President Bush: Is He a Liar?

This is just too funny. BernardR posts an article by a prominent neo-conservative - with extreme bias, and he wants to use this to make his point. ha ha ha....

Norman Podhoretz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Norman Podhoretz (born January 16, 1930) is an American intellectual considered to be a prominent neo-conservative thinker and writer.

I posted days ago six links that document the lies of George Bush and those of his subordinates. No one refuted the facts presented from those web sites.

Perhaps most -- like me -- just ignore the bulk of your posts?

I think the start of this subject thread was a big mistake, as the Democrats and liberals could hardly believe their good fortune when they saw the subject.

kuvasz wrote:

I posted days ago six links that document the lies of George Bush and those of his subordinates. No one refuted the facts presented from those web sites.

Perhaps most -- like me -- just ignore the bulk of your posts?

I, and the rest of humanity thank God Almighty that you do not speak for us.

After all, you have shown time and again you would rather engage in sniping little personal attacks than dialectic. You can't blame that on your recent medical illness (which I was sorry to hear about, btw), since this has been your proclivity for some time now.

Gee big guy, six links documenting Bush lies along with three illustrations documenting said instances would negate your "rather," and you used a lot of words just to say that you can't defend George Bush from accusations that he is a liar. Surely instead of your usual misdirection when confronted with undesireable facts that undermine your position you should be capable of defending your hero from the documented instances where he is accused of lying.

btw: Thank you for showing concern for my health. It is much appreciated.

Gee big guy, six links documenting Bush lies along with three illustrations documenting said instances would negate your "rather," and you used a lot of words just to say that you can't defend George Bush from accusations that he is a liar. Surely instead of your usual misdirection when confronted with undesireable facts that undermine your position you should be capable of defending your hero from the documented instances where he is accused of lying.

btw: Thank you for showing concern for my health. It is much appreciated

As opposed to the spinners and nit-pickers on the right that want to say that the administration never claimed that WMD were the justification for the war, and that we knew exactly where they were, and how much there was, and that our military would be in and out in a matter of months?

DrewDad wrote:

As opposed to the spinners and nit-pickers on the right that want to say that the administration never claimed that WMD were the justification for the war, and that we knew exactly where they were, and how much there was, and that our military would be in and out in a matter of months?

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

As opposed to the spinners and nit-pickers on the right that want to say that the administration never claimed that WMD were the justification for the war, and that we knew exactly where they were, and how much there was, and that our military would be in and out in a matter of months?

Thank you for proving my point so effectively.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

kuvasz wrote:

Gee big guy, six links documenting Bush lies along with three illustrations documenting said instances would negate your "rather," and you used a lot of words just to say that you can't defend George Bush from accusations that he is a liar. Surely instead of your usual misdirection when confronted with undesireable facts that undermine your position you should be capable of defending your hero from the documented instances where he is accused of lying.

No, I used my words to say I didn't see those links because I was too busy ignoring your posts.

ah, the blissfulness of the ignorant, how your revel in it.

I've spent a good deal of time addressing accusations of Bush's lying earlier in this thread, which you may not have seen. But I'd be happy to address any specific claims you have to present on that issue, but I'm not likely to follow any links you post, which would send me off to some other site where they've compiled your argument for you.

No, your bluster saying so does not make it so.

But there you go again with your inconsistent approach to these discussions. You excoriated me months ago me for redacting and combining parts of several essays in answer to you where you said at the time you wanted to know with whom you were debating, yet now refuse to check out links. So which is it now? You don't want to read the original unredacted link, or if I post parts of them would want to dwell on from where my argument came? Make your silly mind. You have all the internal consistency of an Alzheimer's patient.

the links I provided stated clearly the Bush lies, with documentation as to the time and place he made them, also presented to confirm that Bush lied were documented facts that proved he lied.

I listed three specific instances last night where Bush lied, with the actual references proving it. all you have to do is disprove them.

stop dancing around the issue.

Quote:

btw: Thank you for showing concern for my health. It is much appreciated

You bet.

stay healthy, and don't smoke

I'm going to repost this, because Tico laughed it off without providing a serious answer; yet I feel this is an important point.

How, exactly, would things have been worse if Kerry or Gore had won?

Specifically.

I doubt that anyone on the Right can identify any specific ways that the country would be worse off. I'd like to see any one of you try.

Cycloptichorn

What makes it more likely that we would have gotten attacked on Kerry or Gore's watch than Bush's?

Do I need to remind you who was running the country when 9/11 happened?

What worse scenarios can you imagine? I'd like to know, really. From both a domestic and foreign standpoint. And I'd like to know what evidence prompted you to believe that such things would be true.

to treating terrorism as a crime is partly responsible for 9/11 and it emboldened the terrorists

How, exactly, would things have been worse if Kerry or Gore had won?

Specifically.

I doubt that anyone on the Right can identify any specific ways that the country would be worse off. I'd like to see any one of you try.

Cycloptichorn

DrewDad wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

As opposed to the spinners and nit-pickers on the right that want to say that the administration never claimed that WMD were the justification for the war, and that we knew exactly where they were, and how much there was, and that our military would be in and out in a matter of months?

Thank you for proving my point so effectively.

I'm not sure I have, but the 23 "Whereas" clauses in the resolution do pretty much show what the justification for the war was. Seems to be a bit more than mere claims that he possessed WMD.

The shotgun approach is intellectually lacking. It also flies in the face of everything I followed on many of these issues from the time they hit the news. I cannot remember every little detail, but the conclusions I drew at the time were based on those details, and if I hear someone lying, I think I can recognize it when I see it based on what I know, not what some spinner and twister of the news says 5 years later by formulating the argument by quoting things out of context and the situation of the time.