Was it Worth it, Mr. bush?
You told us one of the reasons for this war was that Saddam tried to kill your daddy. Now Saddam is dead. Was it worth the deaths of so many other mommies and daddies to seek your selfish revenge? Were all the deaths and injuries worth it Mr. bush? If Saddam tried to kill your daddy, he failed. You were much more successful in your quest. Because of your desires, much blood has been spilled and many children no longer have one or both their parents with them. Was it worth it Mr. Bush?
posted by pissed off patricia at 1:11 AM
44 Comments:
You Directly called the Pres. out on his actions. I admire that very much. I would love to hear his responce. He would most likely dodge the question.
I almost forgot. Would you like to join the Rouge Gallery? It just means that I link you. I will add it. Tell me if you don't want me to link you, and I will remove it.
In his psychopathic eyes, the answer is "yes." But it must be remembered, he was on a "mission from God" to "rid the world of evil." That is of course, never reported by the MSM, forever buried in the taped speeches he made at obscure locations.
They should hang a few more.......
There ain't no way in hell he has enough sack to directly answer that question.
He usually answers most questions with another question or the same "terrorists are evil and must die" mantra he's been trotting out for the past 5 years.
I'm quite surprised that you've found a reference from him that this truly was his personal vendetta for which he has now murdered more American soldiers than Bin Laden murdered folks on 9/11.
He usually drags out that tired old "WMD....Terrahists....Al Queda" song and dance routine.
By all the normal measures he is insane or at least mentally challenged. He would, therefore, answer yes to your question. He will still be answering yes when 4000, 5000, or 6000 more young American lives have been wasted.
::cough::
::cough::
You told us one of the reasons for this war was that Saddam tried to kill your daddy.
Can anyone provide a link where this statement is proven?
If not, it is a disservice to all to make things up out of whole cloth about George Bush. He's done plenty enough crappy things that we do not have to resort to that, do we?
For Mr Bush, those other deaths are just collateral damage. He will sleep well becuase he has no conscience. It is obvious he has sold his soul and now takes great pleasure in spilling blood, while foul lies and excrement spew from his head.
Sold his soul - how else can you explain the worst disaster on the face of the earth and still be in power. If I believed in superstition or supernatural, this would be the great Satan, shielded by Christian scriptural propaganda.
3000+ US deaths. 100000 - 600000 innocent Iraqis dead, caused by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, that was advised against by our own military and the UN. What did we just hang Saddam for? What a f--king hyprcrite.
hypocrite
That W did say something very much like that during or before the 2000 election campaign is a claim I have seen circulating around the Left side of Blogtopia for many years. I believe I first read it somewhere or other "respectable" like _The Progressive_ or _Mother Jones_ or _The American Prospect_ even before 9/11/01. There is at least one mainstream campaign biography that mentions it too.
If he were smart, he wouldn't have said it anytime in 2002 or pre-invasion 2003. But he's not smart, so I would bet he did say it again during the run-up.
From the beginning of this meme, which I for one take for fact, the discussion has been that he _simultaneously_ wanted revenge on his father's behalf, and also to surpass his father.
Whether someone can find a quote or not, I think it is clear to all and sundry by now that W is both dumb enough and vain enough to have been guided by this very thought process.
I don't think Dubya thinks of "the people" as anything but combustible material, something to use for his own purposes and desires. He is, without a doubt, the most self-centered, egotistical and ignorant President ever so I am sure his response would be, "Sure, and I'd do it again."
The exact quote can be found Here
"And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
Sept. 27, 2002
Shrub would never give you an honest answer to your question.
I have always thought his motivation was to please his father. Thanks for pointing this out. It is so obvious to me. Don't understand how others don't see this or don't want to see this truly transparent fact.
Beth a/k/a no a/ka/ Viking
That's a rhetorical question, right? This has to be the most blatant and convoluted attempt by the US to overthrow a dictator in a "rogue" regime and prop up a friendly government since we meddled in the affairs of Venzuela and Iran in the 80s, which should have suggested to us that this bullshit doesn't usually work. 3000 dead Americans and 3 dead Iraqi thugs. Great math.
Oh, and "Midwest progressive," that quote of Dumya's is so widely known and well documented that challenging it sounds a bit like something that comes from a troll. Is your screen name rhetorical as well?
Well, he will die one day. Then I will have a lot of fun with him.
I see.
Isn't it a leap to go from "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." all the way to "You told us one of the reasons for this war was that Saddam tried to kill your daddy."
And Pogo, my I'll stand by my credentials. Click through from the profile to my weblog and decide for yourself. Or don't, it matters very little to me.
As I said, the quote is not really in dispute. POP's fabrication that this was "one of the reasons for the war" is.
It serves nobody to make things up - but hey, whatever, I'll move along. It appears that POP's readers will brook no dissent here.
More's the pity. The right wing already has an echo chamber. What we probably need is another one.
Well, since we don't really know a direct answer to why we are at war and devastating a country; killing and maiming thousands who had nothing to do with 9/11, we have no choice but to come up with possible reasons. Given Bush's blatant disregard for laws and treaties, we can only assume his rationale is less than intelligent. Probably more like psychopathic would be my guess.
Sadly he would probably say it was worth it, he is so caught up in his own self centered goals he isn't capable of seeing beyond that.
He's too busy decidering to think about it right now!
one of the biggest obstacles in trying to make sense of this conflict is that the real reasons have been so obscured by lies and illusions. i mean, we're already on the fourth or fifth reasons for going in/staying the course. every single reason they have brought forward from WMD's to links to Al-Quaida have been discredited and exposed. Now we are left with lame ass stuff like "we can't leave Iraq in chaos" or "we are not going to revisit the past." at least "he tried to kill my daddy" makes some kind of visceral sense. i doubt that it is anything that clear or sensible. the main impression i have gotten from my reading (and i read a lot, from all sides), is that a bunch of callow frat boys who have never actually had to sacrifice or serve decided that they could waltz in, take over, and pump an endless stream of $2 per gallon gas into the american economy and go down in history as big fucking heroes.
oops, they fucked that up.
Sadly, Bush doesn't think in those terms, PoP. Some lives are really expendable in the pursuit of profit and oil. In keeping business as usual, some of the usual business is the poor, unrepresented die. It's part of the cost of doing business. Those of us outside that circle just don't see the real equation, that's why we prattle on about lives. Sheesh. We actually think those lives are worth something. A quaint notion, indeed. Yes, Saddam tried to kill Bush Senior, and probably played some weird part in this whole debacle.
POP,
if the W, happens to answer this post could you let me know?
I am wondering, what we're doing there now and why exactly were escalating our presence in Iraq now that Saddam is literally gone, there are no WMD, etc.
Wait a minute; even a theoretical or rhetorical question to Bush is likely to elicit a response which is less than truthful. This is a guy who is incapable of admitting that he is wrong.
Midwest progressive, whining about your position not being accepted is pretty weak stuff. You challenged PoP's position and others challenged you back. If that's your notion of "not being allowed to dissent", then maybe you don't understand the difference between "conflicting opinions" and "permission". Let me put it this way: can you still post in this thread? If so, you are allowed to dissent. At the same time, don't be surprised if someone tells you that you are wrong. That would be a "conflicting opinion", but not a denial of permission.
It isn't a stretch to view Bush's statement as a justification for the war. That's how I see it as well. I consider PoP's interpretation to be a perfectly legitimate one.
If you read the entire article, you will find the following towards the end:
"Houston is the adopted hometown of the president's father, former President Bush, and in discussing the threat posed by Saddam, the current president offered his staple list of complaints about Iraq's defiance of the United Nations and his contention that Iraq is working aggressively on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. "This is a man who continually lies," Bush said.
He said the Iraqi leader's "hatred" was largely directed at the United States and added: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
In other words, in the course of listing reasons why Hussein had to be removed from power, Bush made that statement about his "daddy". If the context and the paragraphs I quoted aren't enough to convince you that PoP is correct that is fine, but the legitimacy of PoP's interpetation is, I believe, upheld by them. You could argue an alternative interpretation of Bush's remarks, but you cannot say definitively that PoP is incorrect in her interpretation.
Midwest, I did look at your blog, and don't doubt your bona fides as a progressive, and you appear to be a bright, insightful individual (in other words, I agree with much of what you've p\posted there). That said, I do disagree with your characterization of POP's comment being a fabrication. The context of Dumya's comment was the threat posed by Saddam - here's the money quote from the CNN article covering it:
"And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." "
This was Bush's comment before invading Iraq about the threat Saddam posed. It's a very short leap to assume that the threat he articulated when asked about it was one of the reasons he decided to invade. I personally feel you are mischaracterizing PoP's comment as a fabrication and are cutting Dumya a whole lot more slack than he deserves. A stretch perhaps, although I don't consider it one, but a fabrication, definitely not. Certainly you don't buy Dumya's later stated reasons - WMD, haven for terrorists, ties to Al Quaeda, possibility of future imminent threat to our national security? Even if you do, why cut him a break on the other threat that he identified Saddam posed, although I'll grant you it could have been a gratuitous comment and did not directly respond to the question - but I attribute that to his apparent inability to give an honest and direct response to any question regarding his actions.
Well, golly, Miz condi did say redcently that the US military deaths were worth the investment. many people involved in the military business would agree, many who got caught up in this bloody mess would not.
Frankly, I don't feel empathy for anyone who thinks their kids or spouses or siblings died for some kind of righteous cause in this disaster. It looks like a Darwin Award situation to me.
Happy 2007 PoP. He'll be outta there before we know it ;)
my feeling on this subject can best be described via photo:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p62/vegasstarlet/bush.gif
I can almost hear the dear leader's emphatic voice: Damn right it was and remains to be so. The forces of evil are in retreat everywhere because of the men such as I and other patriots are doing what has to be done. All the peace loving people are joining me to achieve the lasting peace and democracy in the Middle East and nothing can stop us completing our righteous mission!
Let me see, first thing after the invasion, we found out that reason 1 was a lie, there were no WMD. Then, we we found out the ties to alQaeda and 9/11 were fabrications, then the war became about getting Saddam. Now he's gone, the Iraqis have rejected our notion of democracy, what excuse will Bush concoct to keep us there now?
Once again Bush has shown his selfishness...it's Always all about Bush....he tried to kill my daddy...well what the hell do you think you are doing to the rest of America you selfish Bastard...for one thing your daddy is still alive...all those young people you wasted their lives for what for an old man...how can you even face the people of the nation with this one....hang em' I say...
I hate to break it to you Patricia but I think Bush would say
"yeah it's worth it..I'd sacrifice ten times as much if necessary...even 100 times as much..."
Given the fact Bush claims to be on a mission from God complete with voices in his delusional state makes it hard to believe he gives a rat's ass about the amount of death and destruction caused by these fantasies. He is always trying to prove something in his love/hate relationship with Poppy, including hanging Saddam.
We happen to be a part of the most powerful and dysfunctional family this country may have ever known.
Wow so because it wasn't the only reason or PoP paraphrased - that meansd we have no tolerance for dissent?
She gave you the link you asked for. Most of us heard it already.
Did somebody shit in your cheerios or something today?
There were many reasons, many people involved. many people behind setting these events into motion. I dont think PoP is saying its the ONLY reason.
But he did make a comment consistent with what she said here.
Dont you think the barrage of crap is a bit disproportionate to what transpired here?
The quote was disputed. She gave the link. Clean your face off and deal.
Checking in to say happy new year, and all that. Thank you for pointing out that there are many grieving people, the point is that the war was started under false pretenses and it isn't getting better. Time to leave.
Bush - "Why yes it was. My Corporate friends have made Billions and with the coming proposed troop surge more money will be made. My Fundy friends love this On the Road to Armageddon stuff. The members of the Authoritarian Enforcement Services love the new Police State. My friends the Bin Ladens couldn't be happier. My main House bitch Pelosi has been convinced by my and her AIPAC friends not to dig too deep or pursue impeachment."
"Don't take it personal. It's just business. It's not like you have any choice. Not since we got rid of that sonabitch Kennedy."
Signed, Your Glorious Leader George Baby Killer Bush
Happy New year, Pops, Fred and Pat. A little late but really early for next year.
While Bush has done some really stupid things, the real issue is so many people did not and still do not see thru his words to his actions. That bothers me more than Bush using them for his personal agenda. A friend of mine claled him a typical Fascist in that only he knows what is best for everyone.
Midwestern "Progressive" (concern-troll is more like it): here is your link to a CNN article in which Bush is quoted as saying, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." It was in September 2002, and was reported from Houston.
Considering your unwillingness or inability to use Google to find out this simple fact, why should we give you the time of day, let alone care about your "progressive" credentials?
In my haste I failed to note that POP had already posted the link. But our "concern troll" keeps changing the ground rules for the discussion. Now, all of a sudden, it isn't the quote, but something POP said, that is cause for all the whining.
POP, this thing on your thread is undoubtedly a troll. That it is a "concern troll" (one who uses the pretense of being on your side as a vehicle for hammering your position) is irrelevant. The whining about not tolerating dissent, troll-fare if ever there was such, is irrelevant. A troll is a troll is a troll. You don't have to allow it to hijack any more threads. It's your blog. They're your threads. Give it some thought.
Well well, our Mr. Bates here certainly has a lot to say about me! He's not terrily well informed, though, is he?
I wonder if he would be surprised to learn that I've been promoting POP on my own weblog, here and here and even here, going back nearly a year.
Why, POP has been on my blogroll for nearly that entire time - which, of course, Mr. Bates could have learned with just a few clicks. Talk about "unwillingness or inability to use Google to find out this simple fact". It would not have even taken Google for our Mr. Bates here to better inform himself before posting his attack.
Indeed, if those are acts of "trolls" my guess if POP might like more trolls promoting her writing.
It becomes more clear, the more one considers it, that our Mr. Bates here is an utterly uninformed reader.
Sorry to have disagreed with you, POP. Really.
Belligerent people who challenge facts without even troubling to Google them do not merit the attention of a visit to their site.
Heh.
As if we needed further evidence of just exactly how uninformed you are.
It was good of you to provide this additional proof.
Thanks for that, Mr. Bates.
Hey! How'd you post that, Midwestern Progressive? I thought you weren't permitted to dissent around here and here you are dissenting again. How'd that happen? Did you get a permission slip from your doctor? Did the Dissent Fairy whack you with a magic Contrarian Wand?
Post a Comment
<< Home