Bush is a Buffoon

from JoeUser Forums




Yesterday George W. Bush, out of his own mouth, documented that he is a Buffoon!
For the very first time he admitted he took this country to war, the most important decision any president can make, based on faulty information. These are the Presidentâ own words, "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."BR>
That would have been an important admission had Bush stopped there. However what followed is hard to believe. His next statement was, "Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."BR>
If the information that said he was a danger was incorrect as the President admitted, how was Saddam a threat? What possible justification for going to war existed with a country that did not have the means to be a threat? There are many tyrants in this world that wish others harm. They are NOT a threat if they do not have the means of being a danger.

Even when Bush admits he was wrong, according to him he was right. How foolish Bush make himself look. This great country deserves a leader that can take responsibility for their mistakes not one that acts like GWB.
politics
29,816 views 114 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

"Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.


And, presumably, you disagree with that statement.

Which tells us everything we need to know about you. Thank G-d we are not friends.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
So he's a buffoon for sticking by the intelligence that you disagreed with
Then he's a buffoon for saying "You know what? The data was wrong, I made a decision based on bad data, I take responsibility"

You're the buffoon Col. You can't see beyond your blind hatred (which is what it has become) to see he's doing the exact damn thing you wanted all along... HE ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG!

What more do you want? (And don't say step down, that's just plain stupid)
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes I disagree that "Saddam was a threat". The President said that in his admission. We went to war because he was a threat to this country. Is it better that he is no longer in power but going to war to remove people like him is NOT is not justified. Hell there are many such tryrents in this world. If that is the standard for going to war, we will be fightisn all over the world without end!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was nothing wrong with Bush taking responsibility for the error but that he turns arround and says his action were correct. That is why he is a Buffoon. If it was an error that the actions predicated on that error was also wrong. It has nothing to do with my feelings it has everything to do with what Bush said. What we should have heard from Bush is that the invasion was an error which it was.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is it better that he is no longer in power but going to war to remove people like him is NOT is not justified. Hell there are many such tryrents in this world. If that is the standard for going to war, we will be fightisn all over the world without end!


It turns out that if we leave them alone for too long, we always have been fighting all over the world.

Using your logic, all law and order is wrong. Why go for one criminal if going for all criminals meant a constant war against crime?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
We were not leaving Saddam alone. If we had continued the no fly zones and allowed the UN Inspectors to learn that he no longer had WMD, he may have lost control in the future. Saddam most likely kept the idea that he had WMD to appear powerful and keep others both in Iraq and from outside (Iran) at bay.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we had allowed that, millions more would have died under his regime. Did you miss the left-wing propaganda about the sanctions?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only a "buffoon" would constantly post the same articles over and over about the same person who they hate.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam. 30,000 have died since we started the war. What should have happened is the people of the area should have helped remove Saddam not the U S Military. There are dictators in Africa that have killed Millions and I do not see Bush marching into those countries.

The no fly zones was working and the inspectors would have learned what we know today that Saddam no longer had WMD. Bush made a major mistake which he will not admit! A mistake that has cost America 2,150 lives, 35,000 injuries and about 300 Billion dollars with no end in sight!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam.


I know, I know. They are probably just hiding to make the Arab Nazis look bad.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam. 30,000 have died since we started the war. What should have happened is the people of the area should have helped remove Saddam not the U S Military. There are dictators in Africa that have killed Millions and I do not see Bush marching into those countries.


Actually there is col. But you don't seem to bother with research unless it's somehow to blame Bush.


The no fly zones was working and the inspectors would have learned what we know today that Saddam no longer had WMD. Bush made a major mistake which he will not admit! A mistake that has cost America 2,150 lives, 35,000 injuries and about 300 Billion dollars with no end in sight!


It's pointless to explain anything to you. You hate Bush, and nothing else matters. Now go back and write those books that nobody buys.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam



So i bet next you will be telling us that the Holocaust never happened? Maybe you and the Iranian President that keeps spouting off his mouth are one and the same person?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The number of people Saddam killed has nothing to do with the reason Bush gave to invade. The issue was that Saddam was a danger to the United States. Remenber the Mushroom cloud. Bush has admitted that was not correct. thus, our action to invade because Saddam was NOT a danger to the United States was an error.

Give me a link that documents he killed millions. That is not what he is being tried with today!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Give me a link that documents he killed millions. That is not what he is being tried with today!


He is tried for one crime at a time.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The number of people Saddam killed has nothing to do with the reason Bush gave to invade.


Then why did you bring it up?

he issue was that Saddam was a danger to the United States.


But Clinton and the democrats said he was. Are they liars and "buffoons" also col?


Give me a link that documents he killed millions. That is not what he is being tried with today!


How many times have we asked for links and proof of your outrageous accusations against Bush? Pretty much every article you write. So here's your proof col.

I heard it on tv.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clinton did not invade Iraq that was Bush predicated on incorrect information. Again, the Action Bush took was an error because Saddan did NOT pose a danger the US. Not that he was a Evil Dictator or that he violated UN resolutions or even that he killed his own people. Not to give the Iraqi people a chance to vote. Non of that was the justification Bush used to go to war. It is time for Bush and his supporters to admit the war in Iraq was a mistake and that when we invaded, Iraq was NOT part of the War on terrorism!

How Many People Has Saddam Killed?
By John F. Burns
The New York Times | January 27, 2003

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clinton did not invade Iraq that was Bush predicated on incorrect information.


I never said Clinton invaded. He and the democrats said Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. Were they lying also col?

And col, a NYT article is not proof. However I see that even 500,000 is not enough for you. Pathetic.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If 500,000 were enough in Iraq, why have we not liberated a number of countries in Africa that are killed millions today. The reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Iraq was a danger to this country. That was NOT true as Bush now admits, so our invasion was an error.

Clinton was just as wrong as Bush about WMD. The difference is that Clinton did not send American Troops to their death Bush did.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
If 500,000 were enough in Iraq, why have we not liberated a number of countries in Africa that are killed millions today. The reason Bush gave for invading Iraq was that Iraq was a danger to this country. That was NOT true as Bush now admits, so our invasion was an error.


Col, that rhetoric is typical liberal bs. If 500,000 have died in Africa why hasn't the U.N. done anything? You can ask stupid questions all day it doesn't prove your point.

And col, Bush didn't say that in his speech that Saddam wasn't a danger, he said some of the intel was faulty. That's it. You are making things up like the NYT does.

Proved wrong again col, how many times does that make it today?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
The intel that was wrong was that he had WMD. Without WMD he does not the means to be a danger. Bush was wrong and nothing you Bushies can say changes that. Your support of his actions show that you too are Buffoons!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is no evidence that anything like millions were killed by Saddam.


Oh REALLY? Then please explain this! That is "if" you can:


GENEVA (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces must protect the sites of mass graves discovered in Iraq and allow forensic experts to preserve evidence for possible prosecutions, the top United Nations human rights official said Thursday.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello said action was especially urgent because families were already picking through piles of bones, believed to be of victims of ousted president Saddam Hussein's rule.

"The high commissioner has urged the government of the United States and coalition partners to ensure the immediate protection and integrity of mass graves sites and other evidence," Vieira de Mello said in a statement.

"Equally, appropriate access to these sites by independent forensic experts will be vital in preserving the integrity of such evidence."

For some families, the discovery of graves across Iraq has brought a bitter conclusion to years of worry about the fate of relatives who went missing under Saddam, toppled by U.S.-led forces last month.

But human rights groups are concerned that evidence of the atrocities could be lost forever.

Vieira de Mello said the evidence must be given to the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Iraq and to any "jurisdictions that might be established to deal with grave violations of human rights committed by the former regime."
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
The intel that was wrong was that he had WMD. Without WMD he does not the means to be a danger. Bush was wrong and nothing you Bushies can say changes that. Your support of his actions show that you too are Buffoons!


Col, 19 people on Sept. 11 didn't have WMD and they were a danger. The ignorance just amazes me again.

Your support for retreat and your support for terrorists show us who is the buffoons col.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your support of his actions show that you too are Buffoons!


We "may" be buffoons but.... your side is full of idiots!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was no War on Terrotrism in Iraq prior to the invasion. Bush and Cheney said we were in danger BECAUSE Saddam had WMD and would likely use it aginst us (Mushroom Clouds). That was incorrect since there was no WMD. That is what GWB admitted yeaterday,. Thus the reason for the war was wrong and that makes the war wrong. We have not captured or killed the people that were responsible for 9/11 because we have the majority of our forces in Iraq.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

There was no War on Terrorism in Iraq prior to the invasion.


That was one of the problems.

If Saddam had actively fought terrorism like the new democratic government of Iraq does, instead of financially supporting terrorists, there would have been little reason to believe that Saddam was a danger to be removed from power.