President Bush: Is He a Liar?

So,its ok to use people with a disability as part of your anti Bush attacks?
I thought the left was opposed to that kind of thing.

And since you apparently know nothing about me,my family,or anything else concerning Tourrette Syndrome,I suggest you educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself then you already have.

He's cracking up! Get him to the "Hillary Clinton Bush supporters psychiatric ward" quick!

Halliburton built it. It cost 25 million. It's in a trailer.

Yes, that's right. Keep trying to take the thread off track. Anything to distract. What's that? Disabilities? Your family? Tourrettes? Sure. Anything that works, MM. Keep it coming.

October 24, 2004

Apparently, 350 tons of specialized, dual use, high explosives were looted early in the occupation. The same kind of explosives that have been killing our troops over the past year. The same kind of explosives used in the triggering process of a nuclear bomb.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country. "

"...After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

"Earlier this month, in a letter to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

"another obvious question is what's been done with the 350 tons, if anything, outside of Iraq? Our sources were unanimous in thinking that for reasons noted below, "it's still in Iraq, and this is the most likely primary source of the explosives which have been used to blow up Humvees and in all the deadly car bomb attacks since the Occupation began." Sources also discount any possibility except that "this was a highly organized operation using heavy equipment, and it was done right under our noses."

http://www.hellblazer.com/archives/2004/10/george_bushs_in.html

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002958.php

Game, set, match.

Whoo - Hoo!

Now we can turn the corner in Iraq. Victory is coming, thanks to our lying Commander in Chief. Freedom will be theirs, instead of ours, because we fought them over there instead of here.

(or, something like that. I might need to review those talking points again.)

Lies? By whom?

President Clinton confessed to lying about Monica Lewinsky. That is the only time I can find an actual validated lie in Clinton's many utterances.

Many of the posters on this thread are very vague. They throw the term "liar" around easily but never prove that the utterance is a "lie"

Here are some examples of statements which could be branded as lies but will not be so labeled by me since I do not have PROOF that they were lies. Oh, I can claim that they were lies but that is only a claim made by a political partisan and is not worth very much.

Some specifics:

From the speech of President William Jefferson Clinton when he authorized missles to bomb Iraq on December 1998 without Congressional Authorization.

quote:

"The International community had little doubt them( when Saddam used chemical weapons against his own peopl) and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again"

and

"Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system, and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no mistake about it, he will>"

and

"I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity of develop and deliver WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors"

and

"The credible threat to use force, and WHEN NECESSARY, THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, IS THE SUREST WAY TO CONTAIN SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, curtail his aggression and prevent another Civil War."

and

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he THREATENS THE WELL BEING OF HIS PEOPLE, THE PEACE OF HIS REGION AND THE S E C U R I T Y O F T H E W O R L D"

and

"The BEST WAY to end that threat once and for all is WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT..."

And

"And mark my words, he will develop WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE WILL DEPLOY THEM AND HE WILL USE THEM"


**********************************************************

Did William Jefferson Clinton lie in the above statements? I don't know but similar statements have been made since 1998 which have been called lies.

No one, I am sure, will make a statement as to whether the words of Clinton above were lies or were the truth.

I invite any comments!!!

Lies? By whom?

President Clinton confessed to lying about Monica Lewinsky. That is the only time I can find an actual validated lie in Clinton's many utterances.

Many of the posters on this thread are very vague. They throw the term "liar" around easily but never prove that the utterance is a "lie"

Here are some examples of statements which could be branded as lies but will not be so labeled by me since I do not have PROOF that they were lies. Oh, I can claim that they were lies but that is only a claim made by a political partisan and is not worth very much.

Some specifics:

From the speech of President William Jefferson Clinton when he authorized missles to bomb Iraq on December 1998 without Congressional Authorization.

quote:

"The International community had little doubt them( when Saddam used chemical weapons against his own peopl) and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again"

and

"Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system, and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no mistake about it, he will>"

and

"I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity of develop and deliver WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors"

and

"The credible threat to use force, and WHEN NECESSARY, THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, IS THE SUREST WAY TO CONTAIN SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, curtail his aggression and prevent another Civil War."

and

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he THREATENS THE WELL BEING OF HIS PEOPLE, THE PEACE OF HIS REGION AND THE S E C U R I T Y O F T H E W O R L D"

and

"The BEST WAY to end that threat once and for all is WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT..."

And

"And mark my words, he will develop WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE WILL DEPLOY THEM AND HE WILL USE THEM"


**********************************************************

Did William Jefferson Clinton lie in the above statements? I don't know but similar statements have been made since 1998 which have been called lies.

No one, I am sure, will make a statement as to whether the words of Clinton above were lies or were the truth.

I invite any comments!!!

Answer the question I asked...

What are you going to do about it?
Answer...not a damn thing!!!!!!!

The dems cant do anything,because they then would have to admit that they also lied by repeating what Bush said,and voting for the use of force.
So,since you cant and the dems wont do anything,whats the point?

The left isn't claiming that, I'm claiming it. Though I'm flattered you think so highly of me, I wouldn't consider myself "The Left". Anyhoo, Brandon started this thread about Bush lies, and that's what it's about. The spying thread is a different one and has nothing to do with whether or not Bush lied about it. The fact that another agency might be spying on us won't turn a lie into the truth.

Mysteryman, you've become unhinged. You're babbling incoherently. I do understand though. It's tough when you finally realize that your hero is a lying piece of ****.

In what way does integrity answer the picture. If I say something that I totally believe and am later proven wrong, I am simply not a liar. As for Iraq, Bush was correct that they might well have had WMD, since they had at one time had them and lied about them.

As mysteryman so cogently pointed out, The Democrats joined the Republicans in Congress to vote to GIVE FULL AUTHORITY to President Bush to invade Iraq on Oct. 10th and 11th 2001.

Their leader, Bill Clinton also made spoke out with a rationale which would prefigure later comment by President Bush.

No one seems able to handle the reality of President Clinton's comments on Dec. 1998 with regard to Iraq. I am certain that they will not go neqar those quotes because Clinton's opinions concerning Iraq, Saddam, WMD's and the necessity to stop Saddam, are fatal to their argument.

From the speech of President William Jefferson Clinton when he authorized missles to bomb Iraq on December 1998 without Congressional Authorization.

quote:

"The International community had little doubt them( when Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people) and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again"

and

"Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system, and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday--make no mistake about it, he will>"

and

"I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity of develop and deliver WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors"

and

"The credible threat to use force, and WHEN NECESSARY, THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, IS THE SUREST WAY TO CONTAIN SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, curtail his aggression and prevent another Civil War."

and

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he THREATENS THE WELL BEING OF HIS PEOPLE, THE PEACE OF HIS REGION AND THE S E C U R I T Y O F T H E W O R L D"

and

"The BEST WAY to end that threat once and for all is WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT..."

And

"And mark my words, he will develop WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE WILL DEPLOY THEM AND HE WILL USE THEM"


**********************************************************

Did William Jefferson Clinton lie in the above statements? I don't know but similar statements have been made since 1998 which have been called lies.

No one, I am sure, will make a statement as to whether the words of Clinton above were lies or were the truth.

Free Duck wrote:


"The left isn't claiming that. I"m claiming it.

I am certain that FreeDuck is aware that he can claim anything he wishes to claim.

I have also "claimed" things. I once claimed that William Jefferson Clinton was guilty of raping Juanita Broadderick. I was met with strong objections which said, in effect. You can't prove that.

There is a great deal of evidence to show that Clinton did, in fact, rape Juanita Broadderick, but, the critics are correct. It cannot be PROVEN.

Your claim falls into the similar category, FreeDuck--a claim; an allegation; but not something that is PROVEN.

BernardR, when Clinton was in office, Hussein was a huge threat, but once Bush took office and decided to form a policy directed at the threat, the threat seemed to evaporate according to the Democrats. Some of us that have memories, including you, but apparently not some others on this forum, remember what transpired in those years, and what was being said and believed. Now, everything the Democrats said evaporated into thin air as if none of it ever happened or ever believed, or ever said. So the threat is now regarded as something Bush made up, lied about, and foisted onto the American people, all by himself, with some help from the evil Dick Cheney of course, who actually tells Bush what to do, right? Hmmm..... whos really the liars in all of this?

The liars, Okie? It is the Democrats who appear to care nothing about the safety and security of the American people and will denigrate any effort by the Republican Administration to keep our country safe. The Democrats will throw any mud they can find, use every lie, to try to regain power. I pray that they will not, in their opposition to every attemp by President Bush to protect us, cripple any program which may help us to avoid another attack like the one on the WTC.

If they do, Okie, and all people of good conscience pray it will never happen, future History books will cast the Democrats as the party which valued political power before the safety and lives of its citizens!

Agreed.

To add to it, when will Democrats return to the world of reality? Probably when the next attack occurs, which could be worse than 911, that would be my guess, and the return to reality will last for a few months until they return to their bubbles again when things settle down.

Right now, they believe the war on terror is only a trumped up program by Bush to scare us all into voting for the Republicans. Actually, I'm not sure they believe that or are just claiming it (lying) in order to gain political advantage? According to Gore, the internal combustion engine, and the "tipping point" of catastrophic environmental disaster are perhaps the greatest threats? Hmmm... speaking of lies?

Fifteen pages or so and I still haven't seen a defence of Bush's State of the Union statement about Iraq seeking uranium.

Definitely a calculated deception.

Drew Dad- Sir- I invite you to peruse the following written by John Podhoretz in "Commentary" I do urge you to rebut his statements( with documented evidence, of course.
____________________________________________________________

Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.

The story begins with the notorious sixteen words inserted?-after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department?-into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

This is the "lie" Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the Vice President's idea. But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the Vice President sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed non-role in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:

My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . . , both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.

More than a year after his return, with the help of Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.

In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the sixteen words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the President's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary?-for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the sixteen words at issue was true.

That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore?-and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited?-Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.




As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing6), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:

He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

And again:

The report on [Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research?-which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons?-found support in Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it?-which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Bush in the famous sixteen words.

The liar here, then, was not Bush but Wilson. And Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report,

[t]he forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].7

More damning yet to Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:

[Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ?'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

___________________________________________________________

I hope this will be helpful to you, sir!!!