20 Lies about the War

[Mylezylez]

CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.
Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page A01


CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials.

Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged.

The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussn even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech.

It is unclear why Tenet failed to intervene in January to prevent the questionable intelligence from appearing in the president's address to Congress when Tenet had intervened three months earlier in a much less symbolic speech. That failure may underlie his action Friday in taking responsibility for not stepping in again to question the reference. "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency," he said in Friday's statement.

As Bush left Africa yesterday to return to Washington from a five-day trip overshadowed by the intelligence blunder, he was asked whether he considered the matter over. "I do," he replied. White House press secretary Ari Flscher told reporters yesterday that "the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well."

But it is clear from the new disclosure about Tenet's intervention last October that the controversy continues to boil, and as new facts emerge a different picture is bng presented than the administration has given to date.

Details about the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy as much as 500 tons of uranium oxide were contained in a national intelligence estimate (NIE) that was concluded in late September 2002. It was that same reference that the White House wanted to use in Bush's Oct. 7 speech that Tenet blocked, the sources said. That same intelligence report was the basis for the 16-word sentence about Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Africa that was contained in the January State of the Union address that has drawn recent attention.

Administration sources said White House officials, particularly those in the office of Vice President Cheney, insisted on including Hussn's quest for a nuclear weapon as a prominent part of thr public case for war in Iraq. Cheney had made the potential threat of Hussn having a nuclear weapon a central theme of his August 2002 speeches that began the public buildup toward war with Baghdad.

In the Oct. 7 Cincinnati speech, the president for the first time outlined in detail the threat Hussn posed to the United States on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing war. Bush talked in part about "evidence" indicating that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. The president listed Hussn's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists," satellite photographs showing former nuclear facilities were bng rebuilt, and Iraq's attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for use in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

There was, however, no mention of Niger or even attempts to purchase uranium from other African countries, which was contained in the NIE and also included in a British intelligence dossier that had been published a month earlier.

By January, when conversations took place with CIA personnel over what could be in the president's State of the Union speech, White House officials again sought to use the Niger reference since it still was in the NIE.

"We followed the NIE and hoped there was more intelligence to support it," a senior administration official said yesterday. When told there was nothing new, White House officials backed off, and as a result "seeking uranium from Niger was never in drafts," he said.

Tenet raised no personal objection to the ultimate inclusion of the sentence, attributed to Britain, about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa. His statement on Friday said he should have. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," the CIA director said.

Bush said in Abuja, Nigeria, yesterday that he continues to have faith in Tenet. "I do, absolutely," he said. "I've got confidence in George Tenet; I've got confidence in the men and women who work at the CIA."

There is still much that remains unclear about who specifically wanted the information inserted in the State of the Union speech, or why repeated concerns about the allegations were ignored.

"The information was available within the system that should have caught this kind of big mistake," a former Bush administration official said. "The question is how the management of the system, and the process that supported it, allowed this kind of misinformation to be used and embarrass the president."

Senior Bush aides said they do not believe they have a communication problem within the White House that prevented them from acting on any of the misgivings about the information that were bng expressed at lower levels of the government.

"I'm sure there will have to be some retracing of steps, and that's what's happening," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "The mechanical process, we think is fine. Will more people now give more, tighter scrutiny going forward? Of course."

A senior administration official said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, does not remember who wrote the line that has wound up causing the White House so much grief.

Officials said three speechwriters were at the core of the State of the Union team, and that they worked from evidence against Iraq provided by the National Security Council. NSC officials dealt with the CIA both in gathering material for the speech and later in vetting the drafts.

Officials involved in preparing the speech said there was much more internal debate over the next line of the speech, when Bush said in reference to Hussn, "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, noted a disagreement about Iraq's intentions for the tubes, which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency had raised those questions two weeks before the State of the Union address, saying Hussn claimed nonnuclear intentions for the tubes. In March, the IAEA said it found Hussn's claim credible, and could all but rule out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program.

Staff writer Dana Milbank contributed to this report from Nigeria.


________
Portable vaporizers review (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[Mylezylez]

20 Lies About the War
Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are bng used in the aftermath. By Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker
13 July 2003


1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks

A supposed meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the 11 September hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official was the main basis for this claim, but Czech intelligence later conceded that the Iraqi's contact could not have been Atta. This did not stop the constant stream of assertions that Iraq was involved in 9/11, which was so successful that at one stage opinion polls showed that two-thirds of Americans believed the hand of Saddam Hussn was behind the attacks. Almost as many believed Iraqi hijackers were aboard the crashed airliners; in fact there were none.

2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together

Persistent claims by US and British leaders that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league with each other were contradicted by a leaked British Defence Intelligence Staff report, which said there were no current links between them. Mr Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq", it added.

Another strand to the claims was that al-Qa'ida members were bng sheltered in Iraq, and had set up a poisons training camp. When US troops reached the camp, they found no chemical or biological traces.

3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme

The head of the CIA has now admitted that documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to import uranium from Niger in west Africa were forged, and that the claim should never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address. Britain sticks by the claim, insisting it has "separate intelligence". The Forgn Office conceded last week that this information is now "under review".

4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons

The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were bng used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Barad, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges.

5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War

Iraq possessed enough dangerous substances to kill the whole world, it was alleged more than once. It had pilotless aircraft which could be smuggled into the US and used to spray chemical and biological toxins. Experts pointed out that apart from mustard gas, Iraq never had the technology to produce materials with a shelf-life of 12 years, the time between the two wars. All such agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness years ago.

6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus

Apart from the fact that there has been no sign of these missiles since the invasion, Britain downplayed the risk of there bng any such weapons in Iraq once the fighting began. It was also revealed that chemical protection equipment was removed from British bases in Cyprus last year, indicating that the Government did not take its own claims seriously.

7 Saddam Hussn had the wherewithal to develop smallpox

This allegation was made by the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his address to the UN Security Council in February. The following month the UN said there was nothing to support it.

8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors

According to Jack Straw, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix "pointed out" that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax. Tony Blair said Iraq's chemical, biological and "indeed the nuclear weapons programme" had been well documented by the UN. Mr Blix's reply? "This is not the same as saying there are weapons of mass destruction," he said last September. "If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons, I would take it to the Security Council." In May this year he added: "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

9 Previous weapons inspections had failed

Tony Blair told this newspaper in March that the UN had "tried unsuccessfully for 12 years to get Saddam to disarm peacefully". But in 1999 a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated." Mr Blair also claimed UN inspectors "found no trace at all of Saddam's offensive biological weapons programme" until his son-in-law defected. In fact the UN got the regime to admit to its biological weapons programme more than a month before the defection.

10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors

Britain's February "dodgy dossier" claimed inspectors' escorts were "trained to start long arguments" with other Iraqi officials while evidence was bng hidden, and inspectors' journeys were monitored and notified ahead to remove surprise. Dr Blix said in February that the UN had conducted more than 400 inspections, all without notice, covering more than 300 sites. "We note that access to sites has so far been without problems," he said. : "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew that the inspectors were coming."

11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes

This now-notorious claim was based on a single source, said to be a serving Iraqi military officer. This individual has not been produced since the war, but in any case Tony Blair contradicted the claim in April. He said Iraq had begun to conceal its weapons in May 2002, which meant that they could not have been used within 45 minutes.

12 The "dodgy dossier"

Mr Blair told the Commons in February, when the dossier was issued: "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports." It soon emerged that most of it was cribbed without attribution from three articles on the internet. Last month Alastair Campbell took responsibility for the plagiarism committed by his staff, but stood by the dossier's accuracy, even though it confused two Iraqi intelligence organisations, and said one moved to new headquarters in 1990, two years before it was created.

13 War would be easy

Public fears of war in the US and Britain were assuaged by assurances that oppressed Iraqis would welcome the invading forces; that "demolishing Saddam Hussn's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk", in the words of Kenneth Adelman, a senior Pentagon official in two previous Republican administrations. Resistance was patchy, but stiffer than expected, mainly from irregular forces fighting in civilian clothes. "This wasn't the enemy we war-gamed against," one general complained.

14 Umm Qasr

The fall of Iraq's southernmost city and only port was announced several times before Anglo-American forces gained full control - by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others, and by Admiral Michael Boyce, chief of Britain's defence staff. "Umm Qasr has been overwhelmed by the US Marines and is now in coalition hands," the Admiral announced, somewhat prematurely.

15 Basra rebellion

Claims that the Shia Muslim population of Basra, Iraq's second city, had risen against thr oppressors were repeated for days, long after it became clear to those there that this was little more than wishful thinking. The defeat of a supposed breakout by Iraqi armour was also announced by military spokesman in no position to know the truth.

16 The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch

Private Jessica Lynch's "rescue" from a hospital in Nasiriya by American special forces was presented as the major "feel-good" story of the war. She was said to have fired back at Iraqi troops until her ammunition ran out, and was taken to hospital suffering bullet and stab wounds. It has since emerged that all her injuries were sustained in a vehicle crash, which left her incapable of firing any shot. Local medical staff had tried to return her to the Americans after Iraqi forces pulled out of the hospital, but the doctors had to turn back when US troops opened fire on them. The special forces encountered no resistance, but made sure the whole episode was filmed.

17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons

As US forces approached Baghdad, there was a rash of reports that they would cross a "red line", within which Republican Guard units were authorised to use chemical weapons. But Lieutenant General James Conway, the leading US marine general in Iraq, conceded afterwards that intelligence reports that chemical weapons had been deployed around Baghdad before the war were wrong.

"It was a surprise to me ... that we have not uncovered weapons ... in some of the forward dispersal sites," he said. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. We were simply wrong. Whether or not we're wrong at the national level, I think still very much remains to be seen."

18 Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD

"I have got absolutely no doubt that those weapons are there ... once we have the co-operation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them," Tony Blair said in April. Numerous similar assurances were issued by other leading figures, who said interrogations would provide the WMD discoveries that searches had failed to supply. But almost all Iraq's leading scientists are in custody, and claims that lingering fears of Saddam Hussn are stilling thr tongues are beginning to wear thin.

19 Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis

Tony Blair complained in Parliament that "people falsely claim that we want to sze" Iraq's oil revenues, adding that they should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN. Britain should seek a Security Council resolution that would affirm "the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people".

Instead Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. There is no UN-administered trust fund.

Far from "all oil revenues" bng used for the Iraqi people, the resolution continues to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay in compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

20 WMD were found

After repeated false sightings, both Tony Blair and George Bush proclaimed on 30 May that two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories. "We have already found two trailers, both of which we believe were used for the production of biological weapons," said Mr Blair. Mr Bush went further: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." It is now almost certain that the vehicles were for the production of hydrogen for weather balloons, just as the Iraqis claimed - and that they were exported by Britain.

[Mylezylez]

I sure hope so, but I imagine no one will.
________
FREE MAGENTO THEMES (http://themesfree.org)

[NYURepublican]

What's the point? I've openly refuted many of them at various points in the past, and some of them are just so plain laughable they don't even deserve a response.
________
Head shop (http://headshop.net/)

[Mylezylez]

Name ONE of these that you feel is incorrect.
________
CHEVROLET ASTRO (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Astro)

[Mylezylez]

The list I posted above is of claims the white house made about Iraq, which ended up bng incorrect, or fabricated.

I DARE you to point to one of them and say it was true.
________
Iolite vaporizer review (http://iolitevaporizer.net/)

[Mylezylez]

Still waiting

________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Well, then I suppose those 21 lies shall remain unchallenged.

But really, CAN you dispute any of these? These are claims the Bush administration made about Iraq, that were later found to be incorrect or fabricated. Are you claiming it's within your power to prove that any of these are ACTUALLY true, despite having been proven false by the US, UN, UK, and any number of news organizations?
________
Soldering Iron Vaporizer Video (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)

[NYURepublican]

Wait on...you've got my response. And at any rate, you're the last person who should be complaining about not getting prompt responses, seng as you rarely bother to give any of your own. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/14/03 12:10 pm

________
WASHINGTON DISPENSARIES (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[Mylezylez]

The Rest of Your Words, Mr. Bush, Are Also A Problem

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Perri Green

POTUS SOTU:

President Bush says he's "moved on" and that the "case is closed" with regards to those "sixteen words" in his SOTU.

Fine. What about these 71 from the same speech?

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussn had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussn had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

To date, not a single UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of delivering said weapons.

Is the CIA responsible for those words as well?

What about these 26, also from the same speech?

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussn aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussn with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US) have been revealed.

And then there are these 20:

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The IAEA as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

The CIA has assumed tepid responsibility for not insisting Bush remove the sixteen words about British evidence of Hussn's alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. (Since when does the US go to war on the basis of British intel anyway?)

Fine.

Bush, however, must take responsibility for the rest his words, all 117 of which were lies. Lies that have resulted in the deaths of over two hundred American GIs, the wounding of at l 1,046, and the senseless killing of more than six thousand innocent Iraqi civilians. If this doesn't qualify as impeachable (and even indictable) high crimes and misdemeanors, then nothing does.

Perri Green
Los Angeles, CA

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

________
Box vaporizer (http://boxvaporizers.com)

[Mylezylez]

Pattern of Corruption
By PAUL KRUGMAN


ore than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?

How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.

Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he recved calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussn. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security.

So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war.

The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism.

As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.

And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses ? just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose.

What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days.

It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that thr favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing ? and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.

So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff ? but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses."

Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."

In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover thr tracks by corrupting the system even further.


________
Trichome (http://trichomes.org)

[azellyn]

________
Jailbroken (http://jailbroken.org/)

[azellyn]

________
UNIVERSAL HEALTH (http://uhwh.com/)

[Neuro Axis]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Week in War and Words
The Independent on Sunday
6 July 2003

The gulf between the wishful thinking of politicians and military and events on the ground grows even wider, reports Nick Smyth

Sunday
The Spin: "Will the problems and attacks spoil the victory achieved by the Americans? Of course not...It is a certainty Saddam's regime is gone." - General Tommy Franks, retiring head of Central Command

The reality: Two US troops injured and an Iraqi civilian killed in an attack on a military convoy en route to Baghdad International Airport...Insurgents ambush a US patrol near Khaldiyah, 35 miles west Baghdad, using rocket-propelled grenades (RPG's). Soldiers return fire but the attackers get away...Heavily armed troops block off a highway bridge in northern Baghdad after a bomb alert, but no explosives are found.

Monday

The Spin: "There are so many cartoons where press people are saying 'Is it Vietnam yet?' hoping it is and wondering if it is. And it isn't." - Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defence.

The Reality: At a US observation post in Fallujah, a van fires an RPG at a Bradley fighting vehicle. Soldiers return fire and kill one man...A massive sweep for suspected Saddam loyalists across central Iraq enters its second day...Insurgents fire an RPG at a Humvee in Fallujah, injuring a journalist. Three Iraqis are killed when thr truck slams into a vehicle helping to evacuate him.

Tuesday

The Spin: "Conditions in Iraq continue to improve. Freedom becomes more entrenched and the dark days of the Baathist regime further back in people's memories." - Paul Bremer, US Administrator in Iraq.

The Reality: Massive explosion rocks al-Hassan mosque, Fallujah, killing ght Iraqis. The Imam, Shkh Laith Khali, dies later. As they bury the dead, thousands chant: "America is the enemy of God! Avenge the killings!"...In Baghdad, a bomb explodes near an army vehicle. Troops drag four badly wounded people from burning wreckage...An RPG slams into a US truck south of Baghdad, with four casualities.

Wednesday

The Spin: "A quagmire? No...These actions against the coalition won't succeed and will be dealt with...There is no question of attacks leading to a pullout." - Jack Straw, Forgn Secretary.

The Reality: Two US soldiers die, one from injuries during an attack on Tuesday, the other in an accident...One US marine is killed and three injured during mine-clearing operations in Karbala, south of Baghdad...US Army detains 20 "high-value" targets, and szes ammunition and weapons, including 200 RPGs...In Fallujah, troops try to convince hostile residents they were not behind Tuesday's mosque blast.

Thursday

The Spin: "There is still a war going on...But there is no crisis. We can handle it. We're killing them on a daily basis when they attack us." - Major General Ricardo Sanchez, US ground forces comander.

The Reality: Firefight between a sniper and a US patrol in Baghdad leaves one soldier wounded. Troops return fire, killing the gunman and wounding a child...US vehicle in Baghdad hit by RPG. Troops return fire, killing a bystander...Six US soldiers are injured in Ramadi when a convoy hits explosives...Sniper kills a US soldier guarding a Baghdad museum...Iraqis fire mortars at the US base near Balad, injuring 18.

Friday

The Spin: "Our nation is still at war. The enemies of America still plot against us...With our involvement, tyrants learn to fear, and terrorists are on the run." - George Bush to troops on Indepdendence Day.

The Reality: Attackers detonate an explosive on a highway in the outskirts of Baghdad, injuring three passengers of a civilian car and two US soldiers in a Humvee convoy...US troops kill 11 Iraqis who tried to ambush a military convoy near Balad with RPGs and small arms fire...Al-Jazeera airs a message purported to be from Saddam, vowing more attacks on Americans: "No to surrender."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


________
Oregon medical marijuana dispensary (http://oregon.dispensaries.org/)

[wookibender]

Up ^^^^^^^^^

For Bush's lies, and brainwashed Republicans?

So why are you still voting for this guy Bush?
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Purity]

Quote:So why are you still voting for this guy Bush?

Because he is a Republican. If Jesus was running as a Democrat and Hitler was running as a Republican, they'd still pick Hitler. They just can't look past that. Just too narrowminded.
________
MARIJUANA GIFTS (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

[wookibender]

Quote: Because he is a Republican. If Jesus was running as a Democrat and Hitler was running as a Republican, they'd still pick Hitler. They just can't look past that. Just too narrowminded.
Yeah, I kinda assumed so, but I was hoping to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I would think it would be better to admit that then to keep silent when asked why you are going to vote for Bush. Keeping silent just makes them all look like idiots. I'd have a little more repect if they would admit Bush is an idiot, but that they will never vote for anything but Republican regardless of the person or qualifications.

I suspect a lot has to with Abortion and appointing judges. Probably many of the Republicans on this board do think Bush is a complete idiot but they don't want to give up the chance of putting more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. The rest of the country can go to hell but as long as abortion is banned then all is good in thr book.

Can any Republican Bush supporters shed some light on my thoughts?
________
Bmw museum history (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_Museum)

[Yonivore]

Quote:wookiwhatever:

"Can any Republican Bush supporters shed some light on my thoughts?"
Well, I'm a Libertarian but I think I can help you out there.

Your thoughts are stupid and without any merit.

You're welcome. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Buy Glass Pipes (http://glasspipes.net/)

[wookibender]

Quote:Well, I'm a Libertarian but I think I can help you out there.

Your thoughts are stupid and without any merit.

You're welcome.
That's great!!!! thanks for your insightful thoughts. You should win a medal.

I agree, my thoughts on the Republicans with regard to Abortion and the Supreme Court are stupid. I fully agree with you, I'm just trying to find any justification of why someone would still vote for Bush.

What is he doing that is good for the Average American?

No one can give me an honest answer. Why? You should have some reason to go to the polls and vote don't you?
________
Coach Handbags (http://icoachhandbags.com/)

[Billybob]

wookibender, I don't think those thoughts were stupid (assuming you weren't bng sarcastic).

I think that IS what happens; voters are enticed by the image of Bush as the moral leader, who will bring God back to America, and save our babies from abortions, and save our very lives from Arabs. People are satisfied to hold these IMAGES in thr head, even when the actions taken by thr leader contradict thr words. The fact that the mass media doesn't REPORT it when politicians' actions don't match thr words is even more of an injustice.
________
Venza (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Venza)

[wookibender]

Billybob,
I totally agree with those thoughts, however, they are stupid thoughts for Republicans to think is all I'm saying.

My whole point to all of this is that Republicans can't even admit or show any reasoning for voting for Bush.
I'm willing to give some amount of respect to them if they could admit that they vote for the God and Abortion thing, but as it stands, they are silent. This implies to me they are conservative zombies that don't know what they stand for anymore.
________
SEX ADVICE ADVICE (http://www.love-help.org/sex-advice/)

[Yonivore]

Quote:"I agree, my thoughts on the Republicans with regard to Abortion and the Supreme Court are stupid. I fully agree with you, I'm just trying to find any justification of why someone would still vote for Bush."
Okay, I'll bite.

Because, if it's just him, and any of the current Demoncrats (including Hitlary), and a whacko third-party candidate, He'll be the best choice. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Teen live (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/teen-girls/)

[wookibender]

Quote:He'll be the best choice.


But WWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

more lies, more wasteful spending, more idiotic quotes, more crappy forgn policy, more tax cuts for the rich?

Everyone continues to dodge this question.. Why Vote for Bush? What has he done to deserver to be elected (appointed)?
________
WELLBUTRIN LAWSUIT (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[azellyn]

they lash out with personal attacks ignoring the very proof they lied about wanting (i.e. "Your thoughts are stupid and without any merit.&quot

It's a tragedy how those in the Bush camp are incapable of recognizing the truth when it's not in thr favor.

Once again they are proving that the biggest hyprocrites reside right in the middle of the GOP.

Since one of thr other favorite evasive tactics is to jump on the time travel machine back to the Clinton's term (the greatest in the last 25 years) and the '90's--let's go there shall we? Remember the lies you tried to pin on "Slick Willy" and millions wasted in unnecessary investigations without "proof"?

The twenty lies that lead off this thread and you who condone them prove that you treasonous, unpatriotic, power-hungry and desperate Bushistas are willing to steal this country and our precious democracy at any price lying and stealing if you have to.

You are way more slick than Willy ever was. He should be taking notes from you masters of deception.

D">
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Yonivore]

Okay, but this is really getting old, repeating myself in the various threads. Why don't you guys confine yourself to one "Bush Lied" thread so we can discuss the issue.

Quote:1 Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks
Nothing you've said or shown demonstrates, to me, the Bush Administration ever made this claim. Period. Not one quote has been produced in any of these threads.
Quote:2 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together
Well, you didn't specifically qualify this as "working together" on the September 11 attacks or "working together" as in mutually supporting terrorist objectives. I think that's an important distinction.

Because, while the administration has stated a belief there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, they've never asserted Iraq was complicit in the September 11 attacks.
Quote:3 Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme[/b]
If I remember correctly, this intelligence was based on a report from British Intelligence which, still standing by thr claim that he was seeking "yellow cake" uranium from an African nation, did confirm the document was a forgery while at the same time said thr intelligence wasn't based on that alone.

This is your "16 words in the State of the Union" scandal, right? If I also recall, President Bush rightfully attributed the claim to the British Government, probably because 1) they were more certain of thr intelligence than was the U.S. intelligence community and 2) as you rightfully pointed out, the U.S. intelligence community had no intelligence to bear that conclusion out.

I don't see the big scandal there. President Bush relied on an intelligence report from an ally? I'm aghast.
Quote:4 Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons
I think it was a natural conclusion to draw, given all the other crap Hussn was pulling, he was also trying to continue whatever weapons programs the rest of the international community believed him to have...including the desire to acquire nuclear weapons. And, insofar as these tubes could have been used in a nuclear program, I think it's a stretch to say the administration lied before at l offering they could have simply been wrong.
Quote:5 Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War
Well according to every international body from the U.N. on down, as of 1998, when UNSCOM left Iraq, they had those weapons. It was known that they had used such weapons in the past. Saddam Hussn didn't help his case by bng defiant and refusion to declare the disposition of those weapons - - under the provision of the U.N.S.C. resolutions. All indications were he still had them.
Quote:6 Iraq retained up to 20 missiles which could carry chemical or biological warheads, with a range which would threaten British forces in Cyprus"
I don't recall this specific allegation. However, I do recall the U.N. declaring Iraq had missiles that were in violation of the resolutions because they exceeded the range allowed.

Is this to what you're referring?
Quote:7 Saddam Hussn had the wherewithal to develop smallpox
Again, based on intelligence recved, it is reasonable to believe Iraq was actively engaged in a biological weapons program.

Isn't your side of the argument that we provided many of these weapons to Iraq when we were on friendly terms? Wouldn't that only bolster the Administrations argument that, in the absence of an Iraqi declaration of the disposition of such weapons, thr programs, and the accompanying research, it is entirely reasonable to assume they still have and are still working on developing such weapons and programs?
Quote:8 US and British claims were supported by the inspectors
In the paragraph accompanying this item, you said that Hans Blix's reply to his own pointing out that Iraq had 10,000 litres of anthrax isn't the same thing as saying there are weapons of mass destruction. I'm sorry, am I missing something there?

What would Iraq do with 10,000 litres of anthrax?
Quote:
Quote:9 Previous weapons inspections ha
Yeah, and that's the United States' fault?

If you begin with the premise that UNSCOM was sent into Iraq to "find" weapons, you'd be wrong. UNSCOM was sent into Iraq, a country KNOWN to possess such weapons and have programs to develop such weapons, to account for the known stockpiles, verify the destruction of existing stockpiles, and analyze what was made available to them in order to determine the further existence of weapons. That Saddam Hussn stonewalled, secreted, and play musical weapons with UNSCOM should come as no surprise.

The UNSCOM inspections were supposed to be done in cooperation with the Iraqi government as part of thr compliance under, at l, three U.N.S.C. resolutions. Thr defiance and obstruction of UNSCOM was, by the way, one of the reasons given by the Bush Administration for the necessity of a war in Iraq.

After all, if you say you're going to cooperate in destroying your weapons program and then immediately start uncooperative behavior, one might draw the "reasonable" conclusion that you have something to hide.
Quote:10 Iraq was obstructing the inspectors
Your accompanying paragraph contradicts other reports that Iraq was uncooperative and evasive. Tell me your source and I'll find mine.
Quote:11 Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes
Actually, I seem to recall this claim was finally settled last week to have been attributed to a British officer that intended for the 45 minutes to be ascribed to mobile weapons launch facilities.

Anyway...that's a British claim. That's Tony Blair's problem. We're trying to uncover Bush Administration lies here.
Quote:12 The "dodgy dossier"
Again, Britain...it's own sovergn nation with no allegiance to the United States of America.
Quote:13 War would be easy
War was easy. Peace is proving a bit touchy...but, there are as many articles claiming positive progress in Iraq as there are negatives.
Quote:14 Umm Qasr
Actually, I believe we blew through Umm Qasr on our way to Baghdad, leaving it for the Brits to secure. Confusion during a war is common, and you don't propose any motivation for the U.S. military wanting to lie about Umm Qasr.
Quote:15 Basra rebellion
Now you're quibbling...I don't even recall this. And, again, what was to be gained by lying in this respect?
Quote:16 The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch
Well, my understanding is that Special Ops films all such operations. Further, I'll bet if you were "in theater" and getting ready to perform an operation that might result (even if it didn't) in combat, you'd want to be heavily armed too. What's the big deal.

All the stuff about her heroics had to have been made up, I agree, because she didn't remember and everyone else was dead. So what, someone down the line lied or embellished. If I remember correctly, the initial reports came from embedded media. Maybe it was slow war day and they wanted to spice it up. Big deal. Again, what would the "big picture" motivation be for the Bush administration to orchestrate such a story?
Quote:17 Troops would face chemical and biological weapons
Well, given what I've already said about my belief that he possessed them, I think it's reasonable to assume our Troops would encounter such weapons.

There are many opinions over why we didn't encounter them, your's (that they didn't exist) is just one. It doesn't make the U.S. Government a liar.
Quote:18 Interrogation of scientists would yield the location of WMD
Well, maybe we haven't interrogated the right scientists yet. Maybe they're keeping thr mouths shut until the definitive disposition of Saddam Hussn is known. Wouldn't want to be on his bad side if he's still alive, would you?

Presuming this to be true doesn't make it a lie. They haven't talked to everyone yet you know.

Prime Minister Blair said, "...once we have the cooperation..." Do we, in fact, have that cooperation?

You say assurances I say belief, that interrogations would result in information leading to the weapons.
Quote:19 Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis
Are you saying that Iraq doesn't have financial obligations? Hey! This wasn't a freebie liberation. I think it's right to expect the liberated Iraq to want to invest in it's own reconstruction and to repay it's debts.

What is the Resolution number, I'd like to read it before I comment further.
Quote:20 WMD were found
Characterizations of field reports from military units doesn't make a lie. Is anyone, in light of your assertion they were merely weather balloon something-or-others, still saying they are related to WMDs? If not, then it's not a lie to be wrong and then, when the evidence proves otherwise, to quit forwarding that assertion.

If they are, in fact, no WMDs and we're still claiming there are...you have your lie. Give me the quote.

Now please...quit with your characterizations of what the administration meant, what they were trying to lead the public to believe, conspiratorial schemes to dupe us. Give me quotes that are lies. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Vaporizer Review (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[azellyn]

Yoni said:

Quote:I think it was a natural conclusion to draw, given all the other crap Hussn was pulling, he was also trying to continue whatever weapons programs the rest of the international community believed him to have...including the desire to acquire nuclear weapons. And, insofar as these tubes could have been used in a nuclear program, I think it's a stretch to say the administration lied before at l offering they could have simply been wrong.

Whoaa hold your horses Yoni, you're dancing all over the place here.

Did they lie or not?

Stick to the facts.
________
Nevada medical marijuana dispensary (http://nevada.dispensaries.org/)

[azellyn]

But I see that you can count ("19 out of 20"). Most of you can ("16 words", "28 pages").

Nice attempt to try to minimize the issue into numbers since you obviously cannot defend the lie. You didn't address it at all. Notice how you danced around it to the counting thing?

Here's another lie for you to start counting ("18 of 20"???) since you couldn't defend the one I just presented.


There's more than one way to lie. You repukes like to challenge the opposition to prove lies based on the premise that a lie is only a direct contradiction of the truth (i.e. I did not have sex with that woman).

But there are other types of lies as well such as telling the truth unconvincingly (using mockery and voice inflection and mannerisms to suggest tha the truth is not true).

The favored choice of Bushco is the Lie of Ommission.

The lie of omission requires two things: (a) knowledge of the total truth and (b) the statement of something less than the total truth resulting in deception.

The "16 Words" lie fits the bill nicely here. Bush knew that our own intelligence refuted British intelligence claims and yet he decved the American public into thinking that the British claims were wholly representative of the situation he lied about regarding Iraq.

Lies or not? You sure could tell if a lie was a lie about five years ago. What happened?

BUSHco LIED PEOPLE DIED
________
NO2 VAPORIZER (http://no2vaporizers.com)

[Yonivore]

Well, when I had the reply box up, I put the numbers down from memory...so shoot me. I guess my editing makes your post look pretty silly.

Now, let me go back and read the rest of your rant... ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Avandia settlement update (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[Yonivore]

Quote:"There's more than one way to lie."
Well, there's exactly two ways to lie. Lies of omission and lies of commission.

What exactly did the Bush administration say (commission) or not say (omission) that constituted these lies? Talk about evasive.

And, no the "16 word lie" is not a good example of omission. President Bush relied on the intelligence of an ally when his own intelligence said they couldn't substantiate the claim. Never did U.S. intelligence say the claim wasn't true, just that they had no intelligence to support it. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Live Sex Webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Yonivore]

Okay, no, I don't believe they did.

But, is that really the only refutation of the 20 you had a problem with? Wow! 19 out of 20 ain't bad.

[fixed the numbers - - I miscounted] ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. BushEdited by: Yonivore at: 9/19/03 5:23 pm

________
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[azellyn]

Quote:Well, there's exactly two ways to lie. Lies of omission and lies of commission.

Well I'm relieved to know that you can count, as you have so amply illustrated today.

Quote:What exactly did the Bush administration say (commission) or not say (omission) that constituted these lies? Talk about evasive.

Did I not give an example of that? I know I did because you went on to say the following:

Quote:And, no the "16 word lie" is not a good example of omission. President Bush relied on the intelligence of an ally when his own intelligence said they couldn't substantiate the claim. Never did U.S. intelligence say the claim wasn't true, just that they had no intelligence to support it.

So you lied about me bng evasive. I see why you are in the Bush camp. But as for your opinion about this bng a "good" example, who cares if you think it's a "good" example? It's a lie plain and simple.
________
Marijuana Vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.info/)

[Yonivore]

Pardon me, I should have said, "...it's not a good example of omission. In fact, it's not an example of a lie at all."

The fact is that President Bush attributed the statement to British intelligence and they still, to this day, stand by the statement. How is that a lie? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
SexyBadBoy cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SexyBadBoy)

[SCT Jurji]

Edit : (how rude of me to forget) Hi all


US and UK interpreted the intel at hand to support thr case. period.

UK and US used outdated material, like the 10 year old university thesis.

All in all, They picked a little bit here and a little bit there often leaving Vital non own case "supporting" facts out.
For instance The BC weapons estimate; They failed to mention that B and C weapons are fresh goods wich will turn into nothing but harmless Dust and liquid after a given time.
Since most of the WMD estimates was pre 91 it equals damned near all weapons would already be harmless years ago.

Blair Mentioned that Saddam could launch a C Attack Within 45 Minutes (somehow he forgot to mention that if at all any, it would be a short range attack.)

Bush and Blair may not have Lied in the true sense of the word. But they sure as hell made a big case of very little real evidence.


BTW something i found strange was how US media reacted on The finding of Antropine (Antropine is Standard issue in all countries i know of (it is in my country and we have no B or C weapons.)
And the multiple Reports of Embeds saying they saw Iraqi Military in chem suits Pouring and Dribbeling with CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

What a Non Story that is !
How can a Embed Riding With 20 humvees 10 Abrams and 10 MB tanks. see something like that without the Iraqi guys suposingly in Chem Suit, at Embeds visual range, Bng Dead within 1 ns.

Again : USA and UK may not have lied But they did blow some things up out of proportion and Left some out totaly out. I am sure Even Yoni, to some extent, can agree with that..




'You are so young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as judge of the highest matters.'

PlatoEdited by: SCT Jurji at: 9/20/03 7:00 am

[Yonivore]

Good to see a familiar - - er - - screen name.

I'll say this...

It's all a judgement call. But, the fact remains, no one in any of these threads has produced one iota, one scintilla, one conclusive FACT that the Bush Administration is doing anything but what it believes to be in the National Security interests of the United States of America.

Those that are presdisposed to think he is some kind of conspiratorial, New World Order, Illuminati, Skull and Dagger, kind of anti-christ will find all sorts of ominous evidence in everything he does. I believe that's the nature of bng President of the most powerful nation in the world; the only super power. The one to whom everyone runs when there's a bully in thr nghborhood.

But, quite frankly, I find it amazing these are the same people that usually accuse him of bng an intellectual midget. Folks, Bng an evil genius and a stupid President would, to me anyway, seem to be mutually exclusive. (By the way, it's a variation on the same characterizations levelled at President Ronald Reagan - - if you will recall). The anti-Bush crowd needs to make up thr minds. Is he stupid or, is he devious?

Or, is he nther?

I believe that Saddam Hussn, the Ba'athist regime, and Iraq policies and behaviors in the years since the Gulf War did not demonstrate a nation that was acting in good faith with it's unconditional surrender, the terms to which it agreed, and international demands vis-a-vis, the 17 some odd U.N.S.C resolutions. And, given thr prior behaviors, it is reasonable to assume thr defiance and dect were concealing a concerted effort to develop programs and plans that got them into the FIRST war.

Put on top of that a belief the Iraqi regime was in cahoots with terrorist organizations, that they were developing weapons of mass destruction (which they'd previous shown a willingness to use), and that we were just brutally attacked by a terrorist organization, and you have a hard case to prove this was anything other than a desire to protect us from further assault.

All Saddam Hussn had to do was realize how seriously we viewed the attacks on September 11, and said to himself, "you know those bastards just might attack me this time...I'd better show my cards." That he didn't is ther a testament to extreme stupidity or to the probability that he actually did have something to conceal.

Another observation I've made. This whole time between Iraq's surrender in the 90's, the subsequent attacks on the World Trade Center, the U.S.S. Cole, and other Western interests worldwide - - there was a consistent, collective, publicly expressed belief on the part of damn near the entire Free World, President Clinton and the Demoncrats included, that Saddam Hussn presented a clear threat to global stability and security...thus, the 17 resolutions and various congressional acts supporting action, in the event Iraq continued to defy the resolutions and continued to present a threat.

It's as if the whole world was viewing Iraq as the Playground Bully and wishing that something could be done about him. They fretted and fretted for years over this man...all through the Clinton administration.

Then, when President Bush comes into office and the nation suffers the worst attack, on its soil, since Pearl Harbor - - he decides that not only is he going to go after those that did the deed, he's also going to take out this Playground Bully everyone's been whining about for years.

All of a sudden all the whiners say, "Hey! You can't do that! What did Saddam Hussn ever do to you? You big bully!"

Fickle leftist whiners. Jeeze!
________
California dispensaries (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[SCT Jurji]

Good to see a familiar - - er - - screen name.

I'll say this...

It's all a judgement call. But, the fact remains, no one in any of these threads has produced one iota, one scintilla, one conclusive FACT that the Bush Administration is doing anything but what it believes to be in the National Security interests of the United States of America.

Agree, The Bush administration is acting on national interests.

Those that are presdisposed to think he is some kind of conspiratorial, New World Order, Illuminati, Skull and Dagger, kind of anti-christ will find all sorts of ominous evidence in everything he does. I believe that's the nature of bng President of the most powerful nation in the world; the only super power. The one to whom everyone runs when there's a bully in thr nghborhood.

A New world order is already the reality we all live in. Well.. look closer and you might see that it ain't that new, after all. But illuminati, Skulls and bones and Anti Crist...I am afraid not

But, quite frankly, I find it amazing these are the same people that usually accuse him of bng an intellectual midget. Folks, Bng an evil genius and a stupid President would, to me anyway, seem to be mutually exclusive. (By the way, it's a variation on the same characterizations levelled at President Ronald Reagan - - if you will recall). The anti-Bush crowd needs to make up thr minds. Is he stupid or, is he devious?

Or, is he nther?

I believe that Saddam Hussn, the Ba'athist regime, and Iraq policies and behaviors in the years since the Gulf War did not demonstrate a nation that was acting in good faith with it's unconditional surrender, the terms to which it agreed, and international demands vis-a-vis, the 17 some odd U.N.S.C resolutions. And, given thr prior behaviors, it is reasonable to assume thr defiance and dect were concealing a concerted effort to develop programs and plans that got them into the FIRST war.

True, Saddam has dissobeyed and decve the UNSC more then once. But do not forget that on the brink of War Iraq was doing anything West Told it to do.

Put on top of that a belief the Iraqi regime was in cahoots with terrorist organizations, that they were developing weapons of mass destruction (which they'd previous shown a willingness to use), and that we were just brutally attacked by a terrorist organization, and you have a hard case to prove this was anything other than a desire to protect us from further assault.

Here the case turn from supported evidence to more scetchy ones.
For instance i don't think Saddam was directly involved in Palestine vs Israel. He didn't help the Palestinians with anything. All he, supposingly, did was to Pay the familys of those that red themselves. He didn't help them get explosives, training nor did he fund the organisations directly. And Iraq was *obviously* not developing WMDs. One may argue that intel supported that he did, but then again, There is 10 times as much intel that say he didn't, on top of that the intel not supporting war came from better sources imo. But that intel got silenced in the own lines and those who spoke it in other nations was alienated and rediculed.
they became Eunuks, eurowimps, Freedomhaters some was even labeled Terrorist supporters. (Who want to support someone ones government call terrorist supporter?)
So the No-War case was destroyed. Not by the truth, debate, argumentation or diplomacy...but with good old fasioned Propaganda.

All Saddam Hussn had to do was realize how seriously we viewed the attacks on September 11, and said to himself, "you know those bastards just might attack me this time...I'd better show my cards." That he didn't is ther a testament to extreme stupidity or to the probability that he actually did have something to conceal.

He did surrender into complete submission...Saddam would have done anything..
Bush&CO just brushed that away; calling it To Little To Late (if im don't remember incorrectly).

Another observation I've made. This whole time between Iraq's surrender in the 90's, the subsequent attacks on the World Trade Center, the U.S.S. Cole, and other Western interests worldwide - - there was a consistent, collective, publicly expressed belief on the part of damn near the entire Free World, President Clinton and the Demoncrats included, that Saddam Hussn presented a clear threat to global stability and security...thus, the 17 resolutions and various congressional acts supporting action, in the event Iraq continued to defy the resolutions and continued to present a threat.

That is true but those 17 resolutions was to blunt instruments Not only did we prevent Iraqi civilians from staying alive. We also made Saddam belive that Status Quoe is Ok.

It's as if the whole world was viewing Iraq as the Playground Bully and wishing that something could be done about him. They fretted and fretted for years over this man...all through the Clinton administration.

Then, when President Bush comes into office and the nation suffers the worst attack, on its soil, since Pearl Harbor - - he decides that not only is he going to go after those that did the deed, he's also going to take out this Playground Bully everyone's been whining about for years.

All of a sudden all the whiners say, "Hey! You can't do that! What did Saddam Hussn ever do to you? You big bully!"

Fickle leftist whiners. Jeeze!

You said whiners

My thoughts
I do think Iraq had to be dealt with (But I would have prefered the diplomacy deck be played fully to last card before anything else).
Bullying, bribing Threatening and blackmailing the rest of the world for support wasn't the best thing to do...
If just Bush & CO would have held thr horses, played the Diplomacy deck to Fin, i do belive more European nations would have understod and also jumped the Bandwagon, Belive me....
If so USA and UK would Not be in it alone by now, carrying the huge Economical and political Burden Iraq is.

However, call me naive, most of me do belive it would have been solved without War.
But if War still would have taken place i do belive the aftermath gerilla war we see now would be less persistent. (There is probably those that did not support Saddam that fight the coalition..I belive that is because they don't See the coalition forces as "the rest of the world"... they see it as One occypying force from One nation.

thoughts ?


'You are so young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as judge of the highest matters.'

Plato

[Reality]

Your posts are certainly a breath of fresh air on these boards.
________
herbal vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/)

[Yonivore]

Thanks Reality.

SCT Jurji, I'm just about be blitzed and watching UT kick Rice's ass in football, so I'll leave you with the short answer to the most compelling portion of your argument.

Saddam Hussn exhibited a pattern of conciliatory behavior when things got hot. The most glaring example, his "unconditional surrender" in the Gulf War. But, once the troops were packing up and going home, he was right back to his dectful, evasive, and belligerent nature.

I think the U.S. was proper in assuming his current offers to be cooperative were nothing less than an attempt to defuse and distract so he could continue his regime in the manner to which he had become accustomed.

I'll elaborate more after I sober up tomorrow. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
SexyLove4U (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SexyLove4U)

[wookibender]

Quote:Yonivore says:
I'll say this...

It's all a judgement call. But, the fact remains, no one in any of these threads has produced one iota, one scintilla, one conclusive FACT that the Bush Administration is doing anything but what it believes to be in the National Security interests of the United States of America.

Here's a fact....
You have not heard of the Project for a New American Centry
www.newamericancentury.org/
Read the statement of principles page dated 1997.
Signed by
Dick Cheney
Jeb Bush
Paul Wolfowitz
Donald Rumsfeld
Any many other fine leaders running this country.

Go suck on that website for a while.
The Bush administration is doing far more than National Security Interests in IRAQ.

With regard to the rest of your statements trying to refute the lies of the Bush war... they are riddled with
Quote:I seem to recall
Actually, I believe
my understanding
Anyway...that's a British claim.
one might draw the "reasonable" conclusion that you have something to hide.
Well, maybe we haven't interrogated the right scientists yet.

All your arguements are based on wishful thinking with no links to back them up.

I'm going to use your same logic to justify the Bush Administration is lying...
"one might draw the "reasonable" conclusion that the Bush Administration has something to hide. (Go back to the start of this thread and read it again)

The whole point that I see in pushing these issues of the Bush Administration lies is that our President and staff pushed us into war with IRAQ without having substantial FACTS to justify its military action. Plain and simple to understand.

If they had FACTS to justify this war then where are they? They keep changing the major reasons they stated for entering this war.

You go on and continue to see it your way and I will see it mine. There are thousands of things we still don't know about 9/11 because Bush is stonewalling the investigation as well as the Energy policy.
Call it lies, dect, manipulation, brainwashing, fraud, collusion, false representation, imposition, trickery, changing your story, whatever, there is much more that needs to come out and it's not looking good for the Bush Administration right now.

________
VIDEO REVIEW (http://videoreviews.org)

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry, I'm just too drunk to answer your ramblings seriously. I would only further damage our already fairly untenable relationship.

Don't worry, I'll be sober enough tomorrow to make enough sense out of that pile of words above and you'll get a response. Sleep well...

Texas kicked ass!!! Hook 'em! ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Wong Amat Tower Condominium (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[Yonivore]

Quote:SCT Jurji:

"Agree, The Bush administration is acting on national interests."
Finally, someone with common sense.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"A New world order is already the reality we all live in. Well.. look closer and you might see that it ain't that new, after all. But illuminati, Skulls and bones and Anti Crist...I am afraid not"
Again, I agree with you. There is a new world order, largely due to the fall of the Soviet Union and the attempt at Europe to gel into a single geopolitical entity. I was using the "NWO" reference in the sense of it bng commonly thrown out by conspiracists and anti-Bush whackos as some way to prove there's a large group of business elites pulling the strings on the other 6 billion of us.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"True, Saddam has dissobeyed and decve the UNSC more then once. But do not forget that on the brink of War Iraq was doing anything West Told it to do."
True enough. But, I would ask you to remember this was his Standard Operating Procedure anytime it appeared conflict was imminent or when he was actually getting his butt kicked (as in the Gulf War). I believe the Bush Administration was right to view this "cooperation" with skepticism and contempt. I also believe it was not enough to dissuade the United States (nor should it have been enough to persuade the U.N.) from the "severe consequences" promised in the latest U.N.S.C. resolution.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"Here the case turn from supported evidence to more scetchy ones.
For instance i don't think Saddam was directly involved in Palestine vs Israel. He didn't help the Palestinians with anything. All he, supposingly, did was to Pay the familys of those that red themselves. He didn't help them get explosives, training nor did he fund the organisations directly. And Iraq was *obviously* not developing WMDs. One may argue that intel supported that he did, but then again, There is 10 times as much intel that say he didn't, on top of that the intel not supporting war came from better sources imo. But that intel got silenced in the own lines and those who spoke it in other nations was alienated and rediculed.
they became Eunuks, eurowimps, Freedomhaters some was even labeled Terrorist supporters. (Who want to support someone ones government call terrorist supporter?)
So the No-War case was destroyed. Not by the truth, debate, argumentation or diplomacy...but with good old fasioned Propaganda."
I don't think you or I or anyone else on this board is privy to enough information to make a definitive claim ther way. I do believe that a preponderance of the circumstantial evidence publicly known, supports the Administration's position with respect to Iraq.

I'm afraid that without daily NSC briefings, we're at somewhat of a disadvantage. Sometimes it boils down to a matter of trust. And, in a real sense, that would explain the vehement opposition bng displayed on this board. Some people don't trust President Bush, even if they can't articulate very well, the exact reasons for doing so. I accept that. I also believe they've no more information than I for supporting thr position.

Other than living in the State he governed for 6 years and bng duly impressed with his performance, candor, and integrity here - - I have no basis with which to definitively judge whether or not he truly believed Iraq to be a threat when he committed to war except that he made the case to me personally.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"He did surrender into complete submission...Saddam would have done anything..
Bush&CO just brushed that away; calling it To Little To Late (if im don't remember incorrectly)."
I seem to recall that wasn't the only thing the administration said at the time. If you will recall, they also mentioned this as bng consistent with Saddam Hussn when similarly backed into a corner. Lie to relieve the tension and then go right back to his old ways.

The Administration, rightly I believe, pointed to repeated violations of UNSC resolutions and the back and forth with Inspectors over the previous 12 years as indicative of this behavior.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"That is true but those 17 resolutions was to blunt instruments Not only did we prevent Iraqi civilians from staying alive. We also made Saddam belive that Status Quoe is Ok."
I disagree. Iraq was allowed to sell oil for humanitarian relief within its borders. That Saddam Hussng opted to divert those funds to military and regime programs, at the expense of the citizens of Iraq, makes him solely responsible for the plight of Iraqis.

In my mind, attacking when we did prevented more Iraqis from bng starved to death by thr own regime.

As far as the Status Quo comment, I believe you're right. Throughout the Clinton Administration and even in the first years of the Bush Administration, the United States wasn't forceful enough in convincing the U.N. to pursue its own objectives in passing those 17 resolutions.

However, September 11 was a watermark event in geopolitics. President Bush made clear, post-9/11, that such behavior was no longer going to be tolerated. Beginning immediately after the September 11 attacks, President Bush began a slow and deliberate attack on the "status quo." Repeatedly warning Iraq to shape up, including them in the "axis of evil," and so on. If Saddam Hussn had any illusions that the United States was going to continue as usual, he just wasn't paying attention.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"I do think Iraq had to be dealt with (But I would have prefered the diplomacy deck be played fully to last card before anything else)."
And, I believe the United States felt the deck had been dealt several times already. We were no longer in a position to continue the perpetual back and forth of Hussn's shenanigans after a new threat, in the form of global terrorism, had asserted itself so forcefully. Time was up, Hussn was told it was up, and he should have recognized the U.S. wasn't @#%$ around anymore.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"Bullying, bribing Threatening and blackmailing the rest of the world for support wasn't the best thing to do...
If just Bush & CO would have held thr horses, played the Diplomacy deck to Fin, i do belive more European nations would have understod and also jumped the Bandwagon, Belive me...."
In the final analysis, it doesn't matter. The objective was achieved and Saddam Hussn isn't coming back to power. I do take exception to your characterization of our policy as bng "bullying, bribing, and threatening." President Bush clearly stated that we would, with a "coalition of the willing" do what needed to be done if the U.N. continued in its posture and proved its on irrelevancy. I know of no instances of "bullying," "bribing," or "threatening."

I also believe that Germany and France (particularly France) had too big a financial stake in the continuation of the Ba'athist regime to ever go along with a military invasion of Iraq. At the very l, it would have taken more time than was felt existed for them to extricate themselves from the devilish deals they'd made with the regime. That this wasn't a bigger scandal is kind of apalling to me, but, oh well.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"If so USA and UK would Not be in it alone by now, carrying the huge Economical and political Burden Iraq is."
It's still cheaper for us, in the short and long run, than another devastating attack on our soil. If we agree the President was acting in what he thought was the nation's best interests, the cost of another domestic terrorist attack has to be factored into the equation.
Quote:SCT Jurji:

"However, call me naive, most of me do belive it would have been solved without War.
But if War still would have taken place i do belive the aftermath gerilla war we see now would be less persistent. (There is probably those that did not support Saddam that fight the coalition..I belive that is because they don't See the coalition forces as 'the rest of the world'... they see it as One occypying force from One nation.
I prefer to view you as having been hopeful, not naive. But, I don't think the Hussn regime would have ever capitulated to any international demands to disarm and help stabilize the region. His upcoming progeny were even worse.

And, there is ever increasing evidence the average citizen of Iraq is satisfied with the prosecution of the war. They are glad Saddam Hussn is out of power and they view thr own future in a more positive light.

It took years after WWII for this to be achieved in Germany...I think we're on a record pace in Iraq, even WITH Demoncratic opposition bng so fierce and vocal.

Kindest regards.
?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Web Shows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Yonivore]

Hey wookie, I have heard of the Project for a New American Century.

I went and re-read the Statement of Principles, as you suggested. I don't see anything there that is in conflict with the Administration's current policy and/or statements and I certainly don't see anything that is counter to the interests of the United States of America.

That's a fine group of people trying to build America's status in the world after having our image immasculated by 8 years of Bill Clinton. Nothing wrong with that.

With regard to the rest of your "pile," Okay, have your own opinion over what the past means. If you think it's "reasonable" to conclude the President is lying, who am I to change your mind. I do say you're wrong and that you'll be proven wrong by history. And I've made my case repeatedly in this forum. But, in the end, only time will tell. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
E-cigarettes (http://www.ecigarettes123.com/)

[wookibender]

Quote: With regard to the rest of your "pile," Okay, have your own opinion over what the past means. If you think it's "reasonable" to conclude the President is lying, who am I to change your mind. I do say you're wrong and that you'll be proven wrong by history. And I've made my case repeatedly in this forum. But, in the end, only time will tell.


Your denial of Bush lies is like me saying I don't consider "Oral" to be sexual relations. It's just not sex. Therefor he did not lie.

Now doesn't that sound stupid?

That is how you sound when defending Bush.

Bush Decved us in reasons to go to war. Does that sound better to you instead of saying lied?
________
JUSTIN BIEBER FANS (http://justinbieberfan.info/)

[Yonivore]

No, I don't think you've made your case. Certainly not to me, and probably not to a majority of readers who hadn't already made up thr minds.

And, except for a few partisan Demoncrats - - it appears you're in the minority with this position.

I don't believe the Bush administration, or President Bush personally, has intentionally lied or unintentionally misled the public in thr reasons for going to war with Iraq. And, nothing that's been said on this forum has changed my mind.

But, I take great satisfaction in the belief that whenever the threads, in this forum, are viewed by a dispassionate third party, my argument will make the most sense. After all, I wasn't out to change your mind. These forums rarely lead to concensus between opposing parties. The intent is to argue out a point and let readers decide who makes the most sense. I'm satisfied that's been done.

It's been an enjoyable debate. But, I fear, we've exhausted all the points unless, and until, there are further developments in the war on terror. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
SinfullEyes (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SinfullEyes)

[wookibender]

Quote:my argument will make the most sense.

What ever buddy,

You just keep reading those tabloids, drink your beers, watch your football, and keep the wool pulled over your eyes.

It really doesn't matter if Bush lied (under your terms) anyway, the media is killing him, and the public, (70% think Saddam was related to 9/11), are now bng told that Bush lied. At re-election time, 70% will be KNOWING that Bush lied. Who will they vote for? The polls say, "Anyone but George Bush"

Nothing you can say will change that on a message board.
________
Marijuana (http://marijuanahemp.com)

[Yonivore]

Okie dokie. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Web Shows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[azellyn]

Yoni's comments "re:Yonivore" are a prime example of the type of distortion and stretching of the truth that's Bushco's trademark.

Examples:

Quote:No, I don't think you've made your case. Certainly not to me, and probably not to a majority of readers who hadn't already made up thr minds.

This is obviously an attempt to make Wookie feel "small" by insinuating, without any facts whatsoever, that most are on Yoni's side. Says, who Yoni? You, alone cannot make that call and I see no evidence on this board to support your claim. Another lie?

Quote:And, except for a few partisan Demoncrats--it appears you're in the minority with this position.

Again, attempts at minimization. A "few"? Where's your evidence? Got some poll data? Done some surveys that you want to share with us? If not, keep this nonsense to yourself--or at l preface it with a disclaimer (i.e. "I think"...).

Quote:But, I take great satisfaction in the belief that whenever the threads, in this forum, are viewed by a dispassionate third party, my argument will make the most sense

Now this is laughable. You get one person who seems to agree with some of what you say and you extrapolate that "whenever" third parties view your comments they agree? You probably ARE the third party.

No wonder you're in the Bush camp. They need people incapable of recognizing the truth and who jump to unfounded conclusions.

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED


________
MAZDA 323F HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_323F)

[Yonivore]

What are you, a @#%$ psychiatrist?

Well, doc, my position on the majority NOT bng in agreement with wookie comes from the fact of a recent poll suggesting that 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussn was involved in terrorism and the attacks on September 11, 2001.

70% is greater than 50%, no?

Also, I state my opinion on the FEW that are in opposition based on my observations of the only people that presumably belong to the remaining 30% from the above poll that are vocal about "Bush lying" appear to be partisan Demoncrats and they followers...like you.

Quote:"Now this is laughable. You get one person who seems to agree with some of what you say and you extrapolate that 'whenever' third parties view your comments they agree? You probably ARE the third party."
No, I wasn't even referring to the person that posted. You do know that people read these threads that don't post, right? I believe the parlance is "lurkers." Well, we have created a written dialogue for them to read and from which they may draw thr own conclusions.

And, I still think that I make the most sense. I'm certainly less prone to dirision, bellicose statements, jumped conclusions than some of my opponents on this board. You should really read back. The extensive use of "smilies" is considered, by some, to be somewhat sophomoric.

Oh, and the "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED" signature is reminiscent of the vaccuous anti-war protestors of the 60's. I bet you're smoking some "righteous we ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Vaporite easy vape (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/)

[WantaghDem]

"I cannot support a failed forgn policy... But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovergn nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/forgn policy precedent."
?? Tom Delay 4/28/99

{Remember, we lost no service personnel in that war, not one.}

"There is a holiday in Kosovo today because Clinton is here," said local journalist Blerta Foniqi, 20, as she waited for him to arrive. "He's one of Kosovo's most loved people," said her colleague. ?The reception contrasted starkly with the maximum security visits to Iraq recently by Rumsfeld and Powell, both of whom had virtually no contact with ordinary local people.? [Reuters News Service]
________
Pissing public (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/833/public/videos/1)

[Yonivore]

Non sequiter, right? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
HarukoWild25 live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/HarukoWild25)

[WantaghDem]

and more and more lies

Since it's ok with "them" to post from rags, i thought i'd give it a go:

"Bush negotiating with Saddam

Saddam is demanding safe passage to the former Soviet republic of Belarus. In exchange,?he has vowed to provide info on WMDs and disclose bank accounts where he siphoned off tens of millions of dollars in plundered cash.

Bush is bng kept abr by Condi Rice. She is co-ordinating negotiations in Baghdad which are led by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of American forces in Iraq.

Bush has vowed never to negotiate with Saddam, but the White House hopes the clandestine talks will allow them to pinpoint the tyrant's exact location."

www.sundaymirror.co.uk/ne..._page.html
________
No2 vaporizers (http://no2vaporizers.com)

[Yonivore]

I think I posted that already. Where have you been? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
CALIFORNIA DISPENSARIES (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

"The media talk about anti-Americanism, but what?s really noxious right now is an insufferable smugness, a pervasive air of schadenfreude, and I fear it?s a symptom of still worse to come from this Iraq adventure. Because the bitterest contradiction of all may be that this war was waged?first and foremost?to save face after the humiliation and suffering of September 11. It was meant to inspire awe in the Arab and Muslim world, as former CIA operative Marc Reuel Gerecht and others insisted it should be. And in that it truly has failed. Every day we look weaker. And the worst news of all it that it?s not because of what was done to us by our enemies but because of what we?ve done to ourselves."

Christopher Dickey, MSGOP
www.msnbc.com/news/969219.asp
________
FAKE WEED (http://syntheticweed.org)

[azellyn]

Quote:What are you, a @#%$ psychiatrist?

That you ask is a compliment. Actually, I'm not a psychiatrist but I play one on TV.

Quote:Well, doc, my position on the majority NOT bng in agreement with wookie comes from the fact of a recent poll suggesting that 70% of Americans believe Saddam Hussn was involved in terrorism and the attacks on September 11, 2001. 70% is greater than 50%, no?

And...Yoni's...reaching. Stretch 1, Stretch 2...count the rest out for me will ya Yoni? You love to count anyway.

As for 70%, how does the fact that Bush duped that many people into believing Saddam did 9/11 prove that Wookie is wrong about Bush decving the public? In fact, I think he will be glad to see that by using this as an example you have basically conceded that he was right.

Quote:Also, I state my opinion on the FEW that are in opposition based on my observations of the only people that presumably belong to the remaining 30% from the above poll that are vocal about "Bush lying" appear to be partisan Demoncrats and they followers...like you.

Whaaaaa? You told Wookie that only a "few" believe the public was decved into war and then you cite as evidence a poll showing that 70% were duped?

Quote:...I wasn't even referring to the person that posted. You do know that people read these threads that don't post, right? I believe the parlance is "lurkers." Well, we have created a written dialogue for them to read and from which they may draw thr own conclusions.

Awwww. Nice that you keep in touch with friends. However, this worthless information does little to prove that your friends/contacts/godknowswhat are a majority who outnumber other lurkers in agreng with YOU.

Quote:And, I still think that I make the most sense.

Well good for you. Hopefully you and your imaginary majority all agree on this.

Quote:I'm certainly less prone to dirision, bellicose statements, jumped conclusions than some of my opponents on this board.

"Less prone"? That's questionable since it was your derisive, bellicose statements that spurred me to become quite the attacker. You were attacking and trying to belittle others which is why I sought you out. Read back on some of your own statements and maybe you will rethink your approach.

Quote:You should really read back. The extensive use of "smilies" is considered, by some, to be somewhat sophomoric.

Well at l you didn't count this time. "Some" consider people who exaggerate to be liars. You exaggerate a lot. So did Bush.



Quote:Oh, and the "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED" signature is reminiscent of the vaccuous anti-war protestors of the 60's. I bet you're smoking some "righteous we

Well that's was a nice try to shoot down a very effective line which causes a "few" repugs serious heartburn. That's why I use it, because you can't handle the truth.

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Whipper Snapper]

Bush ain't no movie star... he is the real deal. You must watch too much TV... in the real world people die when there is a war. Sad but true... I hope that my telling you that wasn't too much of a shock to Your obviously weak constitution.
________
starcraft 2 replays (http://screplays.com/)

[WantaghDem]

...in the real world, when people start wars of aggression without UN sanction and without provocation, they're taken to The Hague and tried as war criminals!


________
Jailbroken (http://jailbroken.org/)

[Yonivore]

And, if there's enough of Saddam Hussn or Osama bin Laden left when they are eventually found, let the Hague have 'em. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
MARIJUANA CARD (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

[Whipper Snapper]

You must be on the "U.N." members list huh? The good ole US of A was a founding member and now its bng run by a bunch of wannabee's and liars. Check that out for yourself... France and Germany both have oil interests in IRAQ. Duhhhhhh! Hell it was German engineers that built the underground bunkers... where the hell were YOU when it was televised??

I'll be sure to get YOUR permission the next time I have to wipe my ass too!???
________
og kush pictures (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/og-kush)

[SA]

That list says it all. The American people have been misled, now it is our turn to react, and to throw this man out. The man known as the Treacherous Texan is going to have to give our White House back! Anyone but Bush in '04!