0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 12:49 pm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 12:57 pm
BernardR wrote:
They did not lie about WMD's Parados. If you can read( (I am sure you can) read the following and REBUT his statements..DO NOT, as some do, blithely pass over what he says as if it was not on the page.

Maybe you should read my statement before you make your usual long winded off topic response.

The administration has stated that the few degraded warheads found in the last few years have nothing to do with its prewar claims about WMD.

Since they have stated as much then those few warheads can't be used to test the veracity of any statements made prewar.

You never address statements Bernie. You do what the British refer to as "wanking." I prefer to not watch others do that in public.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:00 pm
Bernie.. By the way. You have NEVER responded to or rebutted anything I have posted line by line so does that mean all my statements stand?














I guess it does..
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:06 pm
Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix

No evidence to link Saddam with September 11 attacks, Bush admits

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday September 18, 2003
The Guardian


The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday. The claim came on the same day that President George Bush stated more bluntly than ever that there is no evidence to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 - despite 69% of Americans believing Saddam had a personal role, according to a recent Washington Post opinion poll.

Mr Blix, who spent three years hunting for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq as head of the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission, told Australian Broadcasting Corporation listeners: "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991. The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found."

Saddam kept up the appearance that he had the weapons to deter a military attack, Mr Blix added. "I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the dog,' without having a dog," he said, speaking from his home in Sweden.

Investigators with the US-led Iraq survey group would be unlikely to find anything more than some "documents of interest", he predicted.

Mr Blix had previously declared himself "agnostic" on the issue of if or when Saddam destroyed such weapons, and has never dismissed so forcefully the arguments of Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

"Time will tell," the prime minister's official spokesman responded in London. "We have to exercise a bit of patience and recognise the survey group has been operational for a matter of some weeks. And clearly there is a lot of work to get through."

Mr Bush's remarks, made to reporters as he met members of Congress at the White House, place him at odds with his vice-president, Dick Cheney, who sought conspicuously to leave the question of Saddam's links with September 11 open in a TV appearance at the weekend.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 [attacks]," Mr Bush said, though he said there was "no question" that the Iraqi dictator "had al-Qaida ties".

On Sunday, by contrast, Mr Cheney said the popular belief in a link was "not surprising ... we don't know." Victory in Iraq, he went on, would strike at "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Mr Cheney also returned in the interview to an allegation, attributed to Czech intelligence, that the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2001 in Prague. According to numerous reports, the FBI and CIA found no evidence of such a meeting, and Vaclav Havel, the then Czech president, told the White House that there was none.

But Mr Cheney told NBC's Meet The Press: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Democrats have accused the Bush administration of deliberately seeking to convey a false impression about the relationship between the terrorist network and Saddam.

Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, told a US television interviewer on Tuesday that Saddam was targeted because he posed a danger in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged".

Asked about Saddam's weapons, Mr Cheney referred only to the Iraqi leader's "capabilities" and "aspirations", not to weapons themselves.

"To suggest that there is no evidence there that [Hussein] had no aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons I don't think is valid," he said.





Special report
Iraq

Guardian book
The War We Could Not Stop - the real story of the battle for Iraq, published by Guardian Books and Faber. Buy it from Amazon.co.uk

Chronology
Iraq timeline

Interactive guides
Click-through graphics on Iraq

Key documents
Full text of speeches and documents

Comment and analysis
More comment and analysis on Iraq

Audio reports
Audio reports on Iraq


We now attack a country because they have "aspirations" for a weapons program. It doesn't matter whether they really have WMDs or not.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:12 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
This bullshit apologia of yours for an illegal and immoral war wears thin pretty quickly.

Your assertion of illegality and immorality is merely an unproven claim.
.

Just simply frickin' amazing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:24 pm
Illegal issues of the Iraq war:

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:27 pm
Really? Why simply "fricking amazing"? Do you have some "evidence" or "documentation" that it is simply "fricking amazing" or could that merely be a left wing bias of yours? Try reading( I have posted it several times) Podhoretz' "Who is lying About Iraq" and THEN, show with "evidence" and/or "documentation" why Podhoretz is wrong, and THEN, you can say--"Fricking Amazing"
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:30 pm
BernardR wrote:
Really? Why simply "fricking amazing"? Do you have some "evidence" or "documentation" that it is simply "fricking amazing" or could that merely be a left wing bias of yours? Try reading( I have posted it several times) Podhoretz' "Who is lying About Iraq" and THEN, show with "evidence" and/or "documentation" why Podhoretz is wrong, and THEN, you can say--"Fricking Amazing"

The thing is Mr Gatos, I can say "frickin' amazing" anytime I want to. I don't need your frickin permission to do so.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:33 pm
Published on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 by Minuteman Media
Permanent US Bases in Iraq are Immoral
by Adil E. Shamoo

Last February, former President Jimmy Carter said on the Larry King show, "Some of our top leaders never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they are looking for [staying] ten, 20, 50 years." He continued, "I have never heard our leaders say that …ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq."

President Carter's understanding is true. President George W. Bush announced at a recent press conference that he fully expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq for the duration of his presidency while leaving the issue of a permanent presence to a future president.

In the meantime, the United States is preparing for the long haul. The Pentagon has already spent $1 billion or more on the nearly 100 bases strewn across Iraq and the president's latest funding request for the Iraq War included $348 million for further base construction.

Some of the bases resemble mini-cities. For example, Camp Anaconda occupies 15 square miles and has amenities such as swimming pools, a gym, a miniature-golf course, and a movie theater.

Given the daily turmoil in Iraq, the American people should question both the morality and the policy implications of what this sort of U.S. military presence brings.

The current objective, as pronounced by the president in a public relations blitz over the past three months, is to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. The president argues that this in turn will bring prosperity to the people as well as peace toward its neighbors and toward the West and to the United States in particular.

Most people would agree on the morality of these goals. No one can be against the removal of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein. And clearly our nation should promote policies that will bring: Iraqis safety and security; freedom of expression and choice; freedom of education; mastery of their natural resources; independence of their courts; selection of their leaders, and conducting of their own foreign policy.

Similarly, Americans support the growth of democracy in Iraq. Thomas Jefferson's concept of the consent of the governed is an idea with global support. Carried out to its fullest, it would allow the Iraqi people to exercise their dignity and independence.

But these twin goals can not be achieved with a permanent American military presence. The people have no true freedom of choice because of the veto powers of the United States They have no mastery over their economy due to U.S.-imposed laws. And U.S. involvement in Iraqi politics has disrupted the formation of a government. Paradoxically, a permanent presence hinders the development of the very institutions needed to make Iraq a stable country.

Three years of occupation violate the very principles the U.S. espouses by preventing the natural evolution of democracy. The recent visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British foreign minister Jack Straw, during which they openly supported one of the candidates for prime minister, is perfect example of interference.

More importantly, the people of Iraq want us to leave. Many members of the newly elected parliament advocate the removal of occupation forces as soon as possible. Given that, keeping a permanent presence is immoral and indefensible. It further unites the various factions of the Iraqi people fighting against us. Failing to declare our intent not to maintain a permanent presence will bring havoc to Iraq, plays into the hands of terrorists by feeding resentment and despair while helping to recruit more members for the insurgency.

Lawmakers in this country are beginning to get the picture. Weeks ago, an amendment declaring the United States has "no plan to establish a permanent ... military presence in Iraq" passed the House without objection. While clearly this won't solve all of the problems, it's a good step and one that can be built upon over the next several months to help change the deadly course of violence.

After three years of occupation, over 2,300 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in this conflict, our moral obligation is to uphold the spirit of democracy that our nation was built upon. Closing the permanent bases honors that proud tradition and extends it to the open hand of Iraqis.

Adil E. Shamoo, born and raised in Baghdad, is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. He writes on ethics and public policy. Email to: [email protected].

© 2006 MinutemanMedia.org


The actual US military death toll is now over 2500.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:38 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's moot. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there might have been workable WMD, and we couldn't take the chance.

Brandon proves once again that he does not understand risk management.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:39 pm
December, 2004
What A Way To Go (Part 1)
Friday December 31st, 2004

A lot of people didn't leave 2004 alive. The horror of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami is impossible for us to comprehend. Will the final death toll go beyond 250,000?

There were other death tolls in the news in 2004. The Lancet medical journal reported that there were over 100,000 civilian dead since the start of the Iraqi War. This is the tsunami that can be stopped. 100,000 men, women and children died because of the United States of America's foreign policy, which very prominently includes the killing of innocent people in massive numbers. Do you ever wonder if there is a population control component to that policy?

"Stop the war, end the occupation, and bring the troops home" has become my mantra.

I wonder how many of the troops who are now deployed in Iraq feel that they got what they bargained for when the joined the military? I'm sure that even some of those who volunteered because they wanted to fight for their country, were forced to wonder what was going on when they saw how poorly they were equipped. It must be startling in that situation to realize that neither President Bush nor Donald Rumsfeld gives a **** whether you live or die.

During the election season, I began chatting with a group of four Bush supporters. When I informed them that I was not supporting John Kerry, they viewed me quite differently. I would take all the negatives that I was learning about Kerry and pass it on to them. They loved it. When I began to pass on to them some of what I had learned about George W. Bush, three of them decided to listen to that too. I'm not sure what they did on Election Day, but I would wager that all four of them still voted for Bush. It is what has happened since Election Day that has amazed me. It is the war and how the government is treating the troops. The Rumsfeld stuff got to them.

One of them recently said to me, " the government can't take care of the people fighting this war with basic necessities then they should bring them home now." It has infuriated these Bush supporters so much that they are beginning to investigate this war for themselves. This is what community organizing is at its best.

But there were others that didn't make it this far. One of them was Jack Newfield the investigative reporter who worked for the Village Voice for years and authored a number of important books. There are some wonderful tributes to him that you can read at http://www.jacknewfield.com/

Newfield's book that he co-authored with Wayne Barrett, City For Sale: Ed Koch and The Betrayal of New York, was a classic. It was helped bring about a change in city government. Newfield died at 66. He had been suffering with kidney cancer that spread to his lungs. I never doubted for a minute that there was anything suspicious about the death of Jack Newfield.

Another person who didn't make it to the New Year was Gary Webb. Webb, like Newfield, was an investigative journalist. When I heard that Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself in the head twice! I immediately thought of the deaths of author J. H. Hatfield and Abbie Hoffman. All three of these men's deaths were reported as suicides.

Gary Webb was the reporter for the San Jose Mercury news who exposed the CIA's role in the spread of crack cocaine in Black neighborhoods in the United States in the series "Dark Alliance" which eventually was published as a book. J. H. Hatfield was the author of Fortunate Son the book about George W. Bush that you weren't supposed to read. And then there was Abbie Hoffman. What can I say to you about Abbie Hoffman, other than the fact that he made me laugh and challenged the way I thought. I liked a lot about Abbie Hoffman's ways, but he wasn't my leader. Abbie knew how to reach people and to use politics as theater. Any community organizer had to admire how Abbie Hoffman morphed into the respected environmental activist Barry Freed while he was underground. Abbie was also the author of eight books.

When Abbie Hoffman's death was reported as a suicide I found it difficult to believe. I knew that Abbie was a manic-depressive (as they were classified in those days) but even a depressed Abbie Hoffman wouldn't kill himself as Oliver Stone's Born On The Fourth of July was being released. You see...Abbie was in that film.

It is hard enough dealing with the death of a loved one. Imagine what it must feel like when you are told that it was a suicide. The shock, the sorrow, and the nagging question still remains, why would they kill themselves?

Satirist and co-founder of the Yippies! Paul Krassner was a close friend of Abbie Hoffman's. When questioned about whether Abbie Hoffman had actually been murdered, Krassner responded with a resounding, "NO." Krassner firmly believed that Hoffman wasn't murdered because Abbie Hoffman had committed suicide just the way he had told Paul he would, if it had ever come to that. What Paul Krassner failed to realize is that Abbie had told others as well.

Abbie Hoffman's son Andrew suspected foul play. Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that the same Bucks County medical examiner that ruled Abbie Hoffman's death a suicide was also involved with the report on the death of Jessica Savitch. I didn't buy the story about her death either.

The loved ones of Danny Casolaro had less doubt. Casolaro was also an investigative journalist. His investigation into the links between the Savings & Loan scandal, Iran-Contra and BCCI led him to Inslaw. Prior to his death, he was working on a book that was going to expose this cabal that he called the Octopus. Casolaro had been telling his friends and family just weeks before he died, that if he got killed in an automobile crash it was no accident.

Which brings me to J.H. Hatfield. Hatfield might have committed suicide at a couple of points in his life. Once such time was when his sordid past was made public at the time of the initial printing of Fortunate Son. The book was then removed from stores. What seemed to be so promising for Hatfield became a hellish life. And yet, he did not commit suicide. Another publisher came into his life and a new version of the book was published. The forward contained an explanation of Hatfield's past and how the Bush family exploited it to help kill the book. And so...the book was back on the shelves and selling well. Hatfield was standing by all his research including the allegation that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972. Why would Hatfield kill himself when things were going so well?

In America if you are a successful investigative journalist who uncovers the truth about official misconduct, it seems as if you end up "killing" yourself at the strangest of times.

When elected officials stumble upon information that might upset the powers-that-be, they die in fatal plane crashes at the most convenient of times: Paul Wellstone, Mel Carnahan, Hale Boggs, John Heinz, John Tower and Larry McDonald are just a few. They will be discussed in part two.




Stopping The War In Iraq
Tuesday December 21st, 2004

Its hard to build an anti-war movement while you are simultaneously trying to elect a pro-war president. Now that more and more people are realizing that working for John Kerry's election was a waste of time, they might choose to re-join us in stopping the war in Iraq.

I have attended a number of meetings recently and read a great deal of correspondence about finding the best strategy to end this war. Since this war is being funded by our tax dollars and is being fought in our name by our fellow citizens in the military, it is imperative that we stop this war as our collective priority. This is not a time to further our own political ideology through organizing an anti-war movement, it is a time to save lives.

There are many issues to work on that are just screaming for our attention. And I'm sure we will continue to struggle and work on these issues. But it is time to maximize opposition to the war, and that is accomplished by not excluding anyone who is in opposition to this war, even if they disagree with us on other issues.

When we demonstrate we don't just want to see leftists against the war, we want to see everyone who is in opposition to this war expressing our collective outrage. We want to see evangelicals against the war, patriots against the war, and NRA members against the war. We want to be standing with every one of my fellow citizens who are opposed to this immoral and illegal war. It doesn't matter when they joined the opposition, they must be made to feel welcome now.

We shouldn't want to try to organize the people who agree with us on everything. We should want to help organize all the people who are in opposition to this war. That will mean that there will be people joining this movement who voted for George W. Bush on November 2nd. Maybe they have just become aware of what is really going on. How many people have turned against this war because of the recent statements of Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld?

If we want people to hear what we have to say, it might be advantageous to stop calling them stupid. I don't particularly value highly the opinion of people who call me stupid. I'm sure others would react the same way to that kind of treatment.

I'm trying to get something started in my neighborhood. Think globally, act locally, that's how I usually see it. I have my own idiosyncrasies about how organizing should be done, but at this point in the game, I want to find that place where the most people can come together and stop this war. Welcome everyone. Sometimes it takes hard work.

Back in 1982, as a community organizer, I helped coordinate a feeder march. The Manhattan neighborhoods of Greenwich Village and Chelsea were going to combine and march together. On the morning of the march there was turmoil. As 10,000 people were lining up, members of an Evangelical group that was both opposed to nuclear weapons as well as abortion, were standing next to a group of fellow opponents of nuclear weapons who were advocates of abortion rights. This presented a tough problem to resolve. Separating the groups offered a solution. They no longer had to march side by side but they were still united in a common cause.

As we enter 2005, I don't think evangelicals opposed to abortion are any more likely to stand side by side with pro-choice activists than they were in 1982, but if we want to end this war we will need the biggest of tents.

We need to focus on the area of agreement that the war and occupation must end. If we agree that is our top priority, then we must act like it is.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:49 pm
cicerone, why can't you quit cluttering up threads with sourceless material? Why not provide a link? And why not provide an explanation as to why it relates to the tea in China?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:51 pm
Because I like to see it in print on a2k. Otherwise, people like you will ignore it, and others won't be able to see how your opinions are almost meaningless.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:53 pm
okie, Lest you forget; we're talking about illegal and immoral about the war in Iraq.

You did get that, didn't you?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 01:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Because I like to see it in print on a2k. Otherwise, people like you will ignore it, and others won't be able to see how your opinions are almost meaningless.

I ignore it anyway because it is illogical drivel.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:00 pm
It's illogical drivel to you, because you are the primary drivel-pooper; all illogical with no substance that parrots "Bush is my savior."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:27 pm
Your claims are ample proof you neither understand what I think nor what I believe concerning George Bush.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:36 pm
Aplogist for Bush okie wrote:
If nothing else, it further confirms the deceit of Saddam Hussein and the inability of the inspectors to find all of this stuff. We also know this stuff is very dangerous if passed into the hands of terrorists even if some of it may be "degraded" to some extent or another. Degraded may indicated it would not for sure work according to original specifications, but does in no way preclude the possible alternate use of them in a very destructive manner.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:40 pm
Some examples of okie's garbages posted in this thread:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard, I'm not sure what the intense love affair or obsession is with polls. As an aside, I remember Clinton had his staff take a poll to decide where he went on vacation. That time, it ended up being Jackson Hole, WY. That one was humorous.

I guess the libs or Democrats now want to do everything by poll. If a poll says wage war one day, send in the troops, if the next day the poll says no, order them out, and on the 3rd day if the pollster frames the question a bit differently and it says yes, its war, send them in again.

If a poll says give every man, woman, and child a roof over their head, 2 cars for every family, and a minimum wage of $20.00/hr., then lets do it. Write a check for everybody. Hey, I am beginning to like the concept Bernard.

okie doesn't know it, but that's full of crap!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jun, 2006 02:40 pm
The reason he does not give a link, Okie, is probably because if he does there will be other material along with the link that completely destroys the tilt that Mr. Imposter wants to give it.

Any blurb which has no link does not deserve a second look ESPECIALLY IF SOMEONE ASKS FOR A LINK>

How is the reader to know that it has not been made up, or, worse, manipulated?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/28/2024 at 01:54:45