Mr. Bush and His 10 Ever-Changing Different Positions on Ira

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Hmmmm. Desperate tactics by a desperate man?

bbchris

9/22/04

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!

Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

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 Saddams 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.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. 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.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. 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

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! 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.

2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. 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!

2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! 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.

We can't take another minute of it.

Yours,

Michael Moore

mmflint@aol.com

www.michaelmoore.com

MIKE BURN · Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: re

Why "desperate tactics"?

Here is the first VALID argument:

Quote:
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! 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.

.....British PM Tony Blair said regarding this issue yesterday:

Quote:
(CNN)/Tuesday, September 28, 2004 Posted: 1750 GMT (0150 HKT)

BRIGHTON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has refused to apologize for the Iraq war but admitted that the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction "turned out to be wrong."

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Desperate to reclaim any sense of reality for his movie by trying to draw attention (in a negative light) to Bush, instead of trying to stand on the facts (as if there were any) surrounding his movie. Have you heard of the game "connect-the-dots" Mike?

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
..instead of trying to stand on the facts (as if there were any) surrounding his movie

Oh, so you got around to watch Fahrenheit 9/11?

You did, didn't you? You'd never say that the film lacking facts without having seen it for yourself, would you?

Such a behaviour would suggest strong character flaws, right?

Edited by: Galmin at: 10/4/04 12:21

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

"Such a behaviour would suggest strong character flaws, right?"

LOL...more like a firm grasp of the obvious!

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
LOL...more like a firm grasp of the obvious!

The only thing obvious is that you write off every single fact used in Fahrenheit 9/11 (documented facts, you know) without even having seen the movie.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Yep...you got that right, Galmin. A movie that has so much intentional fabrication is not worth my having to sit and sift through it to find value in it. And I'm suppose to pay to have to do this?...I think not. If you stop to think only about the fabrication you do know of, are you really catching all of it...or are some lies slipping through? I will not have myself brainwashed, no...though others will though, I'm sure. BTW, I watch very little TV for the same reason. Only the arrogant think they can catch and filter out everything false and misleading in what they are seeing on TV or in the movies...which is why I am careful about what I watch.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Q.E.D.

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

LOL...somebody's thinking!

bbchris · Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:27 am Post subject: Re: re

It's out on DVD here and some people here who are into Bush are questioning some of the stuff that Fahrenheit 9/11 brings into forefront. I agree with Galmin though Dreamtone7, borrow a copy to watch (so Michael Moore doesn't get your money) and then have an opinion afterwards. It's like "passion of the christ" all over again hahahahaha

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

It's a little different, chris. With "Passion", there was conflicting points of view as to the graphic nature of the film. In order to judge for yourself, you'd have to see it.

With "9/11", it is generally accepted that the film is full of intentional misrepresentations...there is no judgement call to make. It's "bogus".

Galmin · The King has spoken! Joined: 30 Dec 2001 Posts: 1711

Quote:
With "9/11", it is generally accepted that the film is full of intentional misrepresentations

That is as generally accepted as it is generally accepted that the movie is a full fledged documentary where even the interpretations made by MM is the naked truth.

Look, the movie is full of facts. Undisputed facts.

That Michael Moore lend his POV on said facts is something you can take or leave. It is, as a matter of fact, nothing more and nothing less that a point of view.

Oh this is futile, it's like talking about the taste of a La Ina Fino direct from the crate at the Bodega in Jerez de la Frontera with someone who's never heard of Pedro Domecq and never been to Spain.

Edited by: Galmin at: 10/11/04 10:28

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

Don't have to go to Spain to know they speak Spanish there, Galmin.