George Bush: How did he change in eight years?

CA95380

USMB Member
Jul 23, 2008
2,779
188
48
Central California
....and he made it sound so believable. :eusa_eh:

[youtube]F9SOVzMV2bc[/youtube]

:eusa_shhh: This is a good example why Republican's (like myself), voted for "Change" by voting for Obama. :cool:
 
....and he made it sound so believable. :eusa_eh:

[youtube]F9SOVzMV2bc[/youtube]

:eusa_shhh: This is a good example why Republican's (like myself), voted for "Change" by voting for Obama. :cool:

He ran on a great foreign policy, then changed his mind. Obama isn't going to change anything, however. More nation building, more policing the world, a continuation of the "war on terror," and I'm sure we'll remain hostile towards Iran as well.
 
He ran on a great foreign policy, then changed his mind. Obama isn't going to change anything, however. More nation building, more policing the world, a continuation of the "war on terror," and I'm sure we'll remain hostile towards Iran as well.

I, for one, am/and/was willing to at least give Obama a chance for "change". A change from what we have had for 8 years (really the last 4 years). It was said before the election, and the fact still remains ... Bush was one of the huge reasons Mcain lost the election, we Republican's lost faith in the party. The other equation for McCain losing was, and is, obvious. Sarah Palin. He had one strike against him (Bush) from the "get-go" ... then he buried himself when he chose her, as his running mate. :eusa_eh:
 
Wow - a Republican politician lied during his campaign to get elected.

Read my lips, I am NOT a crook!
 
Wow - a Republican politician lied during his campaign to get elected.

Read my lips, I am NOT a crook!

Wow. Any politician lied during his campaign to get elected. Of course, such a thing could never, ever happen again. From now on, we can take every campaign promise at face value, secure in the knowledge that everything any candidate says will come to pass immediately after the election.

Sure, that's the ticket, sure.

As for what happened, the philosophy of the PNAC had a huge influence on foreign policy during the Bush Administration.

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
 
Bush was never a real success in business. He sure wasn't as president.

You may be able to get anyone elected, but that doesn't mean they can do the job. He looks and acts like he just wants to get the hell out of Washington and go back to where ever he will go.

Clinton blew it in office, but did a good job otherwise. He also did not want to leave office because he was equal to the task.
 
He didn't change at all. He started out as an incompetent buffoon and remains one to his day.
 
Bush was never a real success in business. He sure wasn't as president.

You may be able to get anyone elected, but that doesn't mean they can do the job. He looks and acts like he just wants to get the hell out of Washington and go back to where ever he will go.

Clinton blew it in office, but did a good job otherwise. He also did not want to leave office because he was equal to the task.

the cfr would disagree with you bush succeed in the goals they set forth for him in the pnac plan in splendid fashion...and Clinton did not blow it in the office...that was Monica
 
Last edited:
I have come to the conclusion Bush and what he says are not connected. It is as if he suffers from some aliment that doesn't allow him to reflect on his words or his deeds. I wish he could leave now.
 
I have come to the conclusion Bush and what he says are not connected. It is as if he suffers from some aliment that doesn't allow him to reflect on his words or his deeds. I wish he could leave now.

well at least he got rid of sadam ...I mean he was a emanate threat...I mean ...gathering threat... and he had all those wmds...I mean wmd...programs...or ..er... plans for wmd programs ,,and before George bush the woman of Afghanistan and Iraq where mistreated by their men folk..so it wasn't a total write off....
 
...... "so it so it wasn't a total write off" So what you are saying justifies assassination of a leader of a country? (Yes, Saddam was an asshole, but he was still the leader of a country, and deserved to die in the eyes of the innocent people in his country, but it should have been them that killed him, not us.)

So ..... George W. decided that anyone "threatens" us .... is a target for assassination? Sadam was a threat to his own people, he did not attack the United States .... but that almost forgotten guy (Bin Laden - the founder of al-Qaeda) did ... then slips away in Afghanistan .... and we still can not find him? Once it was proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq (even after Bush had been told that there was none) .....
CIA Warned Bush Of No WMD In Iraq
..... would someone tell me why George W. let up on Bin Laden, and went after Saddam ... maybe I will understand better, if you do. :eusa_pray:
 
Last edited:
...... "so it so it wasn't a total write off" So what you are saying justifies assassination of a leader of a country? (Yes, Saddam was an asshole, but he was still the leader of a country, and deserved to die in the eyes of the innocent people in his country, but it should have been them that killed him, not us.)

So ..... George W. decided that anyone "threatens" us .... is a target for assassination? Sadam was a threat to his own people, he did not attack the United States .... but that almost forgotten guy (Bin Laden - the founder of al-Qaeda) did ... then slips away in Afghanistan .... and we still can not find him? Once it was proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq (even after Bush had been told that there was none) .....
CIA Warned Bush Of No WMD In Iraq
..... would someone tell me why George W. let up on Bin Laden, and went after Saddam ... maybe I will understand better, if you do. :eusa_pray:

You may want to check your facts Saddam Hussein was not assassinated. In fact we would have saved a lot of time money and lives if you liberal dumb shits would let us assassinate people like him.

He was captured ALIVE and turned over to the New Iraqi Government, which tried him in Court and executed him for his crimes.
 
You may want to check your facts Saddam Hussein was not assassinated. In fact we would have saved a lot of time money and lives if you liberal dumb shits would let us assassinate people like him.

He was captured ALIVE and turned over to the New Iraqi Government, which tried him in Court and executed him for his crimes.

Ok, if you say so. :eusa_whistle:
 
Ok, if you say so. :eusa_whistle:

Are you claiming what I posted is not correct? That we did not capture Saddam Hussein alive? That we did not turn him over to the new Government? That he was not tried in court and found guilty and sentenced to death by said Court? That he was not executed following his sentence?

Claiming he was assassinated is ignorant as hell. But then that is not as bad as you trying to tell us you were a republican.
 
Are you claiming what I posted is not correct? That we did not capture Saddam Hussein alive? That we did not turn him over to the new Government? That he was not tried in court and found guilty and sentenced to death by said Court? That he was not executed following his sentence?

Claiming he was assassinated is ignorant as hell. But then that is not as bad as you trying to tell us you were a republican.

I believe that is what you call .... an opinion. My opinion. You have your's - I have mine.
 
Last edited:
...... "so it so it wasn't a total write off" So what you are saying justifies assassination of a leader of a country? (Yes, Saddam was an asshole, but he was still the leader of a country, and deserved to die in the eyes of the innocent people in his country, but it should have been them that killed him, not us.)

So ..... George W. decided that anyone "threatens" us .... is a target for assassination? Sadam was a threat to his own people, he did not attack the United States .... but that almost forgotten guy (Bin Laden - the founder of al-Qaeda) did ... then slips away in Afghanistan .... and we still can not find him? Once it was proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq (even after Bush had been told that there was none) .....
CIA Warned Bush Of No WMD In Iraq
..... would someone tell me why George W. let up on Bin Laden, and went
after Saddam ... maybe I will understand better, if you do. :eusa_pray:

my sarcasm escaped you....
 
I believe that is what you call .... an opinion. My opinion. You have your's - I have mine.

There is no opinion to it you dumb shit. He was tried and convicted for crimes by competent authority and executed for said crimes. Now go look up the word Assassinate.
 
Myth : The word assassin is derived from the word hashish.

It is a common myth that the word assassin comes from the Arabic word haschishin for hashish user.

The story is that al-Hassan ibn-al-Sabbah used hashish to enlist the aid of young men into his private army known as assassins (aschishin - or follower of Hassan). One of the primary sources for this information comes from the writings of Marco Polo who visited the area in 1273, almost 150 years after the reign of Al-Hassan.

There are many conflicting facts and sources for this information.

In the early 11th century, al-Hassan became the head of the Persian sect of the Ismailians, a rather obscure party of fanatics which gained local power under his guidance. In 1090, al-Hassan and his followers seized the castle of Alamut, in the province of Rudbar, which lies in the mountainous region south of the Caspian Sea. It was from this mountain home that he obtained evil celebrity among the Crusaders as "the old man of the mountains", and spread terror through the Mohammedan world.

In the account given by Marco Polo in "The Adventures [or Travels] of Marco Polo" it is told that "The Old Man kept at his court such boys of twelve years old as seemed to him destined to become courageous men. When the Old Man sent them into the garden in groups of four, ten or twenty, he gave them hashish to drink. They slept for three days, then they were carried sleeping into the garden where he had them awakened.

"When these young men woke, and found themselves in the garden with all these marvelous things, they truly believed themselves to be in paradise. And these damsels were always with them in songs and great entertainments; they; received everything they asked for, so that they would never have left that garden of their own will."

When the Old Man wished to kill someone, he would take a young man and tell him they could return to Paradise if they entered his service and followed his instructions or died in his service.

From this account it is farily clear that hashish was not the substance used. First, hashish is seldom prepared in a liquid form Hassan would drug young men with a substance which "cast them into a deep sleep" from which they could not be awakened. They were then carried to a beautiful secret garden which was impenetrable and unseen by any but those intended to be his haschishin. When they awoke in the garden, surrounded by beautiful naked women and boys, they were told that they were in Paradise. After a few hours of bliss, they were again made unconscious with the unknown substance. Awakening back in the presence of "The Old Man of the Mountain" they were told that he had given them this glimpse of Paradise and that they would go to Paradise if they entered his service and followed his instructions or died in his service. Thus, he recruited an army of assassins who were the first terrorist gang.


Etymology of Assassin
 

Forum List

Back
Top