BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM

Waste of time, folks. One needs to have a desire to use critical thinking skills. One needs to have a desire to actually come to a conclusion, as opposed to being led to a predetermined conclusion. One of the biggest problems I see out there today, on all sides of the equation, is the lack of desire to step outside of the "slogan/title" that folks have assigned themselves. I say I am a progressive, or a liberal, and they assume they know all about me. Our King T is one of these. He has expended so much personal capital defending this guy that there is no way back. I wish he could step outside himself and look at his statements from afar. He would then see how silly they are. In a way he reminds me of the Iraqui official that stood on the roof denying that Americans had entered Bagdad while in the background you could hear the bombs.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM

Now, if Dumbya had lied about a blowjob.............

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 01:41 PM

15 of the 17 hijackers were Saudis. Bush vowed to get Bin Laden, "We gonna smoke him out". Sure. WHEN? just before the election would be great timing.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 01:47 PM

I think he was unduly influienced by Matt Dillon.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 06:40 PM

Notice how the Bush administration has postponed the talks with North Korea until closer to next year elections. These folks ain't stupid... just quite evil amd power hungry...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:05 PM

But Matt Dillon always knew who to go after. Never shot the wrong man.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: mike the knife
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 03:42 PM

If there was ANY substantiated intel linking Saddam to either concrete evidence of WMD's or even the most tenuous link to Bin Laden & his ilk, you can ga-ron-tee that W & his crew would have it pinned to their shirts & would not stop crowing about it. They (we?) went in to Iraq guns a-blazing, looking for what we (they?) thought would be the big smoking gun or test tube or whatever. Still haven't found it. The arguement that it's there and for reasons of "National Security" (don't you just love it when they conveniently protect us from knowing too much?) it isn't being shown/talked about is just more bread & circus. When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: LadyJean
Date: 03 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM

Have you heard the news?
That Thanksgiving dinner Bush shared with our troops was a Thanksgiving breakfast. He arrived in Bagdad at 6:00 a.m. Iraqi time, and served turkey and dressing to soldiers at 7:00 a.m. Iraqi time. A bit early for the diners, but not for Americans sitting down to their turkey and mashed potatoes, at home.
That dirty son of a Bush created a photo op. The dinner was 200 percent phony! And the press hasn't said anything about it! What liberal media?

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 02:04 AM

LadyJean 03 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM I think that story has been rather comprehensively been de-bunked:

President was out of the US for a total of 30 hours; he spent 3 hours on the ground; he left the US on the Wednesday evening, flying East. Remember a little thing called time zones - the guy who first blasted this story over the media certainly did.

GWB's Air Force One took off from Baghdad at sometime around 20:00hrs local time; the breakfast you refer to started at 17:00hrs local time in Baghdad.

At the moment it is around -

12:05 AM - Houston Texas
01:05 AM - Washington DC
07:05 AM - Central European Time
09:05 AM - Baghdad

Your reporter is quoting time from a US time zone, depending on which one add at least at least 8 or 9 hours to it - anyone for a bit of a late breakfast???

Amos 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM & others, including Guests, well intentioned, like-minded, well-informed, intelligent friends:

The potential threat:
An attack by an international terrorist group on a large centre of population using some form of weapon of mass destruction.

Rational for that perception:
- Attacks of September 11th, 2001
- Terrorist organisations with an international perspective do currently exist, Al-Qaeda is just one example of such a group.
- Potential suppliers of the required WMD do exist, Iraq, required by the UN to disarm and rid itself of such weapons had failed to comply to the satisfaction of the UN's inspection teams.

Response to Threat:
- Streamline intelligence gathering and establish closer co-operation between existing national agencies and with foreign intelligence agencies.
- Remove use of a safe base from most significant international terrorist organisation, the one that has already attacked you - Al-Qaeda/Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
- Eliminate/Reduce/Restrict possible sources of WMD, WMD technology, WMD components, to such groups.

Yes Amos, in general, they are all interlinked.

Everyone mentioned in Guest's post of 02 Dec 03 - 08:04 AM can hold whatever opinion they like, they can adopt whatever attitude they like, they can chose to believe, or disbelieve, whatever they like, for one very good reason - They are not the one responsible for the safety, security and well-being of their nation. Land them with that responsibility and faced with certain facts and circumstances, their perspective, with regard to formulation of response/solution, on any given situation would be somewhat constrained.



Teribus:

I'd try tofind other grounds were I you. The explicit literal statement in words of one syllable you want to argue abhout is not tyhe point. Much more tot he point is the inten tional inter-linking and association of 9-11, Al Qeda, Saddam HUssein, and mass destruction. With strong associations supported by weasel words.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 02:06 AM

Check the Drudge report -- you will also learn that the big turkey on a platter that Bush is shown holding is made of papier-mache, and all the trimmings around it are also fake. Apparently it was manufactured on the order of the White House, and was carried to Iraq. The soldiers were fed from a steam table.

And Lady Jean, the liberal media were, of course, not invited on this little phony jaunt.

It will be interesting to see what he does for Christmas. If he says even one syllable of "peace on earth, good will toward men," I'm going to hunt him down.

Never in my life (and I'm not young) have I seen such an ongoing display of cynical, uncaring, in-your-face lying, blatantly and contemptuously performed by a crew of sneering, manipulative rogues.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 08:36 AM

He is the second president younger than me, and the ONLY one I have ever DETESTED!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: mike the knife
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 11:07 AM

Whoah PDC,
be careful- statements like :

It will be interesting to see what he does for Christmas. If he says even one syllable of "peace on earth, good will toward men," I'm going to hunt him down.

may earn you a visit from the folks that talk into their shirt cuffs. They have long memories and a collective bad sense of humor. They even paid a visit to Hunter S. Thompson a while back when he said that he would "stomp Bush (pater) to death" or something like that. They were not amused & they nearly scared the fudge out of ol' Hunter- and he's not easily rattled.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 11:22 AM

Good point, MtK - I guess I'm still in the habit of free speech. We will all have to learn that there's no such thing any more, is there?

So, what I meant was -- I will hunt him down and give him a good talking to!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 12:20 PM

Mike with regard to pdc's comments:

"If he says even one syllable of "peace on earth, good will toward men," I'm going to hunt him down."

I don't think there's much for pdc to worry about.

Hunter S. Thompson's comments on the other hand were quite well worth the visit, as technically, I believe, he was breaking the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 12:59 PM

A slip of the Bush tongue the other day was amusing to me, in a rather macabre way. He was talking about the deadly attacks of insurgents in Iraq and said "This coalition of killers..." He paused and said, "This collection of killers..."

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 03:28 PM

It is, and should be against the law to threaten the president. The authorities can't afford to have a sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 03 - 04:04 PM

(You know, this makes me realize that the shadowy figures around the bush have it just the way they want it. He gets the flak, they get to do what they want. Get 'em out. Get 'em all out, I say.)

December 4, 2003: The Daily Mis-Leader Quote:

The Post notes that "the foray has opened new credibility questions for a White House that has dealt with issues" like this in the past. In fact, the (misleading photo "showing" the president holding a platter of turkey) flap marks the second such distortion in as many days about his trip to Baghdad. Just yesterday it was revealed that the White House's tall tale of Air Force One crossing paths with a British Airways plane was entirely false.

The deceptive picture also harkens back to the controversy surrounding the President's "Mission Accomplished" banner. On May 1, he stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln in front of the giant sign and declared that "major combat operations have ended." Since that time, more troops have been killed or wounded than before he made that statement, prompting more questions about his photo-op.

When asked why he chose to stand in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner at a press conference six months later, Bush "disavowed the background banner," saying the White House staff had nothing to do with producing it. But then Navy and administration officials admitted the President had been dishonest, saying that "the White House actually made it." White House spokesman Scott McClellan specifically said, "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things."

Of course, Bush's penchant for taking misleading and dishonest photos has not been confined to Iraq. In July of 2002, the President visited a low-income housing development in Atlanta to tout his commitment to funding it. He then proposed a budget that eliminated its funding. Similarly, the President visited a Boys and Girls Club in January of 2003 to tout the organization's efforts. He said the club "has got a grand history of helping children." Just four days after his photo-op, he proposed to cut 15% out of funding for the Boys and Girls Club.

Read the Mis-Lead -->
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1147101&l=10920