Why George W. Bush Let a Soldier’s Mom Yell at Him

I hear weapons programs being mentioned. It ends up, there was a weapons program of developing nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Do you know how many times I've heard liberals call an ammunition magazine a clip ?

 

no he said they had nukes bush cheney rumsfeld all said this multiple times, there were none, there was no facility, there was no evidence he wanted build one GWB and the republicans lied to get us into the Iraq war, get over it, why do you think they cant visit certain countries because theyre wanted for war crimes?

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/ten_appalling_lies_we_were_told_about_iraq

 

Exactly how old are you ?

Before 1945 99.9% of Americans never heard of the word "nuclear."

Who decided how the word "nuclear" would be pronounced ? A few beard scratching English professors while during the 1950's, 60's 70's, 90% of Americans would pronounce "nuclear" the same way Bush has.

If I remember correctly my English teachers in high school taught us to pronounce "nuclear" the same way Bush pronounced it.

Remember the days when the majority ruled ? Those days are history, today it's always about the minority.

 

As we know today there was a nuclear weapons site used for developing nukes in Iraq.

As we know today, Iraq did have yellow cake.

As we know today just recently the CIA purchased Iraqi sarin gas munitions in Syria. Those sarin gas munitions were in Iraq in 2003.

 

Another game. Overstating the estimates of deaths under UN sanctions and seriously (by almost an order of magnitute) understating casualties in the Iraq war.

Don't forget the physical destruction, or the fact that the war made refugees out of nearly 1/3 of Iraq's population.

 

You had a very bad English teacher then! Didn't he/she ever tell you to sound out a word?

If you do, you'll note that Bush's pronunciation of nuclear is incorrect. He always asserted another u after the c, and left the e out.

The word is spelled nuclear, and is pronounced exactly as it is spelled.

Bush always said nucular.

 

for the worse

 

Contrary to your false claim, Iraq had no nuclear weapons program when the US attacked it in 2003. Sadaam Hussein had it dismantled in 1996. The UN and the IAEC were well aware of this, as was US intelligence.

Of course, this did not stop the Bush adminstration from pushing lurid claims about non existant "mushroom clouds" on national television. This was all nonsense, and it was questioned and dismissed out of hand by experts and intelligece agencies around the world almost from the start.

Irag had acquired some yellowcake at some point in the late 1970's for the purpose of enriching uranium in a reactor it was built. This reactor was destroyed by Isreali warplanes in 1983, and no further work was done on that site. Of course, the Bush claims that the Iraqis were trying to buy yellowcake in Niger were false, and that Bush knew they were false when he made them.

Your claim about chemical weapons in Syria is another popular right wing canard.

 

irrelevant pointless and inane

 

As a former nuclear missile technician and as a native Texan I wasn't offended by Bush's pronunciation of the word. But when Barack Obama pronounced corpsmen (coor-men) as corpse-men (as in dead men) . . . well that did bother this veteran. It also bothered me that the MSM auto-issued Obama a free press pass for that whereas they hammered Bush. But then that's what happens when the bulk of the MSM devolves into being effectively just a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

 

If FDR was as good a war president as you claim George W Bush was, everyone in Western Europe would be speaking Russian now.

 

You mean like they just might have to learn to do after Putin is finished making Obama look very, VERY bad?

 

Nobody's talking to you.

 

Because we all know the liberal talking points and conspiracy theories trump all truth. Bush still has more class in his little finger compared to the present POTUS.

 

Still trying to pare the reality.

The US was not at war technically with Iraq in 1991. It was acting under UN mandate, something it certainly was not doing in 2003, when Bush took the nation to war unilaterally in defiance of certain veto in the Security Council.

Sadaam Hussein was very safely contained during the entire period you discuss. There were periodic violations of the UN implosed No fly zone, all of which were beaten back easily.

Not one of Sadaam's neighbors considered him an "iminent threat". That was one of the reasons none of them supported the reckless US attack. The other reason was they knew that such an invastion would create a power vacuum in the region, one with long term consequences.

History has proved them right.

- - - Updated - - -

The truth is on my side. You're the one making stuff up.

 

Liberal truth which is often just a conspiracy theory.

 

It does seem he is a nice guy (well, at least to those he respects), but that doesn't make him a good president. A good president is the one who makes good decisions. I'm not going to try to say he did nothing right, but Iraq was an extremely expensive poor decision. It irritates me because it reminds me of how people see doctors. Oh he was a good doctor, he had great bedside manner, but what's actually important is that he came up with the right diagnosis and the best treatment.

Well… assuming history is recorded by historians, that seems fairly unlikely:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151692 Historians ranked him 31st out of 43, basically not the worst president ever but in the bottom quartile.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/
Another group of presidential experts: The American Political Science Association’s Presidents & Executive Politics section, ranked Bush 35th. Obama was ranked 18th. Basically Bush was considered poor and Obama mediocre so far.

Which is worth how many American lives? How many billions of dollars? And how much better off are the Iraqis today?

Um… no. In Vietnam, we killed hundreds of thousands, if not a million North Vietnamese. While we technically lost the war, we ended with a ~10:1 kill ratio and gave up almost 60 thousand American lives. I think the original paper tiger idea applied to the United States was from Mao Zedong in 1946, urging the Soviets to fight us more directly. Bin Laden called us a paper tiger, but it was because of Somalia:

http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers

 

very clever...pointless and irrelevant but clever

 

That is strictly your partisan opinion

 

I'll take that as an admission that you can't support your claims with anything other than previously discredited claims.

Empty comments about non existant conspiracy theories do not make a case.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're going to spend the day telling me that my response to someone else's rant is "pointless and irrelevant", knock yourself out!

 

Empty comments about conspiracy theories do not make your case.

 

How do you pronounce "either" ?

 

You are ignoring what has been discovered and classified and not released to the public until recently.

 

I never claimed that G.W. Bush was as good as a war time President as FDR, you are making up (*)(*)(*)(*) I never said it.

FDR spent most of 1942 putting the right people in place. Basically he remomed Democrats from positions and replaced them with Republicans who were willing to take the fight to the enemy.

FDR's Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy were both Republicans.

MacArthur, Esienhower, Nimitz, Halsey, Holland Smith, Vandergrift, Patton, etc. etc. etc. they weren't pantywaist Democrats.

 

You seem to have redrawn the maps. Saudi Arabia was the main reason why G.H. Bush (41) went to the UN.

And you kind of forgot about Iran and why Saddam Hussein led the world to believe that he had WMD's,
.

Read it and get back to us. -> http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/