Topic: Dear Catbert
I found the following on the "other board", which I cannot post on. I thought it fair for you to be able to defend yourself, if you choose not to, I will for you.
I was perusing the old board today and I noticed a disturbingly incorrect post by Catbert about why Bush should not be re-elected. It was riddled with false/uninformed statements, ridiculous propaganda, and worst of all, no one on that board seems to have the balls to call him on it. This of course begs the question of why I would post a rebuttal of my own on this board instead of the old board. Well, it's simple. I just don't care. However, reading it did give me an idea to spark a conversation here. That being said, I'll get on with the point.
First off, let's dispel the myths surrounding Bush's presidency:
Myth: Bush was not elected in the first place.
Truth: If he wasn't elected, he wouldn't be president. If you know anything about the way the president of this country gets elected, you know that the popular vote doesn't really count for squat. Never has, never will. So, that means the "He lost the popular vote" argument doesn't count for squat either. The next liberal argument says that he stole the election through a vast conspiracy. Of course, if there was ANY proof of this at all, he and alot of other people would be behind bars right now. (There goes argument number 2) The third and final liberal argument to credit this myth is that the Supreme Court pretty much hand picked him, since they put a stop to the recounts in Florida. Let's get one thing straight here, they put a stop to the recounts during the THIRD recount. That means that they counted the votes once and showed Bush winning, recounted them once and showed Bush winning, recounted them again and still showed him winning, then tried to recount the votes one last time, when the Supreme Court stepped in and put a stop to it. Why did they do this? 2 reasons: each recount still showed Bush winning, and by the third recount, the people doing the counting were told to "interpret" what the vote was "most likely" for. This is just plain illegal, and the Supreme Court had no choice but to put a stop to it. So, YES Bush was elected in 2000.Myth: Bush is responsible for the recession.
Truth: The president has little to nothing to do with the economy. The only thing he can effectively do is set up programs to prevent deep recession and depression and return money from the budget to the people in hopes of revitalizing the economy. Now, the economy tanked before Bush even took office, so to blame him for that is just plain silly. However, he did give tax rebates, which prevented us from going into a full-blown depression. What did Clinton do at the end of his 2nd term when the economy tanked while he was still in power? Nothing. If you still want to blame a president for the economy, it makes (slightly) more sense to blame Clinton.Myth: Bush hasn't done anything to fight the rising cost of healthcare.
Truth: He's done more than ANY president before him, by signing in the prescription care plan which allows any American citizen to have the government cover 20-60% of their prescription drug costs. He also fought to pass a reward system for health providers who set their prices on a person-by-person basis. This idea, however, was shot down.Myth: Bush didn't do anything to prevent 911, therefore he is responsible.
Truth: He, and everyone else, did everything they could. It just wasn't enough. It could not have been prevented with the level of intelligence we had at the time. Now, this is by no means my opinion. This is the opinion reached by the 911 commission. It's in the report.Now, let's get into the myths about Iraq.
Myth: Iraq did not have the capabilities to produce WMD's.
Truth: Well, there is some truth in that. Though Saddam had the programs in place to produce nuclear arms, he did not have the nuclear material necessary to finish them. However, according to the Senate Intelligence committee, Saddam was in negotiations with Niger to purchase Yellow Cake. For those of you who don't know, Yellow Cake is weapons grade nuclear material. (I believe it's Uranium, but I can never seem to remember definitively.) This was backed up by intelligence reports from 14 different agencies, worldwide. Now, according to military intelligence reports, with the programs in place, it would have taken less than one year for Iraq to develope nuclear strike capabilities. So maybe they didn't have it YET, but they would have within a year. That's where the "pre-emptive strike" policy comes in. And it was certainly justified.Myth: There where no terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion.
Truth: Sorry liberals, but both the senate intelligence committee and the 911 commission have reported that Iraq did indeed have "exceedingly strong ties" to terrorist organizations including, but not limited to, Al Qaeda. What did they mean by this? Well, according to the 60+ pages of information released on the subject, Saddam was not only directly funding Terrorist operations, but had active cell training camps throughout Iraq.Myth: We went into Iraq for the oil.
Truth: Where's the oil? I don't see any Iraqi oil. Do you? We did not go into Iraq for the oil. Bush kissed Saudi ASS for the oil, but he did that so the American people wouldn't have to.And finally, here my STRICTLY opinion part of the debate.
Myth: Bush is a divider, not a uniter.
Truth: Bush didn't divide the nation, he did everything short of directly kissing ass to bring this country together against our common enemies. However, the liberal media began tearing him down before he even took the office. Now, what about the war? He divided the world by not negotiating with the U.N. for help. HA!! The U.N.? These are the people who impose sanctions on dictators which do nothing but allow them to continue bleeding their own people dry. These are the people who turn there backs when their own members break the sanctions for their own benefit (>France<). They all followed france's lead and turned their backs on us, then, in typical fashion, tried to weasel their way into Iraq after we had done all the hard work, so their companies could reap the benefits. SCREW THE U.N.!!!Now, all of this can be found in the reports from the Senate intelligence committee and the 911 commission. If you want to dispute my claims, read the reports first. If you don't and you still refuse to admit the truth, you're just being a silly, stubborn liberal.
But seriously I see nothing wrong with what Mold did, and I am sure he wanted to here Catbert's side of what you said as well.(Not about this but the debate).
It doesn't get to me anymore . . .
