More Bush Lies... Point by Point (with links)

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance" ~ Socrates

Straight FACTS
Each fact is a link. Click it to find out more.

As of October 24th, 2003:
398 American soldiers have diedfaces and names of our relatives and friends who have died fighting. May they R.I.P.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Between 7,768 and 9,578 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the war.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

The other side of "Shock and Awe". Warning: graphic images.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

The administration knew LONG before the presidential address to the nation that the "uranium from Africa" claim was false.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

Bush's constant talk of WMD has turned up nothing thus far. More here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2949441.stm
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030915_579.html

There was never a link between 9-11 and Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/17/sprj.irq.bush.ap/index.html

After the pledge that finding Osama was a top priority
"I truly am not that concerned about him." - Bush on Osama Bin Laden, CNN, 3-13-2002 (8th paragraph down)
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/Bush.news.conference/

Dick Cheney finally admits, "We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon". But before the war, he stated NUMEROUS times, "Iraq has reconstituted Nuclear Weapons".
http://www.msnbc.com/news/966470.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/

VP Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. Without any competition, Halliburton gets the multi-million dollar contract to rebuild in Iraq. Connect the dots.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml

Exactly what is the "Patriot Act"?
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12263&c=206

Take a closer look at what money spent on war could have provided for America.
http://www.costofwar.com/

Its time to wake up America.
If you're not outraged,
you're not paying attention.

Note: some of the links connect to transcripts from programs. To avoid sifting through the entire document, simply click "Edit" from the toolbar, select "Find (on this page)", type in the phrase and hit "enter". It'll take you right to the spot.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,710 • Replies: 21

No top replies

Old news.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Old news.

No, it is not. Not to most Americans, at least.

Even if it was old news, it is still relevent.

0 Replies

Amen.

0 Replies

The casualty figures, quoted above, are already outdated, following many more innocent deaths in Iraq today.

If this is what the Administration calls bringing peace to Iraq, thank goodness we are not at war.

0 Replies

With friends like this, who need enemas?

0 Replies

Now President Bush and the rest of our heroic leaders, from the safety of their storm basements and nuclear bunkers in the U.S., are urging the Red Cross and other aid agencies to remain in Iraq as unprotected sitting targets, in spite of the constant threat to their lives.

Proving that making sacrifices is easy ..... when others are paying the bills.

0 Replies

In Oz, that's the conservative way. They're only too happy to send others to die for their beliefs. The general community level of military service I believe is much less than that of the US.

0 Replies

One more dead today and another six injured (they never say how seriously). When will the price be wrong?

0 Replies

Rebuttal to the tyranny of liberalism
> American soldiers have died

It's a war. People die; it's certainly unfortunate. The objective is to minimize one's own losses while achieving one's goals.

facts:
- The geographic region formerly known Iraq is less of a threat now than it was before the cobbering.
- To expect zero casualties is delusional.
- America, as a national entity, is obligated to protect it's citizens before being concerned for the welfare of foreiners.

> faces and names of our relatives and friends who have died fighting. May they R.I.P

May God have mercy on their souls.

facts:
- American freedom has traditionally been won in the blood of patriots.

> Between 7,768 and 9,578 Iraqi citizens have been killed

War can be messy. It is unfortunate when innocent people die. To avoid war because there is a risk of innocent people dying is immature. I take issue with implication of the word "citizens". An armed citizen shooting at American soldiers is not an innocent bystander. Were not slain Iraqui soldiers citizens?

facts:
- Iraqui soldiers are Iraqui citizens
- The American military, more so than any other nation, strives to avoid killing non-combatants

> The other side of "Shock and Awe". Warning: graphic images

########################
This outrage is misplaced given this:

Edit(Moderator): Link removed, see the TOS.
########################

> The administration knew

facts:
- [cia] intelligence is not derived from omniscience
- it's easy to pick out failures in intelligence after the fact

> constant talk of WMD has turned up nothing thus far

Ahhh, counting errors. I hate liberalism.

facts:
- there have been WMD in Iraq
- Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people
- there are mass grave of Iraquis prior the shock and thumping
- WMD includes multiple kinds of weapons, hence the plurality of the acronym

> a link between 9-11 and Iraq.

facts:
- countries fond of terrorists are likely to harbor terrorists
- countries that harbor one clan or terrorists are likely to harbor other clans without issue
- countries who hate america are likely friendly with other countries who hate america
- countries run by meniacle, lunatic tyrants are a danger to american citizens

> After the pledge that finding Osama was a top priority

Those who are of great threat to americans will be pursued. Those whose danger diminishes will be given lesser priority.

> We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon

John grows watermellons in his yard. John has never bought watermellons. Nonetheless, John is likely to have watermellons

> Without any competition, Halliburton gets the multi-million dollar contract

Please name a HANDFUL of companies CAPABLE of the scale required of Haliburton...

> Exactly what is the "Patriot Act"

A misnomer.

> Take a closer look at what money spent on war could have provided for America.

Take a look at what could have been avoided had a certain administration not allocated monies originally dedicated to national security and military spending to obviously less valuable programs. The very same administration that failed to uphold it's promise to get those responsible -- failed to pursue after SEVERAL DOZEN acts of terrorism:

http://www.september-11th.us/firstplane.jpg

http://www.september-11th.us/Pictures-Stories.html
http://www.11-sept.org/
http://www.9-11heroes.us/victims-flight-pentagon.php
http://www.13weeks.org/
http://www.cantcryhardenough.com/

> Its time to wake up America.

Yes. Stand up against those who would undermine America's right to national sovereignty by submitting to the foolish will of the United Nations -- an oraganization favored by Alger Hiss.

0 Replies

And there we have the right wing propaganda so cherished by those who are not putting their own particular lives on the line.

Iraq was no proximate threat to Americans until we sent Americans there so that they might be targeted. There is no, and never has been any connection between Iraq and the events on September 11, 2001. Suggesting as much is a disgusting act of wrapping one's self in the flag to an effort to cram beliefs (yes, beliefs, not facts) down the throats of those who dissent from the cowboy foreign policy of the half-wit in the oval office. It's one of his favorite cheap, callous tactics, so one should expect no better from those who support his regime.

0 Replies

Re: Rebuttal to the tyranny of liberalism

whatis1029 wrote:

> Its time to wake up America.

Yes. Stand up against those who would undermine America's right to national sovereignty by submitting to the foolish will of the United Nations -- an oraganization favored by Alger Hiss.

Why is the national sovereignty of the US so much more important than the national sovereignty of any other country?

0 Replies

Yeah, Wilso, that one cracked me up, too, but for a different reason: " . . . an organization favored by Alger Hiss." Christianity was an organized religion favored by Hitler. Will you join me, dear friends, as we throw the baby out with the bath water?

0 Replies

whatis1029,

If you want to put up pictures dead babies on the web could you please not use able2know in the URL?

Thanks.

0 Replies

Re: Rebuttal to the tyranny of liberalism
Finally, a Republican who stands up to the challege... but just like the others, falls on his face with his argument. Although I appreciate your zeal, you simply swallow the propaganda that fools so many Americans nowadays.

I don't have much time, so its going to force me to be a bit brief. Pardon me if my points are a bit fractured. Here we go:

whatis1029 wrote:

> American soldiers have died

It's a war. People die; it's certainly unfortunate. The objective is to minimize one's own losses while achieving one's goals.

facts:
- The geographic region formerly known Iraq is less of a threat now than it was before the cobbering.
- To expect zero casualties is delusional.
- America, as a national entity, is obligated to protect it's citizens before being concerned for the welfare of foreiners.

Yes. Great observation, that people die in war. What are you going to tell us next, water is wet? Trees are tall? I gave a number so people know exactly how many of our sodiers have fallen thus far. Not a single one had to die, yet they were sent to a war that was not necessary, and they were killed. As for Iraq being less of a threat now than before, what are you smoking? We've contributed to destabilizing the middle east, and are creating terrorists through an invasion that was not needed.
Iraq was never a true threat to us to begin with. We kicked their asses in the first Gulf War, and they haven't done anything for 12 years since.
As for protecting our citizens, were you really worried about Iraqi's? The terrorists were Osama and Al Qaida. Those are the "foreiners" that we should be worried about.

whatis1029 wrote:

> faces and names of our relatives and friends who have died fighting. May they R.I.P

May God have mercy on their souls.

facts:
- American freedom has traditionally been won in the blood of patriots.

"Freedom been won in the blood of patriots" No sh*t. Thank you again, captain obvious. Like many Republicans, you give us amorphic, patriotic catchphrases that doesn't really say anything at all, but somehow is supposed to get people to just kind of support your view. What "freedom was won" from invading Iraq? They weren't doing anything to us.

whatis1029 wrote:

> Between 7,768 and 9,578 Iraqi citizens have been killed

War can be messy. It is unfortunate when innocent people die. To avoid war because there is a risk of innocent people dying is immature. I take issue with implication of the word "citizens". An armed citizen shooting at American soldiers is not an innocent bystander. Were not slain Iraqui soldiers citizens?

facts:
- Iraqui soldiers are Iraqui citizens
- The American military, more so than any other nation, strives to avoid killing non-combatants

"War can be messy"... again, I'll make a note of that. To avoid war because there is the risk of innocent people dying is humane. If there was another option, should it not be looked into? If there is somet other option that can be pursued that won't result in massive casualties, how is that immature? I don't know, maybe its just me and I have to "toughen up". Don't get me wrong. If Iraq (or any country) starts war with us, we have every right to open a can of whup-ass on them. But lets be honest here. Iraq did NOT start a war against us.

whatis1029 wrote:

> The administration knew

facts:
- [cia] intelligence is not derived from omniscience
- it's easy to pick out failures in intelligence after the fact

How does that address the point I originally made? It wasn't a failure in intelligence. In fact, it shows that the intelligence we had did not support the claim the administration was making about the purchase of uranium. Hence, the American public was LIED to by a president who knew that was he was saying about Iraq was NOT TRUE. Personally, I'd like to know that I'm getting the facts when it comes time to decide whether to go to war or not.

whatis1029 wrote:

> constant talk of WMD has turned up nothing thus far

Ahhh, counting errors. I hate liberalism.

facts:
- there have been WMD in Iraq
- Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people
- there are mass grave of Iraquis prior the shock and thumping
- WMD includes multiple kinds of weapons, hence the plurality of the acronym

Don't bullsh*t here, you know what were talking about. Bush was stressing nukes. They didn't exist. The "chemical weapons" attacks on his own people is something that the US has KNOWN FOR YEARS. Not only that, but we were still selling him weapons, even though we knew he was killing his civilian population. Don't try to make this into some kind of "we just care about Iraqi civilians" thing, if we gave a crap about them, we would have raised a stink about it years ago.

whatis1029 wrote:

> a link between 9-11 and Iraq.

facts:
- countries fond of terrorists are likely to harbor terrorists
- countries that harbor one clan or terrorists are likely to harbor other clans without issue
- countries who hate america are likely friendly with other countries who hate america
- countries run by meniacle, lunatic tyrants are a danger to american citizens

"Likely" to harbor terrorists
"Likely" to harbor other clans w/o issue
"Likely" friendly with other countries who hate the US

Great rational. First of all, "Likely" won't get you far when it comes to making the right decisions. Put it this way: Maybe Pakistan should nuke India, since they will "Likely" have a confrontation down the line? How about Syria or any one of the Middle Eastern countries being justified in finding another way to attack us, since we are "Likely" to do something to them? Maybe North Korea should use one of their nukes on us, since we are "Likely" to do something to them? You don't move on hunches. You move on facts, or at the very least, a collection of information that proves with substantial certaintly that a particular danger is going to present itself. "Likely" doesn't cut it.

whatis1029 wrote:

> After the pledge that finding Osama was a top priority

Those who are of great threat to americans will be pursued. Those whose danger diminishes will be given lesser priority.

Ok, fine. But then, if its going to become a "lessor priority", don't tell the entire country that it will be a top priority. Osama will be a "high priority, until something else comes up, then we'll look for him when we can".

whatis1029 wrote:

> We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon

John grows watermellons in his yard. John has never bought watermellons. Nonetheless, John is likely to have watermellons

Cute story. I like watermelons myself. However, we still don't have evidence of Saddam possesing a nuclear weapon.

whatis1029 wrote:

> Without any competition, Halliburton gets the multi-million dollar contract

Please name a HANDFUL of companies CAPABLE of the scale required of Haliburton...

I'm not in the oil industry. Its still a significant point that the former CEO of an oil company is the vice president, and it just so happens that they get no-bid contracts. By the way, if they are so powerful, then they shouldn't have to worry about losing in a bid, do they?

whatis1029 wrote:

> Exactly what is the "Patriot Act"

A misnomer.

Yes. A misnomer that takes away important aspects of our freedoms and our privacy. Gotta love "big brother".

whatis1029 wrote:

> Take a closer look at what money spent on war could have provided for America.

Take a look at what could have been avoided had a certain administration not allocated monies originally dedicated to national security and military spending to obviously less valuable programs. The very same administration that failed to uphold it's promise to get those responsible -- failed to pursue after SEVERAL DOZEN acts of terrorism:

You just made the classic Republican jump from Topic "A" to Topic"B". I'll make it simple for you. Osama+Al Qaida= September 11. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. Why is that so hard to understand? You know, the most despicable thing to do is to manipulate peoples emotions to fool them into believing things that are not true. Come on, man. You can lie to others, but don't lie to yourself. Iraq and 9-11 just don't connect.
Although you make a good point in national security. If we had beefed up airport security alone, it would have prevented 9-11. I'm sure we could have every airport and harbor in the country teeming with metal detectors, bomb-sniffing dogs, security, etc if we spent the money on us instead of on this war.

whatis1029 wrote:

> Its time to wake up America.

Yes. Stand up against those who would undermine America's right to national sovereignty by submitting to the foolish will of the United Nations -- an oraganization favored by Alger Hiss.

Whoa! Where did that UN attack come from? Ok, the UN isn't the best of organizations, but we gotta at least try to make it work. And who says our sovereignty was being undermined? We were doing fine until we started talking invasion of a country that hasn't don't anything to us. Afghanistan is were we should be. Not Iraq.

And to this day:
No Osama. No Saddam. No WMD's, Crap Economy, No Jobs. Thanks Bush!

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Old news.

No, it is not. Not to most Americans, at least.

Even if it was old news, it is still relevent.

You are right that it is not old news, it remains current, idiotic, simplistic drivel that only the ignorant or stupid could find meaningful. I especially love this hor$e$hit about what we could do with the money we're spending in Iraq. What a crock. Imagine how quickly we could cure all diseases if we stopped spending money on producing food! Or, we could feed every starving person in the world with the money we could save by closing all hospitals and doctor's offices! Why, let's close the public schools and let people use the tax dollars they'd get to keep to buy their children a better education! ... Oh wait, that last one actually makes sense. :wink:

Dolts.

0 Replies

Ahhh...compassionate conservatism strikes again. Wink

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Ahhh...compassionate conservatism strikes again.

Singing... "I gotta be meeeeeeeeee! I gotta be meeee...." Cool

0 Replies

Come on, man. Open your mind a bit more. You speak of "simplistic drivel, then give an argument thats nothing but that...

Scrat wrote:

I especially love this hor$e$hit about what we could do with the money we're spending in Iraq. What a crock. Imagine how quickly we could cure all diseases if we stopped spending money on producing food!

We need food to live. We didn't need to Invade Iraq to live.

Scrat wrote:

Or, we could feed every starving person in the world with the money we could save by closing all hospitals and doctor's offices!

We need hospitals and doctors offices to live. We didn't need to Invade Iraq to live.

Scrat wrote:

Why, let's close the public schools and let people use the tax dollars they'd get to keep to buy their children a better education! ... Oh wait, that last one actually makes sense. :wink:
Dolts.

That was funny, :wink: Even then, imagine all the improvements we could have made to the public education system with the billions and billions that will be spent on the war.

0 Replies

Someone is happy! The friends of the Administration (weapons makers and contractors to Iraq and Afghanistan) have just announced massive increases in profits ..... thanks to taxpayers!

0 Replies

More Bush Lies... Point by Point (with links)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know