• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are the things about Obama and Bush do you believe?

What are the things about Obama and Bush do you believe?


  • Total voters
    76

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What are the things about Obama and Bush do you believe?

Bush went AWOL
Bush stole the elections(2000 and or 2004)
Bush lied to get us into war(Afghanistan and or Iraq)
Bush masterminded 9-11
Obama is not a natural born citizen
Obama is a Muslim.
 
What are the things about Obama and Bush do you believe?

Bush went AWOL
Bush stole the elections(2000 and or 2004)
Bush lied to get us into war(Afghanistan and or Iraq)
Bush masterminded 9-11
Obama is not a natural born citizen
Obama is a Muslim.

Nope
No
Nope
No way
No
Nope

I don't take too much stock in belief when its a matter of facts.
 
I will comment that I'd be more fimly convinced of Obama's birth status if his birth certificate weren't a national secret.
 
I believe Bush was a conscientious but sometimes misguided man.

I believe Dear Leader is a conscienceless and persistently misguided human being.

As for the choices provided in the poll, I believe they are a crock from start to finish.
 
Bush went AWOL

Sort of...I'm not 100% sure on this one, but that's been what his colleagues have said for a very long time. Way before Dan Rather.

Bush lied to get us into war(Afghanistan and or Iraq)

This one is an obvious yes. He very plainly wanted to invade Iraq from the first day he was in office, and manipulated the evidence to do so.
 
Bush went AWOL - I do not believe he fully complied 110% with his commitment to the National Guard, but that is hardly the issue. The entire reason he was there in the first place was due to his class and political patronage. There is nothing wrong with the honesty of one saying they simply do not want to get shot at. But for one to be FOR a war they where unwilling to serve is despicable. Remember, he did run against Gore (U.S. Army- Vietnam) and Kerry (Navy-Vietnam), both of whom could have easily used their own class and connections to avoid serving. Hypocrite yes, AWOL who cares.

Bush stole the elections(2000 and or 2004) - Bush did not steal the election, but I think it is safe to say that the 2000 was certainly contentious, problematic, etc.. The positive was that the issue was brought to the forefront on how we conduct elections and their efficiencies. As for 2004, sure there are questions, but that does not equate to a "conspiracy", but rather that the lessons of 2000 were not learned. Both simply show that the process needs vast improvement, something both sides need to get behind.

Bush lied to get us into war(Afghanistan and or Iraq) - This is a no-brainer. They tied their message to facts known to be false or misleading. Afghanistan needed no lies and distortions, this was justified.

Bush masterminded 9-11 - Tinfoil hat time. Hell, why stop with Bush, let's throw in the Tri-Lateral Commission. Better yet, why not add Castro and the Mafia to this conspiracy. Incompetence at ignoring the warnings, the NSC briefings, and their own Counter-Terrorism czar yes.

Obama is not a natural born citizen - Tinfoil? I have to suspect a lot of the birthers are less concerned with the conspiracy and more interesting in exploiting hatred and fears.

Obama is a Muslim. - Muslim? It is not even worth arguing. What is troubling is the mere argument, as if the equation of a religion automatically is a sign of something. So then what is the difference now in anti-Islamic and Antisemitism? Why not add Mormons as well. Why stop with religion, why not shoot for race as well? I know, let's target all Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Hispanics, Arabs, Africans, Asians, etc..
 
Oh can i change my vote to Bush lied to get us into war

?
 
Bush lied to get us into his holly war.
 
Each and every one is ridiculous.
 
I do not believe any of those things. I think that both Bush and Obama are good men who truly care about this nation. Both had good and bad policies, and both have and are attacked with false rumors, as those listed, by partisan hacks. Honestly speaking, I try to never attack the men or women personally, but the policy or philosophies the bring to the table.
 
Well I think bush lied but I think Cheney was behind it all.
Not much of a fan.

Bush = Puppet
Cheney = Puppet Master
 
Only a conspiracy theorist could ignore the overwhelming facts that the Bush administration lied us into a war.

Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity

snippet:

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.


On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.


It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.


In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
 
Only a conspiracy theorist could ignore the overwhelming facts that the Bush administration lied us into a war.

Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity

snippet:

I think a lot of the Bush lied to get us into war,bush stole the elections and other conspiracy theorist nuts have no business calling the Obama birth truffers or the 9-11 truffers a bunch of kooks or crack pot conspiracy theorist. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Replace "lied" with "mislead, ignored key evidence and overstated" to get us into Iraq and I'll buy that.

I need Nixon like tapes to accept he lied.

But I also believe Obama is a secret Closet Gay, Godzilla, Terrorist Zombie Muslim.

:2wave:
 
Replace "lied" with "mislead, ignored key evidence and overstated" to get us into Iraq and I'll buy that.

I need Nixon like tapes to accept he lied.

Isn't saying he "mislead, ignored key evidence, and overstated" just a polite way of saying he lied?
 
This one is an obvious yes. He very plainly wanted to invade Iraq from the first day he was in office, and manipulated the evidence to do so.

To bad all the evidence proves conclusively that he did no such thing in that the claims for WMD were not manipulated but in fact the conclusion of all 16 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
 
Isn't saying he "mislead, ignored key evidence, and overstated" just a polite way of saying he lied?

No. To be a liar, one must know that what they pass off as the truth is in fact false. To mislead is to push things that one is not entirely sure of as the truth. Misleading does not have the element of knowingly passing off false information as the truth. One may be uncertain, but that does not equate to knowing what you say is downright untrue.

Nixon was lying about his involvement in Watergate as the tapes proved. He knew his statements on his innocence were false. We do not have the same information on Bush. At best we can argue he mislead, ignored key evidence and overstated the threat.
 
No. To be a liar, one must know that what they pass off as the truth is in fact false. To mislead is to push things that one is not entirely sure of as the truth. Misleading does not have the element of knowingly passing off false information as the truth. One may be uncertain, but that does not equate to knowing what you say is downright untrue.

Nixon was lying about his involvement in Watergate as the tapes proved. He knew his statements on his innocence were false. We do not have the same information on Bush. At best we can argue he mislead, ignored key evidence and overstated the threat.

OK, but that seems like a pretty small distinction. I'm not sure that willfully ignoring evidence that you don't WANT to know about, is any more honest than actually knowing about it and making false claims. It just seems like a different kind of lying to me.

Here's an example...let's say I'm approached by some shady Mexicans with known ties to drug cartels, who ask me to move some boxes of tacos across the border for them. They offer to pay me more than the value of those boxes of tacos, and they advise me to do anything possible to avoid getting stopped at the border.

If I don't bother to check to see if there are actually tacos in the box, I doubt the police will be impressed by my story when they arrest me for cocaine trafficking. Did I know that I was doing anything illegal? Well, technically no...but my actions were hardly honest.
 
OK, but that seems like a pretty small distinction. I'm not sure that willfully ignoring evidence that you don't WANT to know about, is any more honest than actually knowing about it and making false claims. It just seems like a different kind of lying to me.

Perhaps, and you have a point there. But we don't have evidence that Bush outright knew that the evidence contrary to his belief was actually presented. Apparently, from what I read, he was fed information from various sources who did not report the entire situation to him. So I guess my point on ignoring key information is really about the entire administration rather than him in particular. Last I recall, Bush didn't get briefed on Curveball's shadiness nor the various red flags German and Chezk intel raised on him and his claims. Nor was Bush briefed on Chalabi's ulterior motives. No question that more or less the entire intelligence operation was snafued.

Here's an example...let's say I'm approached by some shady Mexicans with known ties to drug cartels, who ask me to move some boxes of tacos across the border for them. They offer to pay me more than the value of those boxes of tacos, and they advise me to do anything possible to avoid getting stopped at the border.

If I don't bother to check to see if there are actually tacos in the box, I doubt the police will be impressed by my story when they arrest me for cocaine trafficking. Did I know that I was doing anything illegal? Well, technically no...but my actions were hardly honest.

No, they wouldn't be, but you'd have more or less good suspicion on what the boxes had. IMO, Bush was an idiot and Rove was his brain. Bush not getting the full picture much less even briefings on important subjects like Curveball's shadiness more or less takes him out of your analogy. So thus, Bush would be more or less the driver of your vehicle who you'd hired to take you across the border but given little if any more information beyond where you needed to go and when.
 
Here is a VERY good video that explains perfectly what's going on and how everything ties in...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEpp9E6aJGw"]YouTube - REAL REASON WHY USA & ISRAEL WILL ATTACK IRAN[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Here is a VERY good video that explains perfectly what's going on and how everything ties in...


The REAL reason why U.S. and Israel will attack Iran:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEpp9E6aJGw"]YouTube - REAL REASON WHY USA & ISRAEL WILL ATTACK IRAN[/ame]
 
Isn't saying he "mislead, ignored key evidence, and overstated" just a polite way of saying he lied?

No, because I honestly think Bush thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, however, the evidence he had was flimsy and could go either way. So I think he did cherry pick the evidence and hoped to be vindicated later. However, it didn't happen.
 
all of the above!
 
I believe very little of what people have to say about others...And even less about what the media says..
There are 3 to 5 people here who are not particularly intelligent.
Man is a consummate liar.:spin:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom