the american elections: do you care?
- Thread starter onetwothreefour
- Start date
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
*bump*
just a collection of quotes from bush's speech a couple of days ago (taken from theguardian.co.uk).
decide for yourself...![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
just a collection of quotes from bush's speech a couple of days ago (taken from theguardian.co.uk).
decide for yourself...
Q Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but as Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld said, we know where they are. How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents, who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series a false premises?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.
The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back - he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group - reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM; deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things - a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a - the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
What else - part of the question - oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are - they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't, they're now up and running. And that money is - it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people - it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of - a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy - they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq. First, the lesson of September the 11th is, when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we've got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States. That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence; that's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to. I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something, for the sake of security in the world. See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And, therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.
The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back - he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group - reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM; deceptive in hiding things. We knew they were hiding things - a country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught. And that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that. He also confirmed that Saddam had a - the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
What else - part of the question - oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues are - they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant. One of the things I was concerned about prior to going into Iraq was that the oil fields would be destroyed. But they weren't, they're now up and running. And that money is - it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
Finally, the attitude of the Iraqis toward the American people - it's an interesting question. They're really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there's mass graves. I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways, shocked it into a kind of - a fear of making decisions toward liberty. That's what we've seen recently. Some citizens are fearful of stepping up. And they were happy - they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either. They do want us there to help with security, and that's why this transfer of sovereignty is an important signal to send, and it's why it's also important for them to hear we will stand with them until they become a free country.
And the other thing I look back on and realise is that we weren't on a war footing. The country was not on a war footing, and yet the enemy was at war with us. And it's - it didn't take me long to put us on a war footing. And we've been on war ever since. The lessons of 9/11 that I - one lesson was, we must deal with gathering threats. And that's part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.
This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people.
THE PRESIDENT: I guess if you put it into a political context, that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November. That's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say, let's see, which one of them can better win the war on terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society?
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
^^^ le sigh
kerry and bush are absolutely opposed to each other in a huge variety of their political convictions. and the "people behind the scenes" are ostensibly chosen by these two, so they espouse the same views.
there will be a massive difference in the running of the country if kerry gets in.
kerry and bush are absolutely opposed to each other in a huge variety of their political convictions. and the "people behind the scenes" are ostensibly chosen by these two, so they espouse the same views.
there will be a massive difference in the running of the country if kerry gets in.
Chaos Butterfly
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2000
- Messages
- 10,382
I care. I do. I really really really want to see Bush tried in the World Court for his crimes against humanity, not that that will ever happen what with the US backing out of the world court
I really want to believe that there will be change if Kerry gets in. I really do, but in my heart all I can see are the huge multi-national corporations with their dirty little hands in all the pies doing exactly what they are doing now. Controlling US government policy.
What I would like to see is a US election campaign that wasn't funded by the corporations. I mean seriously why do you need 10's and 100's of millions of dollars to run a campaign? C'mon people... stop feeding fucking Rupert Murdoch and his TV cronies. Aaaaaaaah there is so much that is fucked up about America and this situation.
Sigh.
Anyway, I am hoping against hope that Bush is not re-elected, and that the American public can see him for the useless farce that he is.
CB.
I really want to believe that there will be change if Kerry gets in. I really do, but in my heart all I can see are the huge multi-national corporations with their dirty little hands in all the pies doing exactly what they are doing now. Controlling US government policy.
What I would like to see is a US election campaign that wasn't funded by the corporations. I mean seriously why do you need 10's and 100's of millions of dollars to run a campaign? C'mon people... stop feeding fucking Rupert Murdoch and his TV cronies. Aaaaaaaah there is so much that is fucked up about America and this situation.
Sigh.
Anyway, I am hoping against hope that Bush is not re-elected, and that the American public can see him for the useless farce that he is.
CB.
preacha
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,519
i doubt any american cares about the australian elections, since they don't even know who our prime minister is.
so i'd have to say no, i don't care.
besides, australia is too far away from any country for me to give a shit about war.
small minded? yes
but i dig it that way
so i'd have to say no, i don't care.
besides, australia is too far away from any country for me to give a shit about war.
small minded? yes
but i dig it that way
i definately care. seeing though australia....sorry, john "george bush's sidekick" howard is merely a puppet on a string, manipulated by Bush. i'm backing kerry, cos if things don't change, we are going to hear about more innocent deaths and i'm sure there will be a few more "jessica lynch hero stories" (what a load of shit that was).
If bush regains power, all we can do is hope Latham walks all over howard in our next federal election!
If bush regains power, all we can do is hope Latham walks all over howard in our next federal election!
Naughtiest_Maximus
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2004
- Messages
- 989
Though i haven't been following the campaign trail, i for sure as hell hope Bush doesn't get back in. Still bewildered how he managed to pull off the biggest electoral fraud and get away with it.
Caught the tail end of a press conference on the radio by Yvonne Ridley a veteran journalist who was held by the Taliban for ten days then released without harm.It was on the war on iraq, but in closing she wanted to have the U.N oversee the U.S elections to make sure they were conducted in a fair and democratic manner. Oh how i would love to see that. By the way is Jeb Bush still the governor of Florida?
Caught the tail end of a press conference on the radio by Yvonne Ridley a veteran journalist who was held by the Taliban for ten days then released without harm.It was on the war on iraq, but in closing she wanted to have the U.N oversee the U.S elections to make sure they were conducted in a fair and democratic manner. Oh how i would love to see that. By the way is Jeb Bush still the governor of Florida?
Chaos Butterfly
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2000
- Messages
- 10,382
^^
Yes Jeb Bush is still the governer of Florida.
Regarding the UN supervising elections, it didn't really help much in Zimbabwe when Mugabe rigged the whole fucking thing. You can't really expect Bush to do anything less
Yes Jeb Bush is still the governer of Florida.
Regarding the UN supervising elections, it didn't really help much in Zimbabwe when Mugabe rigged the whole fucking thing. You can't really expect Bush to do anything less
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
i hate the fence-sitting and back-tracking that is required in american (and probably most other countries, actually) politics. i was wathcing meet the press on sunday night, where kerry was being interviewed.
they showed a clip of him from 1971 (!) talking about the "atrocities" that he had committed (along with other soldiers), as ordered, in vietnam. in the same speech he called these "top-down orders" terrible, and called those who ordered them (the president et al) "war criminals".
now, presumably (considering both his current view on the iraq situation along with his fairly liberal-seeming opinions in geneal), he still believes this. but instead, he apologised for his "over the top" words, and said that even though he'd been "honest" at the time, the words had only come from "an angry place" and that he hated having to hear them (and that he'd said them at all) now.
it's just shit - though i guess the reason he has to do this is to prevent himself from offending an entirely new group of people (those few who are left who still think vietnam was a good idea, or just those who supported that government), i just find it so sad that he's forced to be dishonest about his own, obviously passionate, views.
however, i like the guy more and more, the more i see of him. though it's obviously not something that's likely to happen, he challenged bush to monthly debates on the gig issues - foreign affairs, health, education and so on. the thing is, bush just doesn't seem to want a bar of this - whereas kerry is quite confident that he could debate these issues thoroughly and fairly, bush continues to act as if they're not even important, and won't at all be drawn into logical debates on them.
fuck i feel bad for america
they showed a clip of him from 1971 (!) talking about the "atrocities" that he had committed (along with other soldiers), as ordered, in vietnam. in the same speech he called these "top-down orders" terrible, and called those who ordered them (the president et al) "war criminals".
now, presumably (considering both his current view on the iraq situation along with his fairly liberal-seeming opinions in geneal), he still believes this. but instead, he apologised for his "over the top" words, and said that even though he'd been "honest" at the time, the words had only come from "an angry place" and that he hated having to hear them (and that he'd said them at all) now.
it's just shit - though i guess the reason he has to do this is to prevent himself from offending an entirely new group of people (those few who are left who still think vietnam was a good idea, or just those who supported that government), i just find it so sad that he's forced to be dishonest about his own, obviously passionate, views.
however, i like the guy more and more, the more i see of him. though it's obviously not something that's likely to happen, he challenged bush to monthly debates on the gig issues - foreign affairs, health, education and so on. the thing is, bush just doesn't seem to want a bar of this - whereas kerry is quite confident that he could debate these issues thoroughly and fairly, bush continues to act as if they're not even important, and won't at all be drawn into logical debates on them.
fuck i feel bad for america
Naughtiest_Maximus
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2004
- Messages
- 989
The only way Bush could paticipate in any meaningful or topical debate was if there was ten minute time delay between questions.
That way his advisors could;
Make sure he understood the question, though i don't think they could actually use the big words in doing this.
And phrase a response, reminding him what the big words in his response actually mean.
Have to agree with you 1,2,3,4,, i would hate to be an American politician whereby the encumbant goverment calls all the shots in what access you are granted to political debate. If you can't fight an election on politiacl issues fairly they might as well call it Mr America, and televise it as a Populariity Pageant. ( I know i said Mr, but we don't even look like getting a female Prime Minister soon. What Chance ce do the States Have). At the least they might gain more voter interest.
Or what about American President Idol.
That way his advisors could;
Make sure he understood the question, though i don't think they could actually use the big words in doing this.
And phrase a response, reminding him what the big words in his response actually mean.
Have to agree with you 1,2,3,4,, i would hate to be an American politician whereby the encumbant goverment calls all the shots in what access you are granted to political debate. If you can't fight an election on politiacl issues fairly they might as well call it Mr America, and televise it as a Populariity Pageant. ( I know i said Mr, but we don't even look like getting a female Prime Minister soon. What Chance ce do the States Have). At the least they might gain more voter interest.
Or what about American President Idol.
tnargus
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 2,847
*bump*
Some interesting discussion here.....and some more prolly warranted after the new Iraqi torture pics....
I am too tired now for getting worked up over the fucked up state of affairs that is the USA.....i feel sick when i see those three letters, i really do
I will simply say this.....Kerry is the lesser of two evils, vote him in....
Some interesting discussion here.....and some more prolly warranted after the new Iraqi torture pics....
I am too tired now for getting worked up over the fucked up state of affairs that is the USA.....i feel sick when i see those three letters, i really do
I will simply say this.....Kerry is the lesser of two evils, vote him in....
Raving Loony
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 3,181
It's a really bad state of affairs. Kerry and Bush are both dorks. I think the democratic party backed their money behind the wrong guy during the Primaries.
But no-one should underestimate how huge these torture/prison conditions all are. Even the most staunch supporters of the war have been asking themselves some serious questions. Even Andrew Sullivan in his blog is turning in his sleep asking himself if would have supported the war if he knew what would have happened by now.
But seriously. That muppet Bush has to go, long with him a number of high ranking officials (hopefully tried for war crimes). Five hundred Americians were hung in relation to war crimes committed on European soil in WWII, so I don't see what should stop the US from being charged here.
Man I getting fired up for today.
Edit typos.
But no-one should underestimate how huge these torture/prison conditions all are. Even the most staunch supporters of the war have been asking themselves some serious questions. Even Andrew Sullivan in his blog is turning in his sleep asking himself if would have supported the war if he knew what would have happened by now.
But seriously. That muppet Bush has to go, long with him a number of high ranking officials (hopefully tried for war crimes). Five hundred Americians were hung in relation to war crimes committed on European soil in WWII, so I don't see what should stop the US from being charged here.
Man I getting fired up for today.
Edit typos.
Last edited:
endlesseulogy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,831
the democrat john kerry looks like a good pick.. not just because he has a good stance on drug users :> if bush lost at the last election things would have been different.. i miss the days of clinton.. he brought moderation. if kerry gets in we will see change.. he seems to have more REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE then george bush, who is absolutly clueless.. he is a fundementalist christian
onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2002
- Messages
- 14,382
clinton wasn't really fantastic either (he just had a likeable personality). i think kerry's a little better, but he's not exactly the raging lefty that i'd like to see elected
but hey, it's a million steps up from bush.
but hey, it's a million steps up from bush.