President Bush: Is He a Liar?

BernardR wrote:

PS.Sir- I never play or have played the game of "marbles".

I suppose not, as it generally requires the players to have opposable thumbs.

0 Replies

Do you have a photograph of the interior of my thumbs, Mr. Drew Dad? If you do not have such a photograph, you know nothing about my thumbs.

Again, Do you have a quote from a responsible Israeli Official that Israel will pre-emptively attack Iran?

0 Replies

Do watch the use of those spaces, Bernard. One might think your thumb was spasming due to being over-worked as a saddle.

0 Replies

Again, Do you have a quote from a responsible Israeli Official that Israel will pre-emptively attack Iran?

0 Replies

Again, Do you have a quote from a responsible Israeli Official that Israel will pre-emptively attack Iran?

0 Replies

Again, Do you have a quote from a responsible Israeli Official that Israel will pre-emptively attack Iran?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

BernardR wrote:
PS.Sir- I never play or have played the game of "marbles".

I suppose not, as it generally requires the players to have opposable thumbs.

Checklist for starting the day... coffee...check
clean underwear.... check
hug and kiss squinney... check

One long loud and hearty laugh to start the day on an up note... check and double check.

Thank you Drew dad. Laughing

0 Replies

Bush claimed that he heard about the Haditha incident from reporters, when he had actually known about it for two months. Another lie.

Quote:

Bush learned of Haditha deaths from press
Tue May 30, 2:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON - President Bush learned of reports that U.S. Marines killed two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians only after reporters began asking questions, the White House said Tuesday.

Asked when Bush was first briefed about the events in Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in western Iraq, White House press secretary Tony Snow replied Tuesday: "When a Time reporter first made the call."

Time magazine was first to report, in March, that the U.S. military was investigating a dozen Marines for possible war crimes in the November incident. The killings, which included women and children, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine.

Marines then shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into homes and shot other people, according to Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated Marine war veteran and prominent critic of Iraq policy who has talked with military officials.

Bush was briefed on the incident and investigation by his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, Snow said. He would not detail Bush's personal involvement since.

"I think anybody who's heard the story has a personal interest and it's impossible not to," he said. "But the president also is allowing the chain of command to do what it's supposed to do in the Department of Defense, which is to complete an investigation. The Marines are taking an active and aggressive role in this."

Snow said that he has been assured by the Pentagon that "all the details" will be given to the public once the investigation is over. "We'll have a picture of what happened," Snow said

Quote:

On March 10, the findings were given to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, the first Marine ever to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld told aides that the case promised to be a major problem. He called it "really, really bad -- as bad or worse than Abu Ghraib," recalled one Pentagon official. On March 11, President Bush was informed, according to the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/03/AR2006060300710_pf.html

Which one is the correct story? I guess this may be parsed as the 'white house' getting the story wrong, and not a direct statement by bush; but it certainly isn't consistent.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I read the last post and the only fact that I can discern with regard to President Bush is that he was informed, according to his Press Secretary, Tony Snow, by the NSA Steven Hadley.

As far as getting a story completely correctly, I would suggest that in the case of depositions, as occurred during President Clinton's tenure, the "completely correct" story MAY come out and then it MAY NOT, depending on the details necessary to be provided by all of the players. After all, there was a great amount of confusion in DC until the DNA evidence was offered.

0 Replies

Quote:

The War They Wanted, The Lies They NeededThe officials are Bearden; Colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as the D.I.A.'s defense intelligence officer for the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism; Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell; Melvin Goodman, a former division chief and senior analyst at the C.I.A. and the State Department; Ray McGovern, a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years; Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia division in 2002 and 2003; Larry C. Johnson, a former C.I.A. officer who was deputy director of the State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993; former C.I.A. official Philip Giraldi; and Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of operations of the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center.

0 Replies

I read your "evidence" Mr. Cyclopitchorn. It is full of errors of omission.

Here is the truth:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files.podhoretz1205advance.htlm

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Here is the truth:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files.podhoretz1205advance.htlm

Quote:

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

0 Replies

I would ask what those errors of omission were, specifically, but I don't respond to racist trolls, so this message is directed to anyone who wishes to answer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I would be stung to the quick except for three things:

l. Name calling is explictly prohibited by the TOS

2. The first refuge of posters who cannot meet the arguments given to them is to name call.

3. I would never call you names, Mr. Cyclopitchorn. I don't have to. All I have to do, as I just did, is to show that your argument is erroneous.

0 Replies

I lower myself by addressing you directly. But I feel it is important to point out that the section of the Senate Intelligence Committee report which stated the things you claim was merely an addendum written by Hatch, Roberts, and Bond, and not the findings of the comittee itself. Therefore, these politically-oriented 'additions' have no bearing whatsoever to what we generally term 'the truth.'

It is also important to point out that Podhertz, as a prominent Neocon, is hardly an impartial source of information with which to disprove anything about the war which he helped plan and envision.

It is also important to point out that accusations about Joe Wilson do not address the meat of the Vanity Fair article, which isn't about Joe Wilson in the slightest, and that there is no chance whatsoever that anyone would believe that what Podhertz had to write addresses the article in any fashion, with the main proposition of the article being that the Bush administration knew that the intelligence was fake, which has nothing to do with Wilson.

It is also important to point out that when one consistently makes racist comments, one should be prepared to be called a racist consistently.

I will not lower myself to address you again. Though I am quite sure that you will write many pages denigrating me in the future, know they will mean nothing to me whatsoever, Racist. They will only be a waste of your time, Racist.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Again, I am stung to the quick. Howver, I must, at this time, defend myself.

I will leave it to the readers of these threads to conclude whether or not the portion of Mr. Podhoretz's essay was accurate. I read it carefully and noted that he documented one section by quoting from the Butler Commission. It is easy enough to check it out.

Some of the rest of Mr. Podhoretz' comments are also documented. He cites www.worldwidestandard.com.

It is clear that Mr.Podhoretz' comments are backed up by evidence.

When Mr. Cyclopitchorn comments that Mr. Podhoretz is a neo-con and therefore his comments should carry no weight, I am sure that he realizes that it is the substance that is written and not the messenger that is important. If the messenger is indeed to be the standard, then I am very much afraid that Move On.org and Truthout and Common Dreams would not meet the test.

I note that Mr. Cycloptichorn has played the DREADED RACE CARD.

The race card is a particularly effective weapon which is supposed to silence any type of response because of the shame and ignominy it brings on its bearer.

I must therefore define Racism since a racist would obviously believe in racism.

quote--

"A belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

I feel quite confident that Mr. Cyclopitchorn cannot find any statements I have made which fit that definition. Since he cannot, his abortive attempt to stun me with the RACE CARD, is, unfortunately for Mr. Cyclopitchorn, doomed to failure.

Mr. Cyclopitchorn is aware, I am sure, that he need not respond to any post I make. I can assure him that I will not despair if he does not!!

0 Replies

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/may06/310506bili.jpg

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I would be stung to the quick except for three things:

l. Name calling is explictly prohibited by the TOS

2. The first refuge of posters who cannot meet the arguments given to them is to name call.

3. I would never call you names, Mr. Cyclopitchorn. I don't have to. All I have to do, as I just did, is to show that your argument is erroneous.

Do multiple screen-names contravene the TOS?
Why on earth would somone get banned from A2K other than for repeated offenses that were against the TOS?
I direct this to anyone with the relevent information.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

BernardR wrote:
I would be stung to the quick except for three things:

l. Name calling is explictly prohibited by the TOS

2. The first refuge of posters who cannot meet the arguments given to them is to name call.

3. I would never call you names, Mr. Cyclopitchorn. I don't have to. All I have to do, as I just did, is to show that your argument is erroneous.

Do multiple screen-names contravene the TOS?
Why on earth would somone get banned from A2K other than for repeated offenses that were against the TOS?
I direct this to anyone with the relevent information.

Perhaps you could ask Roxxxanne?

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know