SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : President Bush, Good or Bad Fruit?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 President Bush, Good or Bad Fruit?

I post these articles, not for political reasons, but for spiritual. Christianity in many places has become a culture. Many look to men who support their own way of life. What kind of life does the Lord call us to? What kind of life do men call us to?

Here is an article about the ways of President Bush. Is he like the mighty men of David in 2 Samuel 23?

By Robert Parry
Republished from Consortium News


Knowledge and Intent: More of the same old lies...


The White House is taking umbrage over new press reports that George W. Bush misled the American people on a key justification for invading Iraq. But Bush’s latest excuse – that he was just an unwitting conveyor of bad information, not a willful purveyor of lies – has been stretched thin by overuse.

Nevertheless, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at a Washington Post report that in May 2003, Bush described two Iraqi trailers as mobile biological weapons labs although two days earlier a Pentagon field investigation had debunked those suspicions in a report to Washington.

“The lead in the Washington Post left the impression for the reader that the President was saying something he knew at the time not to be true,” McClellan said on April 12, 2006. “That is absolutely false and it is irresponsible, and I don’t know how the Washington Post can defend something so irresponsible.”

But the truth is that Bush has been caught, again and again, relying on lies and distortions to confuse the American people about the Iraq War. Sometimes, he can blame U.S. intelligence agencies for the false information, but other times, he simply lies about facts that he personally knows.

For instance, just weeks after Bush made his false statement about the bio-labs, he also began rewriting the history of the Iraq War to make his invasion seem more reasonable.

On July 14, 2003, Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had barred United Nations weapons inspectors from Iraq when, in fact, they were admitted in November 2002 and given free rein to search suspected Iraqi weapons sites. It was Bush who forced the U.N. inspectors to leave in March 2003 so the invasion could proceed.

But faced with growing questions about his justifications for war in summer 2003, Bush revised this history, apparently trusting in the weak memories of the American people and the timidity of the U.S. press. At the end of an Oval Office meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Bush told reporters:

“We gave him (Saddam Hussein) a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

In the following months and years, Bush repeated this claim in slightly varied forms as part of his litany for defending the invasion on the grounds that it was Hussein who “chose war,” not Bush.

Meeting no protest from the Washington press corps, Bush continued repeating his lie about Hussein showing “defiance” on the inspections. Bush uttered the lie as recently as March 21, 2006, when he answered a question from veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas.

“I was hoping to solve this (Iraq) problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ … We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.”

The significance of this lie about the inspectors – when judging Bush’s proclivity to lie – rests on the fact that he can’t simply blame his advisers when cornered. Bush was fully aware of the U.N. inspectors and what happened to them.




‘Downing Street Memo’


Indeed, documentary evidence shows that Bush was determined to invade Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 regardless of what U.S. intelligence could prove or what the Iraqis did.

For instance, the so-called “Downing Street Memo” recounted a secret meeting on July 23, 2002, involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top national security aides. At that meeting, Richard Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence agency MI6, described his discussions about Iraq with Bush’s top advisers in Washington.

Dearlove said, “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

At an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 31, 2003, Bush and Blair discussed their determination to invade Iraq, though Bush still hoped that he might provoke the Iraqis into some violent act that would serve as political cover, according to minutes written by Blair’s top foreign policy aide David Manning.

So, while Bush was telling the American people that he considered war with Iraq “a last resort,” he actually had decided to invade regardless of Iraq’s cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, according to the five-page memo of the Oval Office meeting reviewed by the New York Times.

The memo also reveals Bush conniving to deceive the American people and the world community by trying to engineer a provocation that would portray Hussein as the aggressor. Bush suggested painting a U.S. plane up in U.N. colors and flying it over Iraq with the goal of drawing Iraqi fire, the meeting minutes said.

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo said about Bush’s scheme. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Time to Talk War Crimes.”]

Regardless of whether any casus belli could be provoked, Bush already had “penciled in” March 10, 2003, as the start of the U.S. bombing of Iraq, according to the memo. “Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” Manning wrote.

According to the British memo, Bush and Blair acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, nor were they likely to be found in the coming weeks, but that wouldn’t get in the way of the U.S.-led invasion. [NYT, March 27, 2006]


In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2006/4/20 15:09Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re: President Bush, Good or Bad Fruit?

Here is another article concerning the fruit...

 State Department Memo: "16 Words" Were False
    By Jason Leopold
    t r u t h o u t | Report

    Monday 17 April 2006

    Sixteen days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.

    The revelation of the warning from the closely guarded State Department memo is the first piece of hard evidence and the strongest to date that the Bush administration manipulated and ignored intelligence information in their zeal to win public support for invading Iraq.

    The memo says: "On January 12, 2003," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries."



    Moreover, the memo says that the State Department's doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims may have been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier.

    Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 - one week after Bush's State of the Union address - to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.

    "After considerable back and forth between the CIA, the (State) Department, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and the British, Secretary Powell's briefing to the U.N. Security Council did not mention attempted Iraqi procurement of uranium due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement," the memo further states.

    Iraq's interest in the yellowcake caught the attention of Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Association. ElBaradei read a copy of the National Intelligence Estimate and personally contacted the State Department and the National Security Council in hopes of obtaining evidence so his agency could look into it.

    ElBaradei sent a letter to the White House and the National Security Council (NSC) in December 2002, warning senior officials he thought the documents were forgeries and should not be cited by the administration as evidence that Iraq was actively trying to obtain WMDs.

    ElBaradei said he never received a written response to his letter, despite repeated follow-up calls he made to the White House, the NSC and the State Department.

    Vice President Dick Cheney, who made the rounds on the cable news shows that month, tried to discredit ElBaradei's conclusion that the documents were forged.

    "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney said. "[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past."

    As it turns out, ElBaradei was correct, the declassified State Department memo now shows.

    Monday's declassified State Department memo was obtained over the weekend by the New York Sun under a Freedom of Information Act request the newspaper filed last July. The Sun's story Monday morning, however, did not say anything about the State Department's warnings more than a week before Bush's State of the Union address about the bogus Niger documents.

    The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was drafted by Carl Ford Jr., the former head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, in response to questions posed in June 2003 by I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, about a February 2002 fact-finding trip to Niger that former ambassador Joseph Wilson undertook to investigate the uranium claims on behalf of the CIA.



    The memo had originally been drafted in June in response to Libby's questions about Wilson. But after Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times July 6, 2003, in which he disclosed that he had personally investigated the Niger uranium claims and found that they were false, Powell requested further information from his aides. Ford went back and retrieved the June memo, re-dated it July 7, 2003, and sent it to Powell's deputy, Richard Armitage.

    The Sun reported that the memo contained no direct reference to Plame Wilson's CIA status being marked as "secret" despite the fact that the word "secret" is clearly marked on every page of the INR memo.

    The memo does not say that the State Department alerted the White House on January 12, 2003, about the bogus uranium claims.

    But the memo's author, Carl Ford, said in a previous interview that he has no doubt the State Department's reservations about the Niger intelligence made their way to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    One high-ranking State Department official said that when the department's analysts briefed Colin Powell about the Niger forgeries, Powell met with former Director of the CIA George Tenet and shared that information with him.

    Tenet then told Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and her former deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the uranium claims were "dubious," according to current and former State Department and CIA officials who have direct knowledge of what Tenet discussed with the White House at the time.

    The White House has long maintained that they were never briefed about the State Department's or the CIA's concerns related to the Niger uranium claims.

    "I refuse to believe that the findings of a four-star general and an envoy the CIA sent to Niger to personally investigate the accuracy of the intelligence, as well as our own research at the State Department, never got into the hands of President Bush or Vice President Cheney. I don't buy it," said a high-ranking State Department official. "Saying that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was all it took, as far as I'm concerned, to convince the House to support the war. The American people too. I believe removing Saddam Hussein was right and just. But the intelligence that was used to state the case wasn't."

    A spokeswoman for Tenet said Monday that the former head of the CIA wouldn't comment on the newly declassified document but promised that Tenet would tell the "full story" about how the infamous 16 words wound up in Bush's State of the Union address, in Tenet's book, "At the Center of the Storm," expected to be published in late October.

    Many career State Department officials interviewed Monday said they were upset that the so-called "16 words" made their way into the State of the Union address and they are pleased that the INR memo has been declassified, thereby proving that their colleagues sounded early warnings about the dubious Niger intelligence.

    A State Department official who has direct knowledge of the now declassified INR memo said when the request came from Cheney's office for a report on Wilson's Niger trip it was an opportunity to put in writing a document that would remind the White House that it had been warned about the Niger claims early on.

    Many other State Department officials believed that the existence of a memo that would, in essence, disagree with the White House's own assessment on Niger would eventually hurt the administration.

    "This was the very first time there was written evidence - not notes, but a request for a report - from the State Department that documented why the Niger intel was bull*#%^ (edited:)," said one retired State Department official.

    "It was the only thing in writing, and it had a certain value because it didn't come from the IAEA. It came from State. It scared the heck out of a lot of people because it proved that this guy Wilson's story was credible. I don't think anybody wanted the media to know that the State Department disagreed with the intelligence used by the White House. That's why Wilson had to be shut down."


end of article...

A mighty man of David or is it like in Isaiah 3

Is. 3:1 For behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts,
Takes away from Jerusalem and from Judah
The stock and the store,
The whole supply of bread and the whole supply of water;
2 The mighty man and the man of war,
The judge and the prophet,
And the diviner and the elder;
3 The captain of fifty and the honorable man,
The counselor and the skillful artisan,
And the expert enchanter.
4 “I will give children to be their princes,
And babes shall rule over them.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2006/4/20 15:14Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Here is another thought to ponder...

Former President Clinton and Vice President Gore are members of the Southern Baptist denomination. Why did they not receive the same respect from the "Christian Right" as does President Bush?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2006/4/20 15:19Profile
boomatt
Member



Joined: 2006/3/20
Posts: 235
fredericksburg, Virginia

 Re:

I dont feel this is a place for a liberal agenda.

This has done absolutely nothing to uplift christ.

My brother is a member of the Marines and is proud of the fact that they are in Iraq defending against tyrants like Sadaam.

I am not saying Bush really is a christian, I have heard some real weird stuff come out of his mouth about the Koran, uniting faiths etc. but to attack and to give into a already proven false liberal agenda. You need more discernment, and I pray that you will put your focus on christ and him crucified and stop trying to convince people who is right or wrong.

the people who are lying and reporting this to you hate christians, and dont care a lick if we become a communist state.

May god bless you and I pray you will take this into consideration. I love you, but I dont feel we should be subjected to this on a site where we should be uplifting each other.


_________________
Matt Kroelinger

 2006/4/20 16:05Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Jeff,

Quote:
Former President Clinton and Vice President Gore are members of the Southern Baptist denomination. Why did they not receive the same respect from the "Christian Right" as does President Bush?



It is a concern that the lines between true and false Christianity are often blurred when folk are bent on seeing certain 'issues' resolved. You ask a good question.

I think for starters the obvious issue would be their particular stand on moral issues such as abortion. I am writing this post from the State Of Kansas, which is one of two places in the world I am aware of that allow partial birth abortion. Devoted Christians in my circles feel obligated to see these practices come to an end. This means fighting the battle in the political arena by voting for candidates that are anti-abortion. This, of course, means possible supreme Court nominations that will bring an end to this.

Other issues include sexual immorality, etc. and particularly positions on homosexuality.

I know this comes off as a contradiction given the fact that He has led our nation into war in Iraq. Increasingly I know there is a feeling that it was a 'mistake' to go in to Iraq. What his motives really were? I have no idea.

There is a saying in mechanics that says that the "wheel that squeaks is the first to get the grease." It means that the most troubling and serious issues have to be dealt with [u]first[/u]. The unfortunate thing is that there is a lot of 'collateral damage' or 'side-effects' (if you will) of getting these serious issues dealt with. Sort of like first aid, you have to deal with the problem that is threatening the life at the moment. Sometimes dealing with a life-threatening situation swiftly opens the door for infection and other problems down the road. There simply is no time to think 'down the road' when so much is on the line at the moment. For the 'religious right' that has been abortion for decades. We have seen tens of millions heaped upon millions of babies killed in this nation and have actually exported funds to promote the behavior in other nations. It has to be stopped. That is why the Religious Right respected Bush in my thinking. He has appointed the justices likely to overturn or greatly limit Roe V. Wade. I suppose if that is accomplished all is not lost.

God Bless,

Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/4/20 16:22Profile
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re:

bro boomatt

Quote:
I dont feel this is a place for a liberal agenda.



did you miss this which bro Jeff posted preceding the information he placed on this thread?

Quote:
I post these articles, not for political reasons, but for spiritual. Christianity in many places has become a culture. Many look to men who support their own way of life. What kind of life does the Lord call us to? What kind of life do men call us to



in addition this is the second thread with this title. the first one was locked to make way for this one and that had probably more pages on it than any other discussion on s.i.i've been here for about 2 yrs now and when i came onto the site, days are evil part 1 was already well over 50 pages long. the intent is to cause us to examine what's going on in the context of what the Lord is seeking to acomplish in this world through His Church and get involved.

i would agree with bro Jeff in that we should examine our own actions, the actions of the congregations we're in, those who rule over us in light of what God requires of us as Christians. i've heard much about this liberal and conservative foolishness going back and forth but the thing is we are Christians first and foremost, Ameicans (or whatever respective nationality) second and so on. somehow ever since this administration has been in office there has been this sense of something fishy going on.the whole case for the war to me seemed so much of a sham it would grieve me to no end that people simply swallowed it and took no time to examine it further. it highlighted a lack of diligence on our part as Christians about examining the word and living for God which has spilled over into every area of our life. whatever has been done in the dark by anyone will one day be exposed that uncludes every administration of every nation there ever was.

i have a cousin in the corps also who was in afghanistan and served in iraq also who returned from there pretty much having renounced his faith or at least having a hard time reconciling God with all the things he saw there.i asked him how he felt about the cause and he laughed and said "hey, i'm just a trigger puller bro" how many others return from tours with the same problem? if we have been lied to it will surely be exposed and it seems it's all coming out of the woodwork now.even some generals who were involved in the war at first such as Anthony Zinni are coming out and protesting. i don't know about you but that disturbs me and leads me to have to consider that maybe all this was a sham for something else. the Lord will surely expose it all.

it seems to me from your response you feel that something is amiss. all these things which come up in the media to oppose the iraq war are always brushed aside as liberal foolishness. to question the reasons for this war is deemed unpatriotic, we were told there would be wmds, none were found, we were told there would be nuclear programs, nothing to suggest that, then it was to remove saddam coz he gassed people 20 yrs ago, why all this now?there is more to this than what is seen on fox or cnn. what if it isn't all rubbish? what if there is some truth to it? that would leave you to ask what your brother is really defending from. is it terror? if so why are we so afraid to die if we are of the True Faith? we are shamed by muslims who believe in a demon and are prepared to die for him yet we of the True Faith will not so much as break a nail for Christ who endured all manner of persecution and humiliation for our cause.

ultimately we must ask ourselves, are our hearts set on man, whether it be Bush or not, or on God.

the Lord's judgment is upon us for our laxity but for those who would, REPENT, REPENT REPENT OR DIE!!!


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2006/4/21 4:27Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Brother Robert,

You have expressed a somewhat valid point in regard to abortion. Yet I believe that the most recent men selected for the Supreme Court were not pick for their stance on abortion but for their support of the economic interests of the corporation.

In terms of what the Supreme Court can really accomplish in overturning abortion, I think this article brings to light what must really come to bear in this country...

"Lancaster paper, Sunday December 18

Political decisions are driven by America's culture.

By Bill Wichterman

A substantial part of the controversy which brought down Harriet Miers nominations to the Supreme Court centered on whether she would vote to overturn Roe Vs Wade. Although neither she nor the president's replacement nominee, Samuel Alito, would provide the crucial fifth vote to undo this 32-year old decision, the question was whether her confirmation migh open the way for the court to become anti-Roe with the next vacancy.

Many Americans believe that if Roe were overturned, abortion would become illegal nationwide. Not so. Meaningfully reducing the abortion rate requires a prior cultural reformation before politicians can act. Culture is "upstream" from politics.

Government is like a giant mirror reflecting the soul of the nation. While the clarity of that reflection will shift from administration to administration, we generally get the government we deserve. Or, as Plato wrote, "The state is the sould writ large."

In the case of abortion, the Supreme Court simply ratified the sexual revolution begun in the 1960s. The sexual revolution said that sex without consequences was possible. The unintended baby put the lie to that notion. Abortion stepped in to take care of the inconvenient and unintended child.

It's widely forgotten that 18 states had legalized abortion before Roe. There were 600,000 legal abortions in 1972. Roe didn't even accelerate the steady rate of increase that began in 1968, and continued for 25 years, before leveling off and even dropping in the 1990s. The states were ratifying the sexual revolution one by one, and the court short-circuited that ratification by making it the law of the land.

Overturning Roe would begin a serious state-by-state debate about whether and when abortion should be legal from coneption to birth. But in many states, and for much of the population, first trimester abortions would continue. And it may be generations before California, New York, and other populous "blue states" significantly roll back abortion rights. The abortion rate would certainly drop, but, initially, only marginally, from the current 1.2 million annual abortions to prehaps 1 million.

"Overturning abortion-rights statutes would first require a change of heart about the sexual revolution, and politics is ill-equipped for the task. Sexual mores are not set by politicians, and politicians challenge those mores at their peril.

What we love, and what we hate are shaped less by laws than by our habits of the heart. And those habits are shaped more powerfully by the songs we sing, the movies we thrill to, and the books we read. Damon of Athens said, "Give me the songs of a nation, and it matters not who writes its laws."

In his farewell address of 1796, George Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports." James Madison said, "Corruption of [morals] make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual." The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that the genius of the American Experiment lay not in the parchment, but in the unwritten constitution of the American people. Without virtue, they knew we would be unable to sustain this form of government.

Politics is important--very important. I have no doubt that law is a teacher. That's one reason I have spent almost two decades working as a congressional staff member on Capitol Hill. But politics is not up to the task of single-handedly renewing our culture. For that, we need writers, musicians, producers, and playwrites, who will tell stories that lift up the good, the true, and the beautiful. They, more so than politicians, can help us shape what we love, and what we hate.

Whether the challenge is building a culture of life, boistering individual responsibility, or restoring sound business ethics, politics plays a limited role. Robert Bork wrote that, " Conservative political victories will always be tenuous and fragile, unless conservatives recapture the culture."

The battles over who sits on the Supreme Court are important. But, we will be sadly disappointed if we focus all of our efforts on the political realm, and neglect the more powerful culture-shaping institutions which drive the law. The sooner conservatives send workers into the cultural vineyards of Hollywood, publishing, and academia, the sooner we'll begin to make sustainable long-term gains in building a healthy culture."


end of article...

The battle spoken here can only be won when a majority of this nation has the heart of Jesus and is not in bondage to the Law given on Mount Sinai.

God Bless
In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2006/4/21 11:13Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


 Re:

Hi IRONMAN...

Quote:
if we have been lied to it will surely be exposed and it seems it's all coming out of the woodwork now.even some generals who were involved in the war at first such as Anthony Zinni are coming out and protesting. i don't know about you but that disturbs me and leads me to have to consider that maybe all this was a sham for something else. the Lord will surely expose it all.

The problem with your post about Americans jumping to conclusions is that [u]you[/u] are also jumping to conclusions. Perhaps a little more research into this matter would help. There are only a very few ex-generals (like former Democratic candidate Wesley Clark, along with a few recent additions) that have openly questioned the war. In fact, most of these do not question the justification for war, but the implementation (such as a need for more troops, etc...). The leaders of the Democratic Party have done their worst to openly mock and question President Bush for over two years. It began before the election, and has continued ever since. Their hopes are that President Bush will become a "liability" in the mid-term elections, thus resulting in a shift in the Congressional power structure from the Republicans (who have held control of Congress for 10 years) to the Democrats (who held control of Congress for 40+ years prior). With such a shift in control would also come a shift in policy.

Could you imagine what would happen in this country with a socially liberal Congress making the policy and laws? President Clinton was elected in 1992. Thus, the liberal Democrats held control of the Congress for nearly two years. The result? Sweeping legislation to protect abortion, homosexual "rights" (like allowing gays into the military), repeal of almost all Reagan/Bush Sr. Administration anti-abortion decrees (such as the national and international "gag rule"), as well as some very liberal policies for our nations children (abortion for minors without parental consent or knowledge, very liberal sex education in elementary schools without mention of abstinence, teaching of the embracement of religious "culturalism," etc...). Some of these were openly resisted (i.e. integrating homosexuals into the military was resisted by military leaders, resulting in a compromised "don't ask/don't tell" rule). There were even more liberal policies that were proposed, but these were declared "moot" following the Congressional "[i]Republican Revolution[/i]" in 1994. This forced Clinton to act more as a "moderate" rather than fulfill his liberal campaign promises as he did to the weathiest and most liberal donors that fund much of the Democratic Party.

Quote:
to question the reasons for this war is deemed unpatriotic, we were told there would be wmds, none were found, we were told there would be nuclear programs, nothing to suggest that, then it was to remove saddam coz he gassed people 20 yrs ago, why all this now?there is more to this than what is seen on fox or cnn. what if it isn't all rubbish?

The "reasons" that we went to war were not due to the presence of WMDs in Iraq. That was used to "further justification" for immediate military action. The overall reason for this war was the fact that, during the Clinton Administration, Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated the terms of surrender following the first Gulf War in 1991. These can be found [url=http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm]here[/url]. Every single one of these resolutions were violated. Saddam Hussein was also prohibiting the UN Inspectors from fulfilling their duty for years. As a result, even President Bill Clinton ordered [url=http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html]military strikes on Bagdad in 1998[/url]. But following those strikes, Saddam continued his ways. Remember, Hussein was also responsible for an assassignation attempt on former President Bush in 1993, thus resulting in yet [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm]another attack on Iraq[/url] by President Clinton.

It is argued in foreign policy circles that there was a terrible failure by the Clinton Administration in its handling of the situation in the Middle East. We knew that Al Quaeda was a growing threat. They were linked to many terrorist acts in the world, including many against Americans. Bin Laden was linked to the [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm]first attack on the World Trade Center[/url] in 1993, the [url=http://www.state.gov/www/regions/africa/kenya_tanzania.html]attacks on the US Embassies in Africa[/url] in 1998, the "[url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/cron.html]Millineum Bombing[/url]" plot for 1999, the [url=http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/23/uss.cole.01/]bombing of the USS Cole[/url] in 2000, among [url=http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terroris.htm]many others[/url]. It was clear that Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden was linked to this, but very little was done. The US knew that Osama bin Laden was based in Afghanistan. Members of the media even [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html]interviewed him[/url] in 1998. And we knew that he was planning even more terrorist acts against the United States because of our "support for Israel." But outsides of a few limited and select strikes (that ultimately accomplished nothing), the Clinton Administration failed to act. Less than 8 months after Clinton left office, the terrible events of September 11th occurred. In this case, a "preventive strike" would have been quite beneficial to our security.

How should Christians react to government and policy? Should Christians be openly involved with politics? There is clearly an attack on President Bush by the most liberal members of this nation. But worse, there is a blatant attempt by certain liberal elements of society (such as Hollywood) to [i]redefine[/i] the "social values" of this country. If you don't believe in homosexual marriage, the media calls you "[i]intolerant[/i]," a "[i]bigot[/i]," or "[i]closed-minded[/i]." If you oppose abortion, you are passed off as a "[i]right-wing radical[/i]." If you hold fast to Christianity, you are passed off as a "[i]member of the religious right[/i]" -- even if you do not consider yourself a member as such. If you oppose the in-depth teaching of sex to your elementary children, you are considered a "[i]neo-con hick[/i]." We have every right to oppose the neo-modern social agenda of the far-left. They are incredibly vocal as they attempt to push their agenda through films, TV shows, magazines, news programs, and other forms of media -- all of which is read, believed and taught by liberal professors.

While President Bush may have "issues" that you do not agree with, we should at least rejoice in some of the things that he has accomplished. He repealed many of the Clinton Administration pro-abortion orders. He has limited the use of stem-cells from aborted babies. He has limited federal funds from being used for pornographic and openly offensive "art." And he has appointed two members for the US Supreme Court that will obviously not be like the liberal activists that President Clinton appointed.

We are all entitled to our opinions about the policies and actions of the President. We also should remember that this does not entitle us to judge him as a "false believer" as some are in the habit. Before another bash-Bush thread is begun, perhaps we should be willing to count our blessings?

:-)

*Feel free to click on the links underlined above to check the events described.


_________________
Christopher

 2006/4/21 11:49Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4529


 Re:

Hi rookie...

Quote:
Former President Clinton and Vice President Gore are members of the Southern Baptist denomination. Why did they not receive the same respect from the "Christian Right" as does President Bush?

While I don't consider myself a member of the "Christian Right" -- nor a "blind supporter" of President Bush, I think I have a pretty good idea about this. I don't believe that it had so much to do with Bill Clinton's sexual escapades and subsequent coverups, but it was primarily due to his ultra-liberal policies.

President Clinton and Al Gore [u]openly[/u] supported special rights for homosexuals, sex education to elementary schools (excluding the teaching of abstinence), abortion on demand, abortion for minors as young as 12 years old without their parents ever finding out, tax-payer funding of pornography and offensive material in the name of "art" (remember the crucifix in a bottle of urine or the "gay Jesus-sex" paintings?), support of euthanasia (physician assisted suicide), funding for nations that promote abortion, etc... This list could go on.

While they held my respect for their office (of the Presidency), their policies held my utmost disgust. It just seems that many conservatives support President Bush's stand on such issues -- to the utmost disgust of far-left liberals that wear "moderate" clothing.

:-(


_________________
Christopher

 2006/4/21 12:08Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Brother Chris,

I brought up the idea of Clinton and Gore being Southern Baptists to raise the point of fruit inspection, just like these posts that I have made to point to the actual lies that do exist in this administration. The deeds men do in darkness will come to the light.

One man's sin is different from another. One man commits adultery another covets, what is the fruit? The fruit of both administrations cause the sea of men to boil don't they?

Rev. 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”

No matter what wine one drinks from this harlot one is made blind by it...

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2006/4/21 12:19Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy