Supporting President Bush

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

As I have said twice before, the President is never really on vacation. His job is 24 X 7 no matter where he is. You are hung-up on location.

 

[josephdavid]

TPJCatholic:

joseph,

As for emminent threat, Bush did not say Iraq was an emminent threat. He said that he wanted to stop Iraq BEFORE they became an emminent threat because becoming emminent is too late.

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

“If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year.”
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

Yews, exactly…“IF”

 

[Della]

oat soda wrote:

bush, clinton, and kerry, only have two or less kids, and in bush’s case they happen to be twins. obviously, politians today put career over family, and treat the country the same way. what excuse could they have for not having a bigger family? surely they could adopt.

This is unfair. No one is obliged to have as many children as possible nor to adopt. You can’t possibly know if any of these couples decided to limit their families in some unlawful manner (according to the Church) or not. Many couples only have one or two children because that is all they can have due to physical problems that are no one’s business but their own. As for adopting, that too is no one’s business but theirs. Really, this is a poor way to judge anyone’s attitude towards pro-life issues as it is both unfair and uncharitable.

 

[josephdavid]

TPJCatholic:

joseph,
As for emminent threat, Bush did not say Iraq was an emminent threat. He said that he wanted to stop Iraq BEFORE they became an emminent threat because becoming emminent is too late.

President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

“If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year.”
Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

President George W. Bush on Urgent Threat:

“On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death.”
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002). ONLY LATER TO SAY THAT WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT IRAQ HAS TIES WITH AL QAIDA.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

“[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.”
Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

“If the Iraq regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than one year.”

==> Exactly, if they obtained the material they could have built a bomb. That is quite accurate and few people would argue that Saddam did not want a nuclear weapon. This statement simply supports the idea that Bush wants to avoid threats before they become emminent.

“On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death.”

==> It is a fact that Saddam killed his own people with wmds. At the time of Bush’s statement the intelligence told him that th threat was even more developed. This statement simply supports the idea that Bush wants to avoid threats before they become emminent.

“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”

==> Those are true facts, Al Qaida was inside Iraq, just not in an operational way. Bush made it clear that countries who even harbored terrorists are not on our side of this war.

“[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.”

==> He is not the President, so you are off the topic with this quote. Yet, Saddam did pose a huge threat from the point of view of the intel at that time. Try to imagine what people would think of Bush if he ignored that intel and Saddam developed nukes and used them on us…people forget that since 911 we are living in a different world with different approaches. We learn of the emminent threat of 911 as it was happening…Bush wants to erase possible emminents threats before they become truly emminent. Which is exactly what he told the nation.

 

[josephdavid]

TPJCatholic:

joseph,

“On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death.”

==> It is a fact that Saddam killed his own people with wmds. At the time of Bush’s statement the intelligence told him that th threat was even more developed. This statement simply supports the idea that Bush wants to avoid threats before they become emminent.

Where do you think they got the Chemical Weapons?

“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”

==> Those are true facts, Al Qaida was inside Iraq, just not in an operational way. Bush made it clear that countries who even harbored terrorists are not on our side of this war.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation

“[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.”

See above

==> He is not the President, so you are off the topic with this quote. Yet, Saddam did pose a huge threat from the point of view of the intel at that time. Try to imagine what people would think of Bush if he ignored that intel and Saddam developed nukes and used them on us…people forget that since 911 we are living in a different world with different approaches. We learn of the emminent threat of 911 as it was happening…Bush wants to erase possible emminents threats before they become truly emminent. Which is exactly what he told the nation.

Rummsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President. He is a representative of the Bush administration policy. Also there is no information that Bush nullified in public what Rummsfeld said.

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

Now, what about the emminent threat against unborn life in this country? What about the abortionists and women who procure abortions at a rate of 3,300+ every day? Those murdered babies sure have an emminent threat upon them and the dems want to keep that threat very live and real. You talk about the 30,000 Iraqi’s killed in the war, which is truly a horrible and tragic number, yet have you ever stopped to think about the fact that we murder that many babies in 9 DAYS?! Every nine days we have a Iraq war masacre in this nation and yet the dems think it fine to wipe out a population equal to Phoeniz, Arizona every year!

You might flat dislike Bush, that is your right. Yet, he is trying to help the poor, he is trying to defend this nation and he is trying to defend the unborn. The dems cannot make the same statement.

 

[josephdavid]

So it is ok to kill innocent people but not babies? You can not have it both ways?

Give me documented evidence what he has done for the poor, education and environment?

Please? I am humble enough to admit when I am wrong.

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

Bush never did claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911, nor have I.

Bush did make it clear that he wanted to end threats before they became emminent…congress knew what he wanted and they approved his plan.

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

It is never okay to kill innocent people. Yet, Bush was not targeting innocent people, dems do when they so viciously support killing babies.

Bush has spent more on programs for the poor then any other President…look it up. It is one of the issues that his base is so mad about…his budget is through the roof because he has increased spending in nearly all areas.

 

[josephdavid]

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

“He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.”
Source: Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney at the Heritage Foundation, White House (10/10/2003).

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

“[Since September 11] We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002). PAY ATTENTION TO THE DATE

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

“It’s a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He’s a threat.”
Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

Your last post with quotes completely supports Bush’s decision, I am not sure why you posted them…?

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/quote.gif​

 

[mary_bobo]

Della:

oat soda wrote:

This is unfair. No one is obliged to have as many children as possible nor to adopt. You can’t possibly know if any of these couples decided to limit their families in some unlawful manner (according to the Church) or not. Many couples only have one or two children because that is all they can have due to physical problems that are no one’s business but their own. As for adopting, that too is no one’s business but theirs. Really, this is a poor way to judge anyone’s attitude towards pro-life issues as it is both unfair and uncharitable.

I have read that Laura Bush was confined to bed for quite some time before the twins were born, with toxemia, I believe. I think it very unseemly to judge a person’s heart and intentions when you have no facts. Not in the spirit of this forum.

 

[josephdavid]

TPJCatholic:

joseph,

Bush never did claim that Iraq had anything to do with 911, nor have I.

.

I replying to the fact you said that Bush never made such claims. Here you go.

Also to further comment on these quotations I have cited:

These statements were misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an “estimate.” According to CIA Director George Tenet, “it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof.” In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: “There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”

Also misleading because they suggested that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda. In fact, the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on this issue and was divided regarding whether there was an operational relationship.

Finally their states were misleading because it evoked the threat of Iraq providing Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community had “low confidence” in that scenario, and the intelligence community believed that Iraq appeared to be “drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks” against the United States for fear of providing cause for war

 

[TPJCatholic]

joseph,

You cannot point to any statement by Bush that Iraq was an emminent threat–he certainly made it clear that he thought Iraq was very dangerous and could develop into an emminanet threat–yet he did not say Iraq was an emminent threat.

You must keep in mind that Bush’s entire policy is to go after terrorists whereever they are and to stop threats before they become emminent. In actual fact, Bush has done exactly what he told us he would do.

It is a shame that so many people hate Bush with such passion that they now have selective memory.

Yet, beyond that worthless talk about the Iraq war. You have no way to defend the dems intentional attack on the unborn–a most disgusting, evil and satanic attack at that.

 

[josephdavid]

Where is the evidence there were terrorists before invasion?

When he said they had no link? Intelligence said they had no link to 9/11 or harboring terrorists.

Also the Soviet Union was a eminant threat to the U.S. but we never invaded? Why?

 

[oat_soda]

No one is obliged to have as many children as possible nor to adopt.

true, but your not obligated to do anything. you have freedom of choice. but charity demands you should have a just reason to limit your family in which case extremely rich politicians really do not have any excuse. minus they are totally unfit for raising a family in which case they shouldn’t be president.

**2368 **A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

i can only think of one justified reason why a family would be intended to be small. 1) the parents are not able to provide for a family. such as love, food, water, medice, shelter, …etc. this may be because they are too poor, or they are forced not to have kids by the state due to overpopulation.

God punishes wicked nations by letting them be run by poor leaders.

 

[mikew262]

TPJCatholic:

joseph,

It is a shame that so many people hate Bush with such passion that they now have selective memory.

Boy, ain’t that the truth!!

 

[josephdavid]

TPJCatholic:

joseph,

You cannot point to any statement by Bush that Iraq was an emminent threat–he certainly made it clear that he thought Iraq was very dangerous and could develop into an emminanet threat–yet he did not say Iraq was an emminent threat.

.

I will post these again so you can read thoroughly.

President George W. Bush on Urgent Threat:

“On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death.”
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

President George W. Bush on Al-Qaeda:

“The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002). ONLY LATER TO SAY THAT WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT IRAQ HAS TIES WITH AL QAIDA.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Urgent Threat:

“[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.”
Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).