mudcat.org: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


BS: So.....you say Bush lied?

Arne 28 Jun 06 - 02:43 AM
CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM
GUEST 27 Jun 06 - 08:42 PM
CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 08:29 PM
CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 08:25 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jun 06 - 04:02 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jun 06 - 04:01 PM
beardedbruce 27 Jun 06 - 03:48 PM
CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM
Greg F. 27 Jun 06 - 12:03 PM
Teribus 27 Jun 06 - 01:02 AM
Teribus 27 Jun 06 - 12:53 AM
tarheel 26 Jun 06 - 11:37 PM
Arne 26 Jun 06 - 11:21 PM
DougR 26 Jun 06 - 08:11 PM
GUEST,Frank Hamilton 26 Jun 06 - 12:56 PM
Teribus 26 Jun 06 - 10:36 AM
GUEST,Wesley S 25 Jun 06 - 04:59 PM
GUEST 25 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM
CarolC 24 Jun 06 - 06:51 PM
GUEST,Another Republican 24 Jun 06 - 06:49 PM
Alba 24 Jun 06 - 06:35 PM
GUEST,Frank Hamilton 24 Jun 06 - 05:52 PM
GUEST,Peter Woodruff 24 Jun 06 - 04:37 PM
Ron Davies 23 Jun 06 - 09:54 PM
CarolC 23 Jun 06 - 07:17 PM
CarolC 23 Jun 06 - 07:13 PM
GUEST,Frank 23 Jun 06 - 05:27 PM
Arne 23 Jun 06 - 12:58 AM
Arne 23 Jun 06 - 12:53 AM
GUEST,Jon 23 Jun 06 - 12:04 AM
Alba 22 Jun 06 - 11:56 PM
Bobert 22 Jun 06 - 11:37 PM
Amos 22 Jun 06 - 11:35 PM
Susu's Hubby 22 Jun 06 - 11:34 PM
Ron Davies 22 Jun 06 - 11:27 PM
Susu's Hubby 22 Jun 06 - 11:16 PM
George Papavgeris 21 Jun 05 - 11:41 PM
dianavan 21 Jun 05 - 11:34 PM
DougR 21 Jun 05 - 02:20 PM
dianavan 20 Jun 05 - 10:31 PM
kendall 20 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM
GUEST 06 Jun 05 - 03:46 PM
Susu's Hubby 06 Jun 05 - 03:08 PM
Peace 06 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM
Peace 06 Jun 05 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,10.22am 06 Jun 05 - 02:15 PM
Susu's Hubby 06 Jun 05 - 02:12 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 06 Jun 05 - 01:33 PM
Amos 06 Jun 05 - 12:47 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Arne
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 02:43 AM

BeardedBruce:

"380 SA-2 missile engines"

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

"[F]ollowing a visit of IAEA to a scrapyard in Rotterdam to investigate increased radiation readings, it was discovered, through photographs taken at the time, that engines of SA-2 surface-to-air missiles were among the scrap. They are of a type of engines used in the Al Samoud 2 proscribed missile program."

The Al-Samoud were of debatable illegitimacy (but Saddam agreed to scrap them, so as to avoid giving Dubya even the slightest excuse to go in with guns blazing, which he did, with cameras rolling). But these engines were in scrap in Rotterdam (that hot-bed of Terra-ism). Whoopdedoo. I'd also note that selling of scrap is something that the U.S., as an occupation force, should have taken responsibility for (if it was even anything of concern ... unlike, say, the looting of the many weapons depots in the aftermath of the invasion).

As for the WoMD, Duelfer already reported this. Pre-GWI weapons, degraded and useless.

But BeardedBruce is pushing the same ol' maladministration crapola (this time propagated by proxies, so that when the truth comes out, the maladministration can say "weeeee didn't say that!.....")

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:59 PM

CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM - Completely wrong CarolC for a whole raft of reasons.

No support for your position, Guest, 27 Jun 06 - 08:42 PM? You want us to take your word for it just because you say so? I don't think so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:42 PM

CarolC 27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM - Completely wrong CarolC for a whole raft of reasons.

Greg F. 27 Jun 06 - 12:03 PM

"dual use equipment" - some noted examples of such:

Would you call a pencil a deadly weapon Greg F - you can certainly kill somebody with one very easily.

Most people have lurking under their kitchen sinks sufficient ingredients to blow themselves and their houses to kingdom come. Now none of this stuff is controlled, all in its own right is perfectly harmless, yet when combined with a certain amount of knowledge it is deadly.

In another thread quite recently we had the massive catalogue of weapons shipped by the US and UK to prop up their bad-guy of the day, Saddam while he was fighting the Iranians, it amounted to little or no weapons at all, in fact over the period covered it amounted to less than 0.005%. The Russians on the other hand supplied Saddam with 61% of his needs and the French I think something like 18%. So please don't go banging on about how much this or that US administration supported Saddam Hussein with arms and weapons - the plain fact of the matter is that they didn't others did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:29 PM

Missed your last one bb.

In what years did Saddam gas the Kurds and Kuwait?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 08:25 PM

Wrong, CarolC, unless you consider human lives other than US troops to be worthless- which I know you do not. Chemical weapons are very effective against a civilian population, such as the Kurds of Kuwait.

In what year did Saddam gas the Kurds of Kuwait, beardedbruce?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 04:02 PM

sorry- " the Kurds OR Kuwait"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 04:01 PM

"380 SA-2 missile engines"

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:48 PM

" if we already had an effective deterrent against Saddam ever using WMD against "the West" (in any scenario other than as a defence against a "human wave" invasion of Iraq by another country), as you say we did, then the premise that we needed to invade Iraq and unseat Saddam because of WMD is a false one."


Wrong, CarolC, unless you consider human lives other than US troops to be worthless- which I know you do not. Chemical weapons are very effective against a civilian population, such as the Kurds of Kuwait.


The truce terms specified that Saddam would NOT have those weapons, and even 14 years AFTER that he still had them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 03:43 PM

Well, Teribus, if we already had an effective deterrent against Saddam ever using WMD against "the West" (in any scenario other than as a defence against a "human wave" invasion of Iraq by another country), as you say we did, then the premise that we needed to invade Iraq and unseat Saddam because of WMD is a false one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 12:03 PM

Dual use equipment or material was sent to Iraq, how it was ultimately used was outwith[sic- assume out of?] the control of those sending it...

ROFLMAO! "dual use equipment" !! Bwa-Ha-Ha-Hoo-Ha
ya gotta love the weaselly-ass bullshit some folks can come up with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 01:02 AM

On the subject of Chemical and Biological Weapons, I forgot to mention the US acts as a centre for controlled destruction of these weapons. The Pentagon has a firm and binding commitment to have all such stocks of weapons and agents destroyed by the summer of next year.

I have in the past asked ex-military 'catters' to tell me what the colour code was for US/NATO Chemical/Biological Weapons, because people like Frank and others continue to insist that the US supplied Saddam with such weapons - Noone ever came back and gave me any answer, they couldn't because NATO from the 1950's did not possess such weapons. Only recently does a colour code appear for such weapons, it's Gray, and the reason it has appeared is down to the fact that there are now countries who are members of NATO that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact. The weapons are being withdrawn and destroyed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 12:53 AM

"Saddam did use WMD against Irananian human wave attacks during the Iran/Iraq War."

which he received compliments of the first Bush Adminstration."

Wrong Frank, Saddam received no Chemical or Biological weapons from the first Bush Administration or any other. Dual use equipment or material was sent to Iraq, how it was ultimately used was outwith the control of those sending it, but weapons were not sent - NATO has not had any Chemical or Biological Weapons in it's inventory since the mid-1950's (Fifty Years ago Frank - so if the weapons found in Iraq were all totally degraded having been manufactured prior to 1991 what does that mean for any NATO had that predated 1956?)

Because of the actions and attitude of the Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein in the period 1991 to 1998. In 2002 the world and it's dog totally believed that Iraq possessed WMD, totally believed that the programmes required to further develop and manufacture them were in existance. These widely held beliefs were based upon assessments and reports from IAEA and UNSCOM not on any "lie" told by Bush or by Blair.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: tarheel
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 11:37 PM

this is a CUT AND PASTE thingy...i know because someone sent one to me by email and i deleted it so as not to be tempted to PASTE it here and then listen to all of you give me HECK,because it was not my own little thingy!!!
tar,,,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Arne
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 11:21 PM

DougR:

Even though critical experts of the Bush administration have stated that those found could be very dangerous should they fall into terrorist's hands.

Yeah ... well, maybe, ... if they used them to cook their kofte kebabs in.

Read my links above. This is all old news, covered by the Duelfer report itself, and just Republican politicking and fear-mongering for partisan advantage (they hope). Nothing new there either.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 08:11 PM

Hubby: thanks for posting the information in your first post. Too many people forget that the Clinton gang also believed that Saddam had WMD. Or perhaps they just don't want to remember. Of course the recent discovery of over 500 "degraded" chemical weapons of no import. Even though critical experts of the Bush administration have stated that those found could be very dangerous should they fall into terrorist's hands. I understand the U. S. government is looking for a place to dump these "degraded" WMD. Any volunteers for storing them in their back yard?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 12:56 PM

"Saddam did use WMD against Irananian human wave attacks during the Iran/Iraq War."

which he received compliments of the first Bush Adminstration. The question still remains, were they destroyed during the UN inspections? i think the answer is yes. The Bush the First thought that supplying WMD's to Iraq would deter Iran as analogous to the support for Hitler against Stalin in the late 1930's.

This explains why Bush and Reagan supported Saddam and gave him WMD's.

The recent so-called discoveries of WMD's were outmoded weaponry that had degraded since 2003 and are of no potent use. It's a red-herring.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 10:36 AM

CarolC - 23 Jun 06 - 07:13 PM

"Question for you Hubster...

If the chemical munitions were still lethal at the time of our invasion of Iraq, why the hell didn't Saddam use them?

He certainly didn't show any reluctance to use them during the Iran/Iraq war."

The answer to that would be the same reason he did not use them in 1991. The Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact Allies all developed and possessed Chemical and Biological Weapons, their military doctrine believes them to be effective against "human wave" attacks. NATO basically renounced the use of these weapons in the 1950's, and developed Tactical Nuclear weapons as a counter to either the Soviet Union or any Warsaw Pact country's use of Chemical or biological weapons. Saddam was quite aware of this possibility and knew that if he did use his WMD the outcome would not be good, also one of the reasons that in both conflicts use of nuclear weapons as an option is never taken off the table.

Saddam did use WMD against Irananian human wave attacks during the Iran/Iraq War.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 04:59 PM

Peter - I doubt that Cheney feels any embarrasement at all. After all a profit was made. Now if he's lost money on the deal? That would have been something he would have felt embarrased about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM

What an embarassment for Dick Cheney who arranged for Saddam to buy these weapons from the United States prior to the first OIL WAR.

Peter


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:51 PM

For those who haven't read the New Pearl Harbor book, or who might not read it in the future, here is an interesting discussion with the author...

http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Another Republican
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:49 PM

June 23, 2006: The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this. The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents. There have been some discoveries that have made the news, most notably an incident in May, 2004, when terrorists used a 155-millimeter shell loaded with sarin in an IED. The shell detonated, exposing two soldiers to sarin nerve gas (both of whom survived and recovered). It is this attack that provides one explanation as to why many of the finds have been classified.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk – for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

The other problem is that immediate disclosure could have exposed informants. Protecting informants who provide the location of caches is vital. Not only do dead informants tell no tales, their deaths silence other potential informants – because they want to keep on living. A lack of informants leads to a lack of human intelligence, and the troops don't like being sent out on missions while short on intelligence – it's easy to get killed. This has led to media coverage (particularly around "milestone" deaths) and

The biggest danger with intelligence is in its over-use. This might sound odd, but it is the biggest concern many decision-makers in wartime have to make. Protection of an intelligence advantage can be so important that it might require allowing an enemy action to go forward (like the 1940 bombing of Coventry – Churchill allowed that to occur rather than risk exposing the British ability to read German codes), or it might require high-level approval of a mission (like the 1943 operation in which Thomas G. Lanphier shot down the plane carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto – the decision to attempt the mission was made by the Secretary of the Navy). In the world of intelligence, decisions are rarely simple, and easily answered. A great deal of consideration goes into the decisions based on the intelligence provided, and when to release the information to the public. – Harold C. Hutchison


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Alba
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:35 PM

I agree Frank.
A very interesting read.
Best Wishes,
Jude


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 05:52 PM

You might want to consider reading "The New Pearl Harbor" by Griffin. It doesn't purport to have all the answers but it asks some very interesting questions.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 04:37 PM

I find it a lot easier to link Bush to 9-11 than Saddam. Please see the video What's The Truth on 911 blogger.org...[com]?

Peter


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 09:54 PM

"planning to reconstitute his programs once UN sanctions were lifted"--which is yet another reason why the Bush regime's propaganda campaign to link Saddam and 9-11 was a crock--from Day 1. Saddam did not want anything to stop the loosening of sanctions--and 9-11 put a screeching halt to that loosening. Saddam had everything to lose and nothing to gain by attacking the US directly. And he knew it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:17 PM

"The intelligence officials offered a less alarming view.

They said the old munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they'd been discarded, not that they were part of an organized program to stockpile banned weapons.

One of the declassified key points says the munitions - apparently dating from Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran - could be sold on the black market.

But one intelligence official said there was "no evidence that any element of the insurgency in Iraq is in possession of these kinds of munitions."

Duelfer's report said that while the old munitions might be effective as terrorist weapons they didn't pose a "militarily significant threat" and couldn't cause mass casualties.

No evidence has surfaced to support the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, said in January 2004 that "we were almost all wrong" in thinking that Iraq had such weapons. Duelfer reported that Saddam was planning to reconstitute his programs once U.N. sanctions were lifted, but hadn't done so."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 07:13 PM

Question for you Hubster...

If the chemical munitions were still lethal at the time of our invasion of Iraq, why the hell didn't Saddam use them?

He certainly didn't show any reluctance to use them during the Iran/Iraq war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 05:27 PM

First of all, there is no war. It's an occupation. Second, it is illegal. Third, Bush lied us into it and is over in Europe now trying to raise money for it and invading Iran but it's not working.
Fourth, he planned to invade Iraq prior to 911.

Husain was a bad guy but he did comply with inspections.

Bush is a "cut and run" pseudo-president. He is cutting programs and running from the national debt. He has "cut and run" from his promises to find Osama bin Laden. He could have taken Zaqawi out years ago. He stonewalled that operation so that he could set up a boogeyman to conflate his invasion. He has "cut" education, labor and minimum wage.
He has "run" from his military service, Al Quaida, and his responsibilities after Katrina.

He has "cut and run" from everything except rich white millionaires.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 12:58 AM

Also some discussion here and here (amongst other topics).

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Arne
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 12:53 AM

Susu's Hubby, clueless as ever:

Oh...so I guess the NGIC Report doesn't exist nor did the news conference that was called by the two senators today didn't really happen either.

I assume that would be "Man On Dog" Santorum and Hoekstra's little photo-op (to try and keep Santorum from polling in negative numbers). Clue for you: Hoekstra is a Congressman, not a Senator.

But it's a pile'o'crap warmed over. See here and here.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 12:04 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and probably are so old they couldn't be used as designed, intelligence officials said Thursday.

see here


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Alba
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:56 PM

Senator Rick Santorum (R) PA should maybe call The Pentagon cause it seems those Folks don't quite agree with his eh....cough announcement..LOL.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:37 PM

Not only did Bush lie but he continues to lie....

But that's the inherent problem with liein': Once ya ' get startin' ya can't stop at just one...

Kind like pretzels...

(Oh, Bobert, you ain't gonna bring up that episode again, are ya???)

Hey, if the boy wants to get rippin' drunk, hey, with what he has screwed uo, he deserves it so...

... get off the boy's back, gol danged it...

He deserves a life-times worth of drunks with all he's messed up...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:35 PM

The report you offer is absurd on the face of it. 500 munitions (no specifics) containing "degraded mustard and sarin" (no information as to how much or how old). Everything else in the report is "could be, might, and believed to be maybe so...".

When are you going to learn that facts matter?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:34 PM

Oh...so I guess the NGIC Report doesn't exist nor did the news conference that was called by the two senators today didn't really happen either.

Ron, did you even read the article?


Hubby


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:27 PM

Your usual impeccable source--won't you ever learn? "Fair and balanced"--as Colbert says--it sure is--the president's side AND the vice president's side. What more could anybody want?

We'll see what other sources say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 11:16 PM

I can't believe I'm saying this but.......


Clinton didn't lie.
Neither did Madeline Albright.
Nor Sandy Berger, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle or John Kerry.
For that matter, neither did Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, Al Gore, or Ted Kennedy.
Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller, Henry Waxman and Hillary Clinton all look like they told the truth also.

At least between the years of 1998 and 2003 on the subject of Iraq having WMD's.



What do you mean, Bush didn't lie?


It really doesn't surprise me that it's almost been a full day and no one has brought this up! I guess that if it doesn't work to advance your agenda, then it can't be true.


Hubby


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 11:41 PM

Without a sperm of a doubt?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 11:34 PM

If it led to his impeachment, I would consider it an honour and a duty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 02:20 PM

Hmmm. You volunteering dianavan?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 10:31 PM

Save the U.S.A. - Blow Bush


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:38 PM

No matter how you spin it, there is one undeniable truth here in the Iraq invasion:

NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED.

No one ever died from a blow job.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 03:46 PM

SH
The comment by BM does not appear to be an attack.
You have stated your Faith here on the Mudcat several times.
Therefore it is now public knowledge what you claim your Religion to be. So it is neither personal, or an attack when someone has an issue with the fact that your Faith and the teachings associated with it versus the opinion you at times express conflict.
The response to BM's remark is not only predictable but par course now from some Bush administration supporters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 03:08 PM

now come the personal attacks......



You guys are so predictable.


Hubby


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM

"You're half right in saying that they're responsible for what happened. But you and I part ways because I believe that they deserve the credit and a pat on the back for making it happen the way it happened.

I think it was pure genius."

From 'Platoon': "Christians don't go 'round cuttin' off heads an' shit like that."

I am having a hard time seeing you as a Christian, SH.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 02:43 PM

I understood where you were coming from, GUEST. No problems between us. Don't think there ever has been.

Bruce M

PS I should have made myself clearer as to who was being addressed. Sorry 'bout that.

BM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,10.22am
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 02:15 PM

BM I hope you know my response was to SH's post and not yours.
Your first post was a post that made me think "Good Point" that is not something the SH has managed to accomplish.
I too love the People of this Country. I can love them all but still dislike the actions and the opinions of some.
"I love the people of the US. It's the government I have no use for" I agree with you and I wish I could defend our Goverment but sadly that is not the case as there is no appropriate defense.
RH


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 02:12 PM

Come on Don,


That post did nothing but show your pure hatred and seething rage towards anything that Bush or Blair has done to make the world a better place. Let me quote you, if I may:

"If the insurgents ARE Al Qaeda, rather than just Iraqis who object to being occupied, then it is the actions of Bush & Blair that have brought them to Iraq, where they are killing more Iraqi civilians than soldiers."

The actions of Bush and Blair were to oust a brutal dictator who was torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. His minority regime was, for all intents and purposes, conducting their own form of Iraqi genocide against the majority tribes. NOT to mention that all evidence supported the fact that there were WMD's present and unaccounted for. All involved Gov't's (30 or so as to not have the US do anything "unilaterally") had the same evidence and were basing their decisions together and not just following the lead of the US.

So by your argument of saying that our actions of stopping a mad man from killing his own people and to rid him of WMD's and the technology to make additional WMD's brought us the chance of capturing or killing people that belonged to an organization that proved their hatred of Americans by killing 3000 INTERNATIONAL people on American soil then, by all means, I'm glad the actions of Bush and Blair made that happen. You should be also.

Once again, be consistent in your argument. If you're going to be against genocide in Africa and criticize gov't's for not intervening in those situations then at least be consistent and give Bush and Blair the credit for doing so in Iraq.

You're clearly making the argument that somehow, Bush and Blair should be in someway, held responsible and punished for causing the bad guys to come and find them.

You're half right in saying that they're responsible for what happened. But you and I part ways because I believe that they deserve the credit and a pat on the back for making it happen the way it happened.

I think it was pure genius.

But maybe that's why you can't see things clearly enough to understand what's going on.


Hubby


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 01:33 PM

SH,

If the insurgents ARE Al Qaeda, rather than just Iraqis who object to being occupied, then it is the actions of Bush & Blair that have brought them to Iraq, where they are killing more Iraqi civilians than soldiers.

Hammer that into your head, and then try to justify it.

You will, of course, because you are more concerned with whitewashing you favourite clown than with the truth of the situation.

I have the greatest admiration for the American people, and for American democracy, but what you are supporting does credit to neither.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 12:47 PM

From today's NY Times:

"President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers."


A lie? Or just a disassembly of misunderestimation?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 27 October 8:14 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.