What this thread proves more than anything is that Bush supporters have the enviable ability to utterly disregard facts. Regardless if are in full vibrant color. The first thing that stuck out in the thread for me is when the very first inexplicable lie that Bush never linked Iraq to 9-11. That alone should have destroyed the credibility of one side of this argument. However, as we all know- anything some one says with confidence seems at least a little true. The best example is the line, "Bush never linked Iraq to 9-11..." It boarders on insulting to the intelligence; after two or three years of straight up lies: lies about ties to Al' Queada, lies about WMDs, lies about spreading Democracy (bombs are how Republicans capture hearts and minds), we get this. We get the Bush administration flat out lying about ever even saying there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. It's as if they don't know they were being videotaped saying all that stuff.
For some one so angry about the facts, you are quite a idiot, no where in this topic does the line "Bush never linked Iraq to 9-11" appear. So by saying that "Bush never linked Iraq to 9-11" appeared in the topic, is in and of itself, a lie.
Now the line "He never claimed they had anything to do with 9/11." which is true. He didn't.
A link to Osama Bin Laden, and a link to 9-11 are two absolutely different things. Bush linked Saddam to Osama and Al Qaeda because at that time the Intellegence community believed that Saddam was working with Osama or atleast opening communication channels. On the other hand he never said Iraq was responsable for 9-11.
The idea Bush said this, has been a lie brought on by people that hate him for many many years.
Edit:
BBC: Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September.
Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.
Not to mention saying he lied about WMDs is also a lie, although I really do not have the time to explain why.
So just read the lengthy post I made on that subject here
Then there's Hurricane Katrina, which he of course didn't cause, however (there had to be a "however"), he for one: knew it was coming and that New Orleans wasn't at all prepared,
Responsibility of the State and Local Government to prepare, Hurricane Katrina hit a very large swath of land, that being said it's untrue to say New Orleans wasn't at all prepared. Of all the events that happened, the one thing they did wrong was not keep their levies in shape. No one knew how well they would hold, and in the end it was the responsibility of the local Government for them using the money to keep the levies in proper shape. Really if the levies had held, New Orleans would have only gotten a glancing blow from Katrina and the city would have been perfectly fine.
second: he did nothing for days and days after it was apparent the local governments weren't cutting the mustard, ie screwing up royally,
He can't really swoop in and take over, we do have separation of powers. Lets also not forget that many of the faults of the local Government, such as say the School Busses sitting around that could have taken people out, were not discovered until after the Hurricane hit.
and finally: he never REALLY understood how that whole thing was a fiasco in the first place.
Opinion not a fact.
Some say GW wasn't that dumb- but his understanding of the job didn't really extend beyond soundbites and photo ops.
Yeah... that line right there really kills any credibility you have.
I will however say, Bush was not alone in the Katrina debacle, but he just didn't perform like a president.
And how does a President perform when the law steps in the way of micromanaging state and local Governments?
As far as ending-partial birth abortion, that really wasn't as great a thing to do you may think. Especially since the name "Partial Birth Abortion" is not the actual name for the procedure. Instead, it was invented by Republicans to make the procedure seem horrifying, despite being mainly used to abort fetuses that had already miscarried or died some other way while in the womb. So really all Bush succeeded in was preventing sick from getting a pretty crucial and comparatively safe medical procedure in favor of far more invasive and risky ones. Go Bush!
Great job misrepresenting the entire thing, I am sure that you have facts from a unbiased source to show that it is "Mainly" used for this?
Not to mention as stated under US Code a Partial Birth Abortion is:
(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a
living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered
living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered
living fetus; and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001531----000-.html
Oh and there's torture... which shocks me that you Conservatives aren't more up and arms about.
Because it wasn't torture as defined under the law, and saved thousands of lives. Yeah we pesky Conservatives, we just can't get angry when thousands of lives are saved.
I'll give Bush one thing that he was right about was fighting them 'there' so we don't have to fight them 'here'. Of course, it wasn't handled well at all and our foreign policy was utterly wrecked. Our allies (who don't be fooled- they would have shot any one we asked politely) didn't want anything to do with us, and we were left with an overextended military fighting two fronts (one of which was utterly unnecessary).
And yet we badly dismantled Al Qaeda, deposed two horrible Governments, and reduced Bin Laden to a hidey hole in Pakistan. I call that a win win.
Finally, since I'm tired. The Patriot Act... the freaking Patriot Act.
Yep the Patriot Act, drafted and voted upon by a bi partisan Congress.
PS. Saying the media is in the tank for Obama is a lot like saying 'Jews own all the banks', it's untrue and makes you sound like an idiot that believes weird talking points and conspiracy theories about the Illuminati.
So its just my imagination that a top NBC Reporter just accepted a job at the White House, and ABC is running a Obama infomercial next week, with out any opposition? But oh wait, Nash says the media isn't in the tank for Obama, so obviously those things as well as the millions of other examples never happened.
Edit: Oh yeah, and
ABC Employees, donated heavily to Obama
Oh and there is this: A study released Thursday by the Business & Media Institute (BMI) found that since Inauguration Day, ABC has aired news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy 55 times, compared with 18 times when the network highlighted negative reviews.
Citing Census Bureau figures, the BMI analyses also accused ABC of "exaggerating the breadth of the uninsured problem," saying the network's claim that up to 50 million Americans are uninsured is false.
"ABC is in bed with their source, so to speak. ABC is supposed to be a news organization, not a producer of infomercials for national health care. And I wonder what they would have done if the Bush administration had asked for positive programming to support the war on terror or Social Security initiatives," said Dan Gainor, BMI vice president of business and culture.
