The CASE for change in the USA Administration!
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Results 1 to 10 of 10
    1. #1
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Sep 2004

      The CASE for change in the USA Administration!

      "President Bush did an admirable job of leading the country following the 9/11 attacks and rightly sent troops into Afghani-stan to root out Osama bin Laden and the Tali-ban. But, he never completed the mission.

      Instead, he turned his attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein and laid out what was, at the time, a convincing argument that the cruel dictator was an imminent threat to the U.S., had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to al-Qaida. As we have since found out, little to none of that was the truth.

      Bush claims he was fed inaccurate information, but a pattern has emerged indicating he was fixated on Iraq and his administration distorted information to support their view and discounted data that contradicted it. One tragic result of that was the miscalculation on the amount of force needed to keep the peace in Iraq after Saddam was removed.

      Some 140,000 American troops and smaller legions from a handful of allies have battled bravely, but those are insufficient numbers to both handle the waves of insurgents who believe they are fighting a holy war and secure Iraq's borders. The term "quagmire" accurately portrays the situation.

      Despite this - and the loss of 1,100 American soldiers - Bush claims we are winning the war in Iraq. If he remains president, we may just do so some time in the distant future.

      Contrary to Bush's claim that Kerry would "cut and run" in Iraq, Kerry has repeatedly said more boots on the ground is what's needed to bring a quicker end to the war. Over-whelming force and more participation by allies is Kerry's plan, which has been endorsed by many former joint chiefs and members of prior presidential administrations.

      Kerry is right when he said Iraq is the wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time. But now that we're fully engaged, Kerry has a better plan to end the war and secure the peace.

      From the The Leader

    2. Remove Advertisements


    3. #2
      Global Moderator GrecianVolvo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2001
      Southern California

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (SurfOnline)

      Bush's Flip-Flopping on Saddam

      1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM.

      On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because 'The Donald R.' went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam's right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

      1990: WE HATE SADDAM.

      In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.


      After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

      1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE.

      In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.


      Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:

      "I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously." - October 3, 2000

      2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT.

      When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:

      Powell: "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." --February 24, 2001

      Rice: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." --July 29, 2001


      Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.


      After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!


      Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!


      Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

      Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

      I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

      And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

      That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.



      2001 Volvo V70 T5 M SR, Classic Red/Graphite Lthr, TME Stage II ECU, 3" Downpipe w/ Cat-back exhaust from MTE, Volvo Roadholding & Lowering Kit w/ Nivomats, 17" PEGASUS, Rear Spoiler, Dolby Surround Sound
      2019 V90 Cross Country Osmium Grey metallic w/ Charcoal L, Advance, Retractable Tow Hitch, Polestar, 19" wheels
      2019 S60 T6 AWD Inscription Black w/ Maroon/Brown L, Advanced, Heated Seats/Steering, Charcoal Headliner, Park Assist Pilot, 4C, Ext Styling Kit, 19" wheels, Polestar

    4. #3
      Senior Member Steinman101's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2004

    5. Remove Advertisements

    6. #4
      Administrator chris@swedespeed's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2000
      DC Metro

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (SurfOnline)

      I don't like either of our choices. Which one will do the least damage in the coming 4 yrs?

      They both lie, cheat and steal -- they are politicians.

      I was planning to vote for Bush but I am now leaning to Kerry ONLY because I am taking the position that as a CEO Bush has done a poor job and has not taken responsibility for failing policies. And I don't feel he has lived up to his campaing promise from 2000 to unite Washington. We are move divided then we were when Clinton was in office.

      2017 S90 Inscription (daily)
      2016 S60CC (next generation Volvo driver)
      2017 XC90 Momentum Plus (family)

      2019 XC40 R-Design T5 AWD, 2017 V90 Cross Country T6 AWD , 2018 V60 Polestar #103/1500, 2016 XC90 R-Design, 2013 C30 Polestar #141/250,2015.5 V60 R-Design,1998 V70 T5M, 1999 S70 GLT, 2000 V70R, 2004 V70R, 2006 V70R Sonic Blue, 2006 V70R Electric Silver, 2007 V70R Passion Red, 2003 XC90 2.5T, 2007 XC90 V8 Sport Electric Silver, 2007 XC90 Sport V8, Passion Red

    7. #5

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! ([email protected])

      Sadly, I must agree that neither candidate is a paragon of virtue.

      I will hold my nose and vote for Bush tomorrow, because I don't believe that Kerry is a credible alternative.
      No matter who wins I wouldn't count on bipartisanship making a comeback.
      Bipartisanship only occurs when one party is beaten into submission by the electorate. Since the nation is almost evenly divided both parties expend alot of time and effort trying to eke out a slim majority.
      This has to especially rile the Democrats who were in the clear majority for so long.

      2017 S90 T6 Inscription Polestar. Volvo #7!

    8. #6
      Administrator chris@swedespeed's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2000
      DC Metro

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (petew)

      Everyone I speak with is fed up with both candidates. I don't like either of them. I am leaning towards Kerry for these reasons

      1.) I am holding Bush accountable like a CEO ; his performance has not been good enough. He has poorly managed Iraq and the military is extremely frustrated:
      a) having their hands tied and not allowed to do what they are trained to do
      b) the ones I have spoken with who recently returned feel as though they are just over there getting shot up and serving no other purpose.
      c) the reservists and national guard are being abused. Some were activated in December of 2002 and are still overseas.

      2.) At every opportunity to open the door, Bush does not even consider the possibility that he may have made or may have to make changes to his policies when the facts show they are not working:
      a) very little has been passed with a Republican president and republican majority in Congress
      b) his continued arrogance is not something we need in a leader.

      3.) Stem cell research
      a) if scientists are going to throw away cells, there should be an opportunity to do some good with them.

      4.) Our relations with the rest of the world may be irreparably ruined for decades
      a) Bay of Pigs - JFK asked the leader of France if he would like to see the pictures and his response was "The word of the U.S. President is good enough." The world will not trust us again after Iraq
      b) The United Nations should have been the ones to go into Iraq. The United States was not going to be directly affected by a WMD program in Iraq if additional time was given to the U.N. inspectors.
      c) The U.S. needs to stop being the world's police force and the world should force the U.N. to do its job
      d) Our military is spread too thin -- we are involved in over 30 conflicts around the globe.

      5.) Bush fails to look at the results of history and the impact of our actions
      a) The middle east has been in turmoil for decades, we can not change their minds by occupying a country in the heart of the middle east.
      b) Should our policies and acceptance of Israel and their actions continue?
      c) What was the fall of the Roman Empire, Great Britain's failure? All over extended themselves in an attempt to push their ideals into all parts of the world and we are doing the same.

      6) Bush's 2000 campaign promise was to unite washington
      a) he failed to do so and in the process we are more divided and we have a more visceral response to Bush, you either like him or really dislike him. Very sad.
      b) he not only failed to unite Washington but he has alienated us from the world.

      7) The biggest question is: Will Iraq turn out to be an error in policy or error in judgment?
      An error in judgment means: We misjudged that removing Sadaam would put Iraq into a state of chaos and that it will never be able to unite as one country.
      An error in policy means: We are mismanaging the assets we have and with corrective action we maybe able to save and build a country.

      An error in judgment is the worse case scenario -- another Vietnam. We will stay for another year or so and basically walk away with a body count of the dead.

      8) I think Kerry will "open the door" to the possibility that other countries might help us. I don't think they will but at least with Bush gone they could use that as an excuse. There is money to be made in Iraq so who knows.

      9) Too many coincidental ties to big businesses and oil
      a) why are we not sending troops to the Sudan when we sent troops to Bosnia when there was genocide there?

      Iraq is a mess and no matter who gets elected, that president will be defined by how we exit.

      2017 S90 Inscription (daily)
      2016 S60CC (next generation Volvo driver)
      2017 XC90 Momentum Plus (family)

      2019 XC40 R-Design T5 AWD, 2017 V90 Cross Country T6 AWD , 2018 V60 Polestar #103/1500, 2016 XC90 R-Design, 2013 C30 Polestar #141/250,2015.5 V60 R-Design,1998 V70 T5M, 1999 S70 GLT, 2000 V70R, 2004 V70R, 2006 V70R Sonic Blue, 2006 V70R Electric Silver, 2007 V70R Passion Red, 2003 XC90 2.5T, 2007 XC90 V8 Sport Electric Silver, 2007 XC90 Sport V8, Passion Red

    9. #7

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (petew)

      Quote, originally posted by petew »
      My father was a Navy man. In the Navy, when the ship runs aground, the captain goes down. No excuses, no exceptions.

      Bush is responsible for 911. He did nothing. His staff did nothing. He was warned, time and time again, over and over, by the staff of the outgoing Clinton admininstration that Bin Laden and the terrorists were dangerously organized to strike inside the US, just as they had in 1993 at the World Trade Center. Bush, who never makes mistakes ( like Jesus...only better ), dismissed and ignored every warning. He went fishing. You can look it up: he went fishing.

      Bush's terrorisit expert canceled the August vacations of every member of his staff and pleaded with the Neo Cons (the guys who tell Bush what to say) to have a high-level security and intelligence meeting immediately, to bring in the heads of all the intelligence agencies and the attourney general and cabinate to make plans to thwart an imminent terrorist attack in the United States. Again, Bush went out of his way to ignore the warning. National Security Advisor Rice, and expert on the Soviet Union (which hasn't existed for decades), even today, is without a clue...say's she can't remember reading a presidential daily report titled: "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Crash Hijacked Jetliners in United States". Do you feel safe?

      Bush was the Captain of the Ship of State on 910. He didn't go down with the ship. He didn't fire anybody. Not a single person...not after 911, not after Abu Ghraib, not after the missing God, he can do nothing wrong, and is accountable to no man; no God.

      He can't think of a single mistake he ever made. He tells us that he doesn't have to tell us why he does things.

      He attacked a soverin nation without the consent of Congress, or the United Nations that had nothing to do, after years and years of searching for evidence, with the 911 terrorist attacks.

      They are war criminals...Kerry's first act should be to turn them all over to the Haig to be tried in an international court.

      Bush seems strong to the weak-minded, but his strength is all superficial, like a schoolyard bully. And like a schoolyard bully, he's crippled inside--weak, deeply flawed: what he want's is the approval of a strong father figure: and this is what the Neo Cons have exploited to take over the government.

      They are using God in the worst way: to kill the American Dream, to execute Hope, to murder Faith.

    10. #8

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (SurfOnline)

      ALL of the 6 year olds in our neighborhood are smarter and have more common sense than our current leader!

    11. #9
      Member 24Hours's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2002
      New York City area

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (petew)

      Good post. I agree with much of your statement, which I think centers on the hypocrisy of the Dubya clan. However, the one point I don't agree with is that he didn't have the blessing of Congress, which he did in fact have. You know why? B/c we all got duped! Congress members included. Why did that masterful hypocritical document the "Patriot Act" ever pass? B/c congressional member didn't read it, they just wanted to be sure that their constituents viewed their votes as "pro America." What a load of crap.

      Benjamin Franklin said that "When a people are willing to exchange civil liberties for security, they will have neither." Truer words could not have been spoken over 200 years ago.

      Does anyone here recall what the events of the Reichstag Fire were? Anyone? Yeah, the German Parliament building burned and the Nazi party blamed it on the Communist party. President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency. Since our Constitution doesn't have an Art 48 (but then, what's Marshall Law?), we were duped with the "Patriot Act." Some of the PA has already been struck down as unconstitutional.

      There are some very interesting similarities between the events of 1933 in Germany and those in the US in 2001.

      '19 E63 S AMG Wagon; '16 LR4 Landmark
      '87 245DL; '96 Red/Tan 855R; '04 Ti V70R; '05 Red/Nord V70R; '07 E-Sil/Ata V70R... last R into US; '07 AMG Wagon; '12 Range Rover; '14 AMG Wagon

    12. #10
      Senior Member
      Join Date
      Dec 2003

      Re: The CASE for change in the USA Administration! (petew)

      Pete: I disagree that the BUshies have no principles. The Bushies ( and the hard core GOp faithful) are committed to the principle of destroying strong government. If you attend meetings of certain groups (i.e. The Federalist Society) you will meet people who firmly believe that the best way to maximize profits (and promote unfettered capitalism) is to make government (at any level) much less effective. This can be done in many ways, and if you review the Bushies approach you will see this objective is always promoted by their actions. They are starving local governments of funds through unfunded mandates (No Child Left Behind being jus tone example). They are spending the U.S. treasury into bankruptcy. They have gotten the U.S. involved in a morass (Iraq) that will be extremely expensive to win and extremely expensive to extricate ourselves from.

      If destruction of national governments is the goal, the Bushies have been remarkably successful.

      Keep in mind that they achieve that goal by being really bad at governing. By fostering distrust of government through bad government (see Watt, Burford, Lavelle, Poindexter/North/Iran-Contra) they achieve their goals.

      Government gets in the way of profits. Plain and simple.

      PS We should always question it when an event occurs that hands someone a windfall. The Bushies, before 9/11, would have wanted nothing more than to increase military spending and create an uber agency on domestic intelligence. These people were never happy with the separation between the FBI and the CIA. The Bushies could haver have achieved these goals without 9/11. Because of that, you have to be suspicious.

      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD (OSD purchase - June)(for towing/camping and backroad journeys)(100,000 miles); 2008 C30 T5 (MT) OSD purchase (December)(mine); 2004 Porsche Boxster (used)(hers); 2007 Prius (handed down)

    13. Remove Advertisements