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.