the i love george thread — Page 2

Did he HAVE breakfast this morning? That could be the problem right there... it was probably just a bowl of lucky charms...

Papa - if Mr. Bush is the visionary of any century, it would be the 12th, not the 21st. And do you REALLY think we've 'changed the status quo' in the Middle East? We've disrupted a current run of events in a backward country that was allowing itself to be run by a dictator - but there's much more to the Middle East than that. Nothing of substance has changed in Saudi Arabia, and there has been the same back-and-forth/up-and-down movement in the Israeli situation as always. That doesn't even begin to address other 'big leaguers' like Iran. You say you support him because you know where he comes from. Where I see him coming from is a place of anti-intellectual theocentrism - and that makes me run away, not toward an embrace.

dgrant, how dare you bring up actual issues in this thread? i banish you and vow to never again let india mintgel frolic nekkid near you while she hums, "why can't we be friends!"

vish, i thought it was still smoldering.

---

The Bush twins are pretty hot

---

nah, i'm not implying that iraq had wmds, i didn't think they really had anything of note other than some folks with knowledge of how to get them up and running, but after 9/11 it wasn't worth taking the chance that they might. i was looking more at the middle east in general and iran in particular in that if iraq can manage to work, it will put enormous pressure on iran as a successful place across the border will push the millions there who want reform over the edge. while iran is close to having a nuke, israel will never let that happen, but sometimes ya just have to break the bowl to make progress. status quo and the un got us 9/11, the world trade center 1, the cole, somalia, the khobar towers, the embassy bombings while iraq and afghanistan got us libya turning over a new leaf. sitting around and hoping things got better was not an option.

---

The only thing I like about GW is that he proves the statement that any idiot can grow up and be president.
But for the most part I view him as a living example of why abortions should always be legal. The world would be a better place without him.

Updated On: 7/28/04 at 04:26 PM

the mushroom cloud comment was the threat of islamo-fascists getting nukes. the only way to keep that from happening is to give the people there some hope. taking out a guy as nasty as saddam goes a long way towards doing that. you should read what the iraqi bloggers are saying, it's quite different from what you hear on the networks.

---

I have no doubt that many prefer life without Saddam at the helm - but walk me through, please, how this is supposed to change the Middle East in general - other than the threat of the US coming in to change what is not acceptable to them?

I do agree that Saddam should be out of power. I don't agree with the method we took to go about doing it. Quite frankly he wasn't doing anything to us so why do we care. What about working on the defecit and all of the Americans without health care instead of "fixing" Iraq? What gives us the right to go in and take over a country? Perhaps if they had done something to us ... but they hadn't, nor had they threatened to, so what the h*ll were we thinking? Sticking up for daddy.
"or the fact that the only way to possibly give the world hope for a future that doesn't involve lots of mushroom clouds " - what was the point in even using that as your rationilization, if it wasn't even an issue that proved itself to be true? Because Iran may have been close?!? Well we weren't in Iran so I don't see how its pertinent. It's a scare tactic. Looks like you learned a lot from your beloved pres.

Saddam stunk. I know that quite well, thanks- I was living in Israel during the Gulf War. It may have been a "video game war" to the U.S., but we were the ones dealing with bomb sirens and gas masks and Scuds.

But attacking Iraq was quite possibly the worst choice Bush could have made. If he absolutely had to choose some country full of dark-skinned people to bomb, just so he could feel manly, why didn't he choose a country that's actually sponsored terrorism against the U.S. lately? I'm pretty sure Iran and Syria qualify.

But no...Bush had to be an idiot and choose a country that hadn't sponsored terrorism against the U.S. since 1993, and was oil-rich. Just so that we would look like asses all around. And on top of that, he had to do it while we were already heavily engaged in Afghanistan? Do people even talk about the fact that there are still problems in Afghanistan, and that too many troops that should be there have been diverted to Iraq? The Bush Administration committed to rebuilding that country, and they've gone back on that.

Very good, Mr. President. Nice job.

Updated On: 7/28/04 at 04:37 PM

But his daughters are hot, so he is not all bad.

---

Hilariously (well, if you find human dismemberment funny), Bush was the one criticizing the Clinton administration for all the peacekeeping missions he sent troops out to do. "Clinton's overextending our troops," he said. "The U.S. isn't in the business of nation-building," he said.

HA!