Famous George W. Bush Quotes

[Happy29]

"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls."

"I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California."

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

"What I am against is quotas. I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever. However they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society. So I don't know how that fits into what everybody else is saying, their relative positions, but that's my position."


"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."

"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor like you like to be liked yourself."

"The most important job is not to be Governor, or First Lady in my case."

"If people can judge me on the company I keep, they would judge me with keeping really good company with Laura."

 

[Highboy90]

At least Bush is worth quoting.

And yes, George W. Bush did not create the Internet. Al Gore did.

And yes, I am sure George can spell "Potato" unlike former Vice President Dan Quayle.

 

[steveluvs3]

uh-oh do I see a bush bashing coming on

 

[bowtie]

No Bush bashing allowed

 

[Highboy90]

Let's talk about former president Clinton. Let's quote Clinton. (I did not have sex) (I did not inhale) And many more. Only fair being he is history unlike our current President who is still in office and had the balls to take a stance.

 

[4xchampncountin]

Originally posted by Highboy90@Oct 2 2003, 02:08 AM
Let's talk about former president Clinton. Let's quote Clinton. (I did not have sex) (I did not inhale) And many more. Only fair being he is history unlike our current President who is still in office and had the balls to take a stance.

well said

 

[Happy29]

Well, if you want to talk about lying, what about lying about a war which cost us hundreds of brave american servicemen and servicewomen. That my friends will be President Bush's demise in 04

 

[steveluvs3]

Originally posted by Highboy90@Oct 1 2003, 09:08 PM
Let's talk about former president Clinton. Let's quote Clinton. (I did not have sex) (I did not inhale) And many more. Only fair being he is history unlike our current President who is still in office and had the balls to take a stance.

I love slick willie bashing

 

[Happy29]

Originally posted by Happy29@Oct 1 2003, 07:38 PM
Well, if you want to talk about lying, what about lying about a war which cost us hundreds of brave american servicemen and servicewomen. That my friends will be President Bush's demise in 04

and to add to that, last time I checked, lying about a war and these so-called "weapons of mass destruction" and an "imminent threat" is a lot worse than lying about having extra-marital affairs.

 

[steveluvs3]

Originally posted by Happy29@Oct 1 2003, 09:38 PM
I hardly could see lying to the public in saying that the Iraqi war was a necessary war as a stance. It was an unnecessary war, and hundreds of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continue to die because of it; in my opinion, we shouldnt even be there. But now, that the whole country is in for the long haul and the President has dug a hole for us that we probably wont get out of within the forseeable future, the White House needs to tell us of an exit strategy so we can get those hundreds of thousands of soldiers we have over there home as soon as their job is done and this is coming from someone who has a brother that is currently serving in the United States Army. Personally, I think it's this quagmire the President got us into in Iraq which will prove to be his demise in 2004.

I don't like the u.s. going over to other countries and solve their problems but saddam and sons were monsters and nobody else had the balls to get him out of there. I just can't understand how they can't find him or his corksucking buddy bin laden.

 

[slick-nick]

Originally posted by Happy29@Oct 1 2003, 09:38 PM
Well, if you want to talk about lying, what about lying about a war which cost us hundreds of brave american servicemen and servicewomen. That my friends will be President Bush's demise in 04

AMEN!!

 

[4xchampncountin]

Remember this quote? "If you are under 30 years old and are not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are over 30 and are a liberal you have no brain"

I will save the breath required to explain this quote to those too young to understand it.

 

[bowtie]

Originally posted by steveluvs3@Oct 1 2003, 09:48 PM

I don't like the u.s. going over to other countries and solve their problems but saddam and sons were monsters and nobody else had the balls to get him out of there. I just can't understand how they can't find him or his corksucking buddy bin laden.

It's in the Bible, countries have always sent armies to take down evil rulers, it was something that needed to be done.

 

[Flametamer]

Originally posted by Happy29+Oct 1 2003, 08:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Happy29 @ Oct 1 2003, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Happy29@Oct 1 2003, 07:38 PM
Well, if you want to talk about lying, what about lying about a war which cost us hundreds of brave american servicemen and servicewomen. That my friends will be President Bush's demise in 04

and to add to that, last time I checked, lying about a war and these so-called "weapons of mass destruction" and an "imminent threat" is a lot worse than lying about having extra-marital affairs.[/b][/quote]
Are you saying Sadam was not an Imminent threat? Remember, the same thing was said about Bin Laden before 9/11/01. These two jagoffs are from the same mold.

The really dumb thing to do would be to sit and wait for another attack on our country! How many Dead Bodies are required before we can attack those who attack us? And 9/11 was not the first attack on Americans, just the first attack in AMERICA!

 

[majestyx]

While I whole-heartedly agree that Sadam had to be dealt with, I just do not agree that the US Government should have lied regarding his possession of WMD's.

 

[bowtie]

Originally posted by majestyx@Oct 2 2003, 08:43 AM
While I whole-heartedly agree that Sadam had to be dealt with, I just do not agree that the US Government should have lied regarding his possession of WMD's.

It's a mute point now, I for one believe he had them and I believe there are still some there, they will be found sooner or later. He is an evil man and he had to be dealt with. G.W. did what had to be done, the sad thing is that we stopped with Iraq.

 

[Flametamer]

Originally posted by majestyx@Oct 2 2003, 07:43 AM
While I whole-heartedly agree that Sadam had to be dealt with, I just do not agree that the US Government should have lied regarding his possession of WMD's.

Maj, I don't believe the Government lied to us as much as I believe the weapons have been moved. I really would like to see them found, before they are used.

 

[Happy29]

Originally posted by bowtie+Oct 2 2003, 06:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bowtie @ Oct 2 2003, 06:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--steveluvs3@Oct 1 2003, 09:48 PM

I don't like the u.s. going over to other countries and solve their problems but saddam and sons were monsters and nobody else had the balls to get him out of there. I just can't understand how they can't find him or his corksucking buddy bin laden.

It's in the Bible, countries have always sent armies to take down evil rulers, it was something that needed to be done. [/b][/quote]
Just because you have the ability doesnt mean it should be done. Cuba has also been violating human rights and having Weapons of Mass Destruction, why dont we go after them? Saudi Arabia violates human rights too. Theyre just as evil as Iraq is, why dont we go after them?

Firstly, I dont know why Bush went after Hussein in the first place. I think this is just the "This is our excuse for not catching Bin Laden" War

 

[majestyx]

Originally posted by Flametamer+Oct 2 2003, 10:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flametamer @ Oct 2 2003, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--majestyx@Oct 2 2003, 07:43 AM
While I whole-heartedly agree that Sadam had to be dealt with, I just do not agree that the US Government should have lied regarding his possession of WMD's.

Maj, I don't believe the Government lied to us as much as I believe the weapons have been moved. I really would like to see them found, before they are used. [/b][/quote]
If they have indeed been moved, there still should be trace evidence of their existence (at least that is how I understand - that the way these biological weapons they leave remnants of themselves). I'm just very dissatisfied with the "reporting" of all of this information that was obtained regarding the WMD's. And you are right, if they were indeed moved, I certainly hope that they are found before they can be used against anyone!

Again, I am certainly glad that we were able to liberate Iraq from an evil monster(s) and hopefully they will eventually see that.

 

[bowtie]

Originally posted by Happy29+Oct 2 2003, 11:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Happy29 @ Oct 2 2003, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bowtie@Oct 2 2003, 06:04 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--steveluvs3

@Oct 1 2003, 09:48 PM

I don't like the u.s. going over to other countries and solve their problems but saddam and sons were monsters and nobody else had the balls to get him out of there. I just can't understand how they can't find him or his corksucking buddy bin laden.

It's in the Bible, countries have always sent armies to take down evil rulers, it was something that needed to be done.

Just because you have the ability doesnt mean it should be done. Cuba has also been violating human rights and having Weapons of Mass Destruction, why dont we go after them? Saudi Arabia violates human rights too. Theyre just as evil as Iraq is, why dont we go after them?

Firstly, I dont know why Bush went after Hussein in the first place. I think this is just the "This is our excuse for not catching Bin Laden" War [/b][/quote]
Because it all boils down to who is an immediate threat to the U.S. I think our next venture should be North Korea, and truly I think that sick b@$t@rd over there is next.

 

[Happy29]

Before venturing to North Korea and leading us into another quagmire, President Bush better get us outta Iraq first. Ya know, he started it, now he better finish it. He also better deal with the economy first, there'll be 100 billion dollars spent into that unnecessary war so far, probably more than that. I say before trying to rebuild Iraq, why not try rebuilding the U.S ECONOMY FIRST?!

 

[RobbyG Fan]

Happy29, I share your sentiments. This Bush administration has been a joke. Frankly, after 9/11 us as American people rallied around our president. Its natural, we go to our leader and look towards them during tough times, but this administration has been very lackadasical in the search for Bin Laden. I mean come on now, you mean to tell me the most intelligent CIA in the world cant find Bin Laden? BS.

And the fact that we couldnt find Bin Laden, Bush felt he needed to find another scapegoat, to turn the thoughts of the American people away from the useless search of Bin Laden, and who was that? Saddam. The administration said that they know for a fact that they know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The troops have now searched all over Iraq, and have they found any? No. If you remember correctly this all stems back from the elder Bush and his battles with Saddam during the Gulf War. What was it about then? Oil. What is it about now? Oil. Coincidence that Bush owned an oil company? I think not.

I cant wait until 2004 frankly, Bush has our troops suffering over there for what? More troops have been killed in the aftermath than during the war. The economy is at a total loss since Bush took office. Im sorry, but Bush has not been a good president.

Of course this is just my $0.02, and if you dont agree with me, fine, I respect that.

 

[chuck]

good thread Happy, my favorite George W. quote is "90% of america's imports come from other countries"
he aint the brightest light bulb but he stole the election fair and square so aint nothin we can do about it. watch somehow someway they'll find Bin Laden about a month before the '04 election

 

[steveluvs3]

i don't know? I heard iran is building some type of destructive bomb.

 

[steveluvs3]

Originally posted by RobbyG Fan@Oct 2 2003, 11:54 AM
Happy29, I share your sentiments. This Bush administration has been a joke. Frankly, after 9/11 us as American people rallied around our president. Its natural, we go to our leader and look towards them during tough times, but this administration has been very lackadasical in the search for Bin Laden. I mean come on now, you mean to tell me the most intelligent CIA in the world cant find Bin Laden? BS.

And the fact that we couldnt find Bin Laden, Bush felt he needed to find another scapegoat, to turn the thoughts of the American people away from the useless search of Bin Laden, and who was that? Saddam. The administration said that they know for a fact that they know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The troops have now searched all over Iraq, and have they found any? No. If you remember correctly this all stems back from the elder Bush and his battles with Saddam during the Gulf War. What was it about then? Oil. What is it about now? Oil. Coincidence that Bush owned an oil company? I think not.

I cant wait until 2004 frankly, Bush has our troops suffering over there for what? More troops have been killed in the aftermath than during the war. The economy is at a total loss since Bush took office. Im sorry, but Bush has not been a good president.

Of course this is just my $0.02, and if you dont agree with me, fine, I respect that.

our economy was going way down hill way before bush came into office and like I said no other country had the balls to take terrorism head on. I hate that some of our servicemen and women are dying but that's the downside of war. Now the oil thing I dunno, the u.s. don't even use that oil.

 

[RobbyG Fan]

Originally posted by steveluvs3+Oct 2 2003, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (steveluvs3 @ Oct 2 2003, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--RobbyG Fan@Oct 2 2003, 11:54 AM
Happy29, I share your sentiments.&nbsp; This Bush administration has been a joke.&nbsp; Frankly, after 9/11 us as American people rallied around our president.&nbsp; Its natural, we go to our leader and look towards them during tough times, but this administration has been very lackadasical in the search for Bin Laden.&nbsp; I mean come on now, you mean to tell me the most intelligent CIA in the world cant find Bin Laden?&nbsp; BS.

And the fact that we couldnt find Bin Laden, Bush felt he needed to find another scapegoat, to turn the thoughts of the American people away from the useless search of Bin Laden, and who was that?&nbsp; Saddam.&nbsp; The administration said that they know for a fact that they know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.&nbsp; The troops have now searched all over Iraq, and have they found any?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; If you remember correctly this all stems back from the elder Bush and his battles with Saddam during the Gulf War.&nbsp; What was it about then?&nbsp; Oil.&nbsp; What is it about now?&nbsp; Oil.&nbsp; Coincidence that Bush owned an oil company?&nbsp; I think not.

I cant wait until 2004 frankly, Bush has our troops suffering over there for what?&nbsp; More troops have been killed in the aftermath than during the war.&nbsp; The economy is at a total loss since Bush took office.&nbsp; Im sorry, but Bush has not been a good president.&nbsp;

Of course this is just my $0.02, and if you dont agree with me, fine, I respect that.

our economy was going way down hill way before bush came into office and like I said no other country had the balls to take terrorism head on. I hate that some of our servicemen and women are dying but that's the downside of war. Now the oil thing I dunno, the u.s. don't even use that oil. [/b][/quote]
No, our economy was good and rising up until Clinton left office. During the Bush/Gore fiasco the economy started leveling off and slowing down due to the uncertainty of who would be the president. When Bush took office the economy began to sour.

 

[steveluvs3]

Now there's something that really pisses me off, I know iraq needs to be rebuilt but damm can we spend some billions over here at home and giving that one country billions just to land our planes to attack northern iraq

 

[RobbyG Fan]

Originally posted by steveluvs3@Oct 2 2003, 03:14 PM
Now there's something that really pisses me off, I know iraq needs to be rebuilt but damm can we spend some billions over here at home and giving that one country billions just to land our planes to attack northern iraq

Agreed. Since the attack on Iraq Bush has seen his support dwindle greatly.

Clinton was a great president, and what makes him look even better was that his term was surrounded by both Bush Sr. and Jr., who havent done much for this country.

Read this: 3 to 6 GI's dying in Iraq every week.

 

[steveluvs3]

hey now I'm no clinton supporter, I still think bush is a better president and I would vote for him again and right now I do'nt see anybody changing my vote come next election

 

[bowtie]

Originally posted by steveluvs3@Oct 2 2003, 02:54 PM
hey now I'm no clinton supporter, I still think bush is a better president and I would vote for him again and right now I do'nt see anybody changing my vote come next election

me to.

 

[RobbyG Fan]

Originally posted by bowtie+Oct 2 2003, 04:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bowtie @ Oct 2 2003, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--steveluvs3@Oct 2 2003, 02:54 PM
hey now I'm no clinton supporter, I still think bush is a better president and I would vote for him again and right now I do'nt see anybody changing my vote come next election

me to. [/b][/quote]
Right now there is no Democratic candidate that has stepped up above the rest and taken charge, that could change, but thats why Bush is still a favorite right now.

Now Im not saying Im a Demo or Repo, because Im neither, Im Independent. I vote for the best candidate regardless of the party.

But anything is better than Bush right now.

 

[bowtie]

I for one am glad that Busch is our President, because we could have had Gore, then we would have been in trouble. President Busch did what he had to do after 9-11. As far as Clinton being a great president I have to disagree, a man who would cheat on his wife and then lie to her about it would definately lie to his country. I am a family man with family values and after that I wouldn't pi$$ on him if he was burning.

I firmly believe that Bin Laden will be caught, it will be over his dead body, but oh well. That is what will set Busch's legacy. The middle east is a hotbed of terrorist and if you don't think that Saddam is a terrorist you are badly mistaken my friend. He got just what he deserved.IMHO.

 

[Happy29]

Listen, I've never said that Hussein WASNT a terrorist. But I havent seen one plain shread of evidence that he bombed the United States or had a hand in the September 2001 attacks or 1993 WTC Attack. Sure, he may have gassed the Kurds, I dont want to sound cruel, but that was their problem, it's not our business to deal with that, but now that we already have, then we need to get ourselves out.

As for President Clinton I could care less about someone cheating on their wife and lying about his extra-marital affairs, but when President Bush lies about WMDs and an imminent threat and sending hundreds of American and British men and women to die for that is one hell of a lot worse.

 

[bowtie]

Originally posted by Happy29@Oct 2 2003, 04:50 PM
but when President Bush lies about WMDs and an imminent threat and sending hundreds of American and British men and women to die for that is one hell of a lot worse.

How do you know he lied? Just because they haven't foung them yet? I still think they are there, there is acres and acres, miles and miles of desert there to hide them in.

I'm done with this one.

 

[Happy29]

But we've been looking for months and months, we have soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines checking door to door, digging holes, checking bunkers and borders and poof ! Still Nothing.

 

[Highboy90]

(RobbyG Fan @ Oct 2 2003, 11:54 AM)
No.&nbsp; If you remember correctly this all stems back from the elder Bush and his battles with Saddam during the Gulf War.&nbsp; What was it about then?&nbsp; Oil.&nbsp; What is it about now?&nbsp; Oil.&nbsp; Coincidence that Bush owned an oil company?&nbsp; I think not.

You really believe this don't you? Iraq supplies less oil to the US than Mexico and Canada (No. #1) for christ sakes. U.S. Oil Imports - Top 10 Countries of Origin.

 

[Highboy90]

(Happy29 @ Oct 2 2003, 04:50 PM)
As for President Clinton I could care less about someone cheating on their wife and lying about his extra-marital affairs, but when President Bush lies about WMDs and an imminent threat and sending hundreds of American and British men and women to die for that is one hell of a lot worse.

Don't even try to make it sound like the only thing Clinton did was that he cheated on his wife and lied to the ENTIRE COUNTRY WHILE UNDER OATH. (How much money did that waste?) A lot has to do with what George Clinton DID NOT DO.

PROOF! --------------------------

Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats. How interesting!

The truth is that Saddam Hussein is a criminal who's violated international law and who HAD the ability cause grave harm at any time. There is no good reason as to why he should not have been removed. Kudo's to President Bush for having the balls to do what Bill Clinton DID NOT DO!

But feel free to continue and complain about the U.S. not finding any WMD's (at this time) and continue to ignore the fact that the U.S. needs to take a stance against terrorism. No matter where it comes from. No matter who is the master mind behind it.

 

[Highboy90]

Happy29 @&nbsp; Oct 2 2003, 05:50 PM
Listen, I've never said that Hussein WASNT a terrorist. But I havent seen one plain shread of evidence that he bombed the United States or had a hand in the September 2001 attacks or 1993 WTC Attack.

Even though this is going off topic, Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida (terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden) ties. Just because there is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11 does not mean he did not play a role in it at one level or another.

 

[Happy29]

My final rebuttal for this one.

Is Saddam a criminal? Yes. Is he a terrorist? Yes. Should we have gone after him even though he doesnt even constitute an imminent threat? No, this was clearly an unneccessary war brought about by settling scores with world rivals and advancing the interests of those in the Bush Administration. Now, the Iraq WMD Hunting team led by David Kay says that they havent found any WMDS, the region is destabilized, insurgents and mercenaries from Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are even crossing the borders to fight our troops. My friends, President Bush has dug himself a hole he wont get out of and unfortunately, we're all in the long haul.

Plus we cant forget the fact that President Bush, blinded by his narrow views, provincial ones in fact has pissed off the entire U.N. Now we're lucky to even get Cameroon on our side, the rest of the world hates us, France, Russia and Germany, the countries who were once friends of ours don't even want to help us because of the act-first-never-think-things-through mentality of our President. Now could you have said that same when Clinton was around?

Let's also add that President Bush doesnt even have an economic strategy. His economic strategy is to have tax cuts for the Rich and the big business so that in theory it would create more jobs for the middle and lower income families. Ah, wrong, Bush's Reaganesque economics style HAVE FAILED. More Americans are in poverty now than ever according to polls, the market is in a rollercoaster style ride, the deficit is high, jobs are being lost left and right, and the rich and big business kept all that money for theirselves. Well, Bush said he would have an economic strategy within his first term, frankly I can pull a better job plan out of my ass and now he wants to spend over 100 billion more dollars in getting out of a war that he started. I dont even know where to go with that.

As of right now, I think we should forget about recalling Grey Davis in California. It's time to recall someone else who's had lackluster policies, bankrupt politics, favor of the special interests, horrible foreign policies and economies and that person is President Bush.

That's my 2 pennies.

 

[Highboy90]

Originally posted by Happy29@Oct 2 2003, 07:42 PM
Now, the Iraq WMD Hunting team led by David Kay says that they havent found any WMDS

Former CIA boss James Woolsey told Sky News that David Kay's interim report - which is expected to say no weapons of mass destruction have been found - was not the end of the story.

"Weapons do not have to be massive in order to be capable of mass destruction," he said from Washington.

"There are 100,000 lethal doses in one gramme of anthrax. Saddam has admitted producing 8,500 litres of anthrax which doesn't sound like much but is eight and half tonnes. That is less than half a tractor trailer load and could be converted to four suitcases if powdered."

He added: "Iraq is the size of California. So ask yourself how many suitcases of cocaine or tractor loads of marijuana could be detected in the state." Full story