*(continued from http://nub.wakachan.net/b/res/3065.html )*
>This is when he gives press conferences, which is about once a year.
Bush speaks to the press more than once a year. For pete's sake, he was participating in presidential debates a few months ago.
>They actually pay people money to bullshit in the press.
If you're talking about the recent payoffs to black conservatives to promote some law or other, I agree that that was fishy, though probably not a direct action of Bush.
>Read the Patriot Act, and its proposed followup.
The PATRIOT Act was passed almost unanimously by Congress, and therefore also not directly Bush's action. A great deal of it has or will soon "sunset," and Congress doesn't seem all that interested in renewing most of it anyway.
>the overturn of Roe v. Wade would mean one does not, in the eyes of the law, have the right to privacy in one's own body.
One's rights end where another's rights begin. In this sense, abortion already is illegal de jure.
>The Republicans said the Democrats were out-and-out traitors who were actively attempting to help the terrorists.
Some Republicans said that, yes, because some Democrats go out of their way to impede every anti-terrorist step America attempts. And some Democrats spew equally hateful speech, such as that the war in Iraq was only for oil, that it was a "distraction" in the war on terror, idiotic nonsense such as Muslims/Arabs don't want freedom or the chance to vote, etc. Again, "the other guy is wrong" is politics, and surely not unique to Bush or the Bush administration.
> that it was a "distraction" in the war on terror,
This is hateful now? Putting aside the issue of whether invading Iraq was warranted or not for whichever reasons, are you denying that Iraq didn't become a terrorist hotbed until AFTER the invasion?
Also,
>> Read the Patriot Act, and its proposed followup.
> The PATRIOT Act was passed almost unanimously by Congress, and therefore also not directly Bush's action. A great deal of it has or will soon "sunset," and Congress doesn't seem all that interested in renewing most of it anyway.
That's a pretty weak defence.
The way I see it, the Patriot Act was passed in fear, which is exactly what the terrorists wanted out of their actions. Re-instating it / expanding it would be the exact opposite of what we should want to be doing. Y'all just tying a noose around your neck.
> are you denying that Iraq didn't become a terrorist hotbed until AFTER the invasion?
are you denying that abu musab al-zarqawi was already in iraq before the war started, doing whatever he wanted? because thats what he's said. maybe he's just lying to make the bush administration look like they're telling the truth though.
also, whats your opinion on the thousands of dollars saddam gave to the families of each dead palestinian suicide bomber? i've spent 6 years of my life in israel, and i've been to the west bank quite a bit. i was even trapped in ramallah for a whole week one time while it was under siege. they live in abject poverty. if someone tells you that if you do a killing of israeli's they'll give your family 15, 20 thousand american dollars, which is a decades salary...
i think that has been a big issue in the tremendous drop in suicide bombings in israel lately.
saddam fostered a tremendous amount of terror on the israeli people. is that americas problem? well, no... but i'm still happy to see him go.
>are you denying that Iraq didn't become a terrorist hotbed until AFTER the invasion?
I do not deny that, but I also think that the Saddam regime was one of terror. Did you see the video that was out there a while back where they were throwing bound dissidents off of four-story buildings? There's also the mass graves, persecution of the Kurds, and so on. I'm not saying the Abu Ghirab incident was anything to be proud of, but it was relatively meek in comparison.
>>4: Agreed, there could have been a bit more rationality there. However, I also think that it really wasn't as big and scary as people tried to make it out to be, in its application if not in its actual text. At the same time, we should remember this incident and, should a similar national crisis happen in the future, I hope Congress remembers this whole snafu and doesn't let something seriously damaging pass through.
Sure, Saddam was pretty horrid. But for the statement at hand, it was the war on terrorism, not the war on oppressive dictators. Thus, it was a distraction, even if that distraction may have been justifiable.
It would be more justifiable if it didn't turn into such a mess, though.
you're dodging, i think. saddam directly supported terror. see my post, #5.
> It would be more justifiable if it didn't turn into such a mess, though.
You measure whether an action is justified by the results it produces or provokes? That's pretty lame, dude.
>>9
I thought that was the only criteria that counted.
To clarify: forseeable results.
I wasn't aware that we do random things without consideration of our actions. Why do you open the fridge in the morning?
That's what is commonly referred to as "intention", not "actual results".
I think those examples you provided are more of a PR tactic than any REAL support. Saddam just wanted to look cool to those who hated the US and the jews. Real support for terrorism is not something you do openly and brag about, and it also includes actual SUPPORT to TERRORISTS, not just giving money to widows. That's just begging for sympathy.
Well, it's not like the result was unexpected by anyone except apparently the invaders themselves.
> Well, it's not like the result was unexpected by anyone except apparently the invaders themselves.
Maybe the invaders had reasons to believe the outcome would have been worse if they had not have invaded. Ever thought about that?
What, because Saddam would have used weapons of mass destruction?
In a sense, yes. But I believe his WMDs to have consisted of desperate and willing humans more than ABC weapons.
There is no way in hell to run a successful PR show for convincing your citizens of the need to perform mass post-natal abortions on a huge foreign reservoir of soldiers, though.