are puppets. Is Obama better?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Presidents are puppets. Is Obama better?

It would be almost impossible to be any worse the BUSHY

slickjay12 wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Presidents are puppets. Is Obama better?

It would be almost impossible to be any worse the BUSHY

Don't bet on that. Among other things, strict gun restrictions and every black man with a grudge against whitey flocking to Washington with agendas come to mind with Obama. We probably wouldn't have a major Islamic terrorism issue with him because he'd be kissing their butts, but the domestic legislative terrorism a socialist like him might spread could about rival Bush's right wing brown nosing.

Ratzilla wrote:

We probably wouldn't have a major Islamic terrorism issue with him because he'd be kissing their butts, but the domestic legislative terrorism a socialist like him might spread could about rival Bush's right wing brown nosing.

Clinton kissed their butts, didn't respond to terrorist acts such as the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole attack and the African embassy bombings. What did that get us? September 11, 2001.

That attack was not thought up in August and carried out in September. It was years in the planning and set-up stages. Bush wasn't president when the plan was put into motion, and it would have happened no matter who was president at the time. I cringe to think of what our country's response would have been if Gore was the president. I'm sure he would have condemned them in strong terms for putting all that dust in the air and contributing to global warming. Then it would have been another no response and back to life as usual until the next attack.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

We probably wouldn't have a major Islamic terrorism issue with him because he'd be kissing their butts, but the domestic legislative terrorism a socialist like him might spread could about rival Bush's right wing brown nosing.

Clinton kissed their butts, didn't respond to terrorist acts such as the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole attack and the African embassy bombings. What did that get us? September 11, 2001.

That attack was not thought up in August and carried out in September. It was years in the planning and set-up stages. Bush wasn't president when the plan was put into motion, and it would have happened no matter who was president at the time. I cringe to think of what our country's response would have been if Gore was the president. I'm sure he would have condemned them in strong terms for putting all that dust in the air and contributing to global warming. Then it would have been another no response and back to life as usual until the next attack.

You seem to be hung up on the Clintons. Thye are not the candidate this time around.

slickjay12 wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

We probably wouldn't have a major Islamic terrorism issue with him because he'd be kissing their butts, but the domestic legislative terrorism a socialist like him might spread could about rival Bush's right wing brown nosing.

Clinton kissed their butts, didn't respond to terrorist acts such as the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole attack and the African embassy bombings. What did that get us? September 11, 2001.

That attack was not thought up in August and carried out in September. It was years in the planning and set-up stages. Bush wasn't president when the plan was put into motion, and it would have happened no matter who was president at the time. I cringe to think of what our country's response would have been if Gore was the president. I'm sure he would have condemned them in strong terms for putting all that dust in the air and contributing to global warming. Then it would have been another no response and back to life as usual until the next attack.

You seem to be hung up on the Clintons. Thye are not the candidate this time around.

Not untill they have Obama assinated before the convention.

slickjay12 wrote:

You seem to be hung up on the Clintons. Thye are not the candidate this time around.

Gee, maybe that's because Clinton preceeded Bush as president. Or perhaps I should also point out that James Garfield did nothing about Muslim extremists, either.

Neither did Jimmy Carter.

And what did the great demigod Reagan do? He was suppsed to be tough on terrorists so why did they still exist? Because they always will no matter who's in office. And I doubt anyone could have forcast 9/11 either. We already know Bush's intelligence was all fouled up. At least that's his excuse for invading the wrong place. I think we should bury all Islam extremists we capture alive wrapped in pigskins. That'd mess with their heads.

Well, I doubt Gore would have been so quick to jump to conclusions and then invade the WRONG country... and then refuse to admit it. But as Bush said himself he is the "decision maker"

KS1 wrote:

invade the WRONG country...

If you want to think about how this is all intertwined, consider this. In the early 1980s, the United States, via the CIA, supported Osama bin Laden's freedom fighters in Afghanistan. It may have been covert, but we helped them drive the Soviets out. For close to a decade following, they left us alone and we left them alone. One reason Reagan left them alone was because he had a deep committment to stopping the supply of drugs to this country, and the Taliban took a hard line against opium production. They may have been guilty of violating other basic human rights, and I'm not saying that it's right, but it's a quid pro quo that happens all the time in international relations. It was not until Saddam invaded Kuwait and the United States put military bases in Saudi Arabia, much of which is considered holy ground by Muslims, that bin Laden developed his deep hatred of us. Many of the terrorist acts against us in the 1990s were planned and carried out by his terrorist network, Al Qaeda, for this very reason.

So there you have it. If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait, there would have been no reason for the United States to put bases in Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden would be living happily ever after in Kabul with his 16 wives and forty kids. He might even be making speeches on the virtues of polygamy to Mormon splinter groups in Texas.

Other One.... If you read what you just posted there it's still all coming down to one thing. Oil war. Reagan made oil deals with the Saudis which is why we were interested in the region, and also helped Saddam in his fight against Iran. You forgot that part. So in our gluttony for oil, Reagan unleashed Saddam, and Osama.

I see where BUSHY had talks with North Korea and got them to shutdown some of the nuke production. I thought speaking to your enemies was appeasement?

Bush will probably make deals with that nut just like Reagan did with Saddam and Osama. Then in ten or twenty years after NK stabs us in the back there will be republicans trying to blame it on democrats again.

China did all the talking.

Ratzilla wrote:

Other One.... If you read what you just posted there it's still all coming down to one thing. Oil war. Reagan made oil deals with the Saudis which is why we were interested in the region, and also helped Saddam in his fight against Iran. You forgot that part. So in our gluttony for oil, Reagan unleashed Saddam, and Osama.

I'll freely admit that most everything that's gone on in the Middle East is about oil. However, Reagan didn't create America's thirst for it. Witness the 1973 oil embargo - the first energy crisis - that brought us the 55 mph national speed limit and such inovative cars as the Ford Pinto and the AMC Gremlin. Or the gas lines of the late 70s after the fall of the Shah.

Neither did Reagan bring Saddam Hussein into power. Saddam was there first. And the CIA started aiding the Afghans in 1980, when Carter was still president. Reagan was more concerned with stopping the spread of Soviet domination in our hemisphere (ever heard of Granada and Nicaragua?) and eventually ridding the world of the Soviet government. He did increase the aid to the Afghans as a vehicle to help bankrupt the Soviets.

slickjay12 wrote:

I see where BUSHY had talks with North Korea and got them to shutdown some of the nuke production. I thought speaking to your enemies was appeasement?

They not only shut down some nuke production, they allowed the destruction of a nuclear reactor tower to be filmed by Western news agencies.

I didn't mean that Reagan was why we got into oil in the Middle East or that he put Saddam in power. But he did up the dealing more heavily with the Saudis and his administration aided Saddam in his war with Iran which led to him being the biggest dog in the region aside from Israel. He also ignored terroristic individuals in the name of that long and stupid drug war as you said yourself. We've spent over a trillion dollars on the drug war and they're still here. And I've never been that impressed with Reagans godlike status attained among his followers by his trillion dollar spending spree to push over an already crumbling USSR. Once the old Soviet hardliners were all dead it was just a matter of time.

The Other One wrote:

slickjay12 wrote:

I see where BUSHY had talks with North Korea and got them to shutdown some of the nuke production. I thought speaking to your enemies was appeasement?

They not only shut down some nuke production, they allowed the destruction of a nuclear reactor tower to be filmed by Western news agencies.

There were reports that that particular location hadn't been in use for many years.

Wouldn't be the first time a nation put out a phoney show to keep us at bay suzyr.

I know.