BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:39 PM

>>>Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"<<<

And Bush fell for a bunch of alarmist garbage from liberal democrats?? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!   What a dumbass!! No wonder Bush has turned out to be so dreadfully wrong--he took his facts from liberal crybabies!!! HEHEHEHE!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:41 PM

He took his facts where ever he pleased.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:47 PM

True, Barry. He wanted to get into Iraq and he did. Now the dumb fu#k doesn't know how to get out. As to the remark about liberal cry babies, sheesh. If that means not wanting to see kids killed uselessly to economically enrich a class of people who have the morals of a dog in heat, then it does make one proud to be a liberal cry baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM

Good posts from both Amos and Captain Ginger. The only things missing from both were respectively the post-script - Thank Christ that I am not the one that has to make the decision when all your most experienced and trusted advisors are telling you that a threat exists and it requires urgent attention - It's the responsibility of leadership. The days of, "let's wait and see", have long since gone, if they ever really existed at all.

"We were also told that we could and should challenge any order we believed to be illegal."

Have you ever done it? Have you ever disobeyed, or refused to carry out, an order that you considered to be illegal? I have Captain, not the best of career moves, but right just the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:19 PM

That seems to be the problem, T-zer... When you appoint idiologues as yer "most trusted advisors" you really aren't appointing people who will give you differing points of view...

In 20/20 hindasight this is painfully clear... These "trusted advisors" beat down the intellegece community in a time that they had the post 9-11 power to do so and the anaylists who said, "Hey, wait a minute, yer wrong" were either fired or ignored...

Yes, post 9-11 was the perfecy storm for Bush to get the US in the biggest mess since Vietnam and he has done his job well in doing just that... He sent Cheney to the CIA dayafter day after day to beat them up and get them "office speakin'" and inspite of the many brave and couragous anaylist who wouldn't bu7ckle under Cheneys relentless prssures, Bush cherry picked the so-called intellegence to make a case for invading Iraq...

You conviently forget that Tennant wasn't always the beat-down-lap-dog and forcefully and couragously told Bush "No, no, no" when Bush wanted to use the unrainium claim in his Oct 11th Cincinitti speach... Tenant also warned Bush prior to the State of the Union adress but the revisonists have no use for those particular facts, you included...

Did Bush lie??? Well, of course he did and a million revisionist Bush apologists can't and won't change that... Bush has never once said he didn't lie, has he??? Hmmmmmmm??? No, he's said that he was acting on the best intellgence (another lie, considering he had no use for discenting opionions) but he has never said that he didn't lie... One would think that with what the Repubs put Bill Clinton thru in regards to lieing that Bush most certainly have to ahev the same oversight that Slick Willie was given but...

...the politics just ain't the same and so in this post Clinton-i,pachement, post 9/11 erra, Bush has had a fre pass to purdy much screw things up without regard to the pressures that Clinton lived with and...

....guess what???

Bush has done a dandy job of scerwing up everything he has touched...Can anyone point to even one thing he's done right???

Thems is the facts... We all know it... T knows it... BB knows it... Dickey knows it but...

... in these partisan times one never admits that they were wrong and that's why no one ever pays for the screw-ups within the Bush administration...

Thems is the facts...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:31 PM

Unfortunately Bobert the problem with that contention of yours is that the folks who were GWB's trusted advisors were exactly the same folks who originally identified the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq, WMD and Terrorist Groups, and were the trusted advisors of WJC in 1998 (i.e. Bobert none of them were "appointed" by Bush).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM

No, T-bird, they weren't... You are 100% wrong on this...

The "trusted advisors" that Bush listened to were:

Paul Wolfowitz & Richard Pearle who Bill Clinton threw outta his office when they went to him with their hair-brained iraq invasion idea in 1992...

Dick Cheney

Donnie Rumsfeld

These 4 people were the ***contarct partners*** who pushed Bush into this mess...

Clinton's folks were ignored as if they had radiation... Tenant is the prime example 'cause he was beat down after a year of Dick Cheney meddlin' in the CIA... Why won't the Bush administartion release Cheney's note on how he spent his time in the mad-dash-to-Ieaq??? Well, I'll tell ya why... 'Cause Cheney was camped out at the CIA using his post 9/11 clout to bully intellegence anaylists...

Thjen there was Richard Clark who said that Bush couldn't have cared less about what the Clinton folks had done in fighting terrorism or folowin' up on assignments/porjects that were underway???

Like what was that about, T-Bird???

'Er are you gonna go off on one of yer patented "prove it" defenses where you expect me to prove beyond a shodow of a doubt the stuff that has been reported and re-reported over and over as if I'm like the "Prover-of-all-truths" while all you have to do is deny, deny, deny and accuse the messengers??? Is that where we are, T-zer???

Is that what it boils down to??? Here the US is the biggest unavoidable mess in maybe forver because there were way to many T's talkin' to Bush and not many me's... And, yeah, this is the worst mess of my lifetime... Much worse than Nam 'casue we had Nam as a model of what-not-to-do... And what makes it ven worse, if we go back to the 20's the British wnet thru the same thing so...

...Iraq is not only a failure of policy but a failure in World History 101...

But Bush never met a war not worth startin', that much is for sure and that is why the US Congress is tryin' to figure out a way to stop the guy from doin' it again in Iran...

The bou ain't learnt jack and I'm not too sure you have either...

Bpbert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:10 PM

Bobert's right.

Chalabi and his 'defectors' were discredited by the CIA and the State Dept. but supported by Pearle and Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz is now trying to loan money to Iraq via the World Bank.

Look out for that guy. He'll rob you blind. This is usary at its worst. These are the guys who advised Bush.

Bush ignored the CIA and the State Department. So what exactly was the so-called intel that Bush was using?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:08 PM

It was NOT "intel". It was just "tell"...as in "tell that Dubya boy his pecker is in my pocket and to sign the goddamned marching orders NOW!".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 02:39 AM

Bobert asks what was it all about? Unfortunately for Bobert's case the task of identifying the greatest threat to the United States of America in the immediate post-911 period was not, repeat not, given to any member of the Bush Administration. The Task was given to the Joint House Security Committee and to the combined Intelligence and Security Agencies of the United States of America.

They identified Iraq, from among a number of what the US considered to be "rogue states", as potentially posing the greatest threat. In precisely the same terms as the same men presented the same analysis to President Clinton four years previously - surprise, surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:56 AM

"Thank Christ that I am not the one that has to make the decision when all your most experienced and trusted advisors are telling you that a threat exists and it requires urgent attention"
Odd that even at before the invasion there were some some in Downing Street who were sceptical.

What is one to make of the "Downing Street Memo" of July 23 2002. It was a summary of the latest meetings in Washington between the heads of British intelligence and their American counterparts, prepared for the eyes only of Blair and a few close colleagues.
"There was a perceptible shift in attitude," the memo states baldly. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

And there was Robin Cook: "I was taken aback at how thin the dossier was. There was a striking absence of any recent and alarming firm intelligence."
Cook's diaries are illuminating on the subject: On February 20 - before the invasion - Cook was given a briefing by Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets," he wrote.

On March 5, Cook saw Blair, noting afterwards: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?'"
Blair replied, "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use."

The problem was, Blair knew that Bush had already decided to go to war and that the UN weapons inspectors were irrelevant. Cook writes: "Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion."
He goes on: "The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.
"At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose 'a real and present danger to Britain' as they were not designed for use against city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.
"I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections."
Cook sums up: "I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."

A former British Foreign Secretary - arguably better briefed than Terry, Dickey or Brucie - states his belief: "I am certain the real reason he went to war was that he found it easier to resist the public opinion of Britain than the request of the US President."

It may never be fully explained exactly why Blair pledged his support for Bush's plans to invade Iraq. However Lord Goldsmith had already told him that a war for the sake of regime change would be illegal. so the stated reason had to be that Iraq posed a "serious and current" threat to the UK. To that end, the intel was made to fit the plan on both sides of the Atlantic.
Many did see through that, but the two administrations used a supine media to ram the claims down the throats of the public at every opportunity to the point where they were largely believed by the man and woman in the street.

In his resignation speech, Cook posed a question to which I have yet to hear a convincing answer: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?"

It certainly wasn't 9/11 or Islamic terrorism that rendered military action urgent. It just might, however, have been the agenda of the pointy-heads at the PNAC.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:44 AM

To put matters into an historical perspective, there is a fascinating report here from a British MP in 1929 into falsehood and propaganda in the First World War. All the usual suspects are there, from crucified soldiers to mutilated nurses and the sinking of the Lusitania.
It just shows how little some thiings have actually changed; lies are thought up up armchair warriors and politicians, desseminated by the media and the poor bastards who have to deal with the consequences are those in uniform.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:40 AM

That some were sceptical is irrelevant - ultimately a decision has to be made. At the time Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold on Tim Sebastian's "Hard Talk" programme gave a very good summary of the make-up and working practices of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Thankfully the decision for the UK was not made by Robin Cook - a "professional" politician, whose entire "working life" and experience was gained solely within the ranks of the Labour Party.

"Cook's diaries are illuminating on the subject: On February 20 - before the invasion - Cook was given a briefing by Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets," he wrote.

On March 5, Cook saw Blair, noting afterwards: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions."

My only observation on the above would be that Mr. Cook is obviously a man of little imagination, whose grasp of the capability of the weapons he is talking about is demonstrated as being minimal if not non-existant. I am certain Captain Ginger, that both you and I, if we were to put our minds to it, could do an immense amount of damage to what Mr. Cook referred to as strategic cities with just a few of those several thousands of battlefield chemical munitions - True?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:42 AM

Indeed Tel, but that's not what was being claimed. I didn't see anything in any of the 'evidence' to suggest that Iraqi agents were planning to use ICDs (a tactic that seems only now to have been grasped by the Sunni militias with the chlorine tankers in Baghdad, but that's a digression).

Imagination can be a dangerous thing and run away with one; sometimes a little stolidity and common sense is required to counter the chicken-licken mentality which was so prevalent. I didn't see much effort being made by Number 10 to correct the egregious and infantile errors in the reporting of the dodgy dossier, for example.

And I'm afraid I don't see your point about Cook's experience. How was Blair's significantly more worldly. Both had briefings from people one would expect to be worldly. In fact one would hope that Cook was in a better position to make a judgment than either your or I. Or am I to understand that your view of events is more accurate simply because you are more imaginative?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:23 AM

Indeed as you say Carrots, if the material is suspected of being there and means to produce it, then future developement has to be taken into account when evaluating the potential threat. With the stuff we are talking about you do not, you dare not, wait until the weapon is fully developed. It must also be remembered that Saddam Hussein was unique amongst the national leaders of the world in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, 2001 - He was the only one who publicly applauded the attacks. All the dots relating to the posture and potential capability of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, developement of WMD and sponsorship of terrorist groups had been highlighted and jointed together three years before, certainly before GWB won the 2000 Presidential Election.

Imagination combined with common sense is essential in any threat evaluation process, because the element of prediction of future realistic possibilities needs to be taken into account.

Robin Cook's education was in English Literature and his working experience was that gained as a party worker. Tony Blair's on the other hand was in Law and through working as a Barrister. Those Carrots are extremely distinct and significant differences.

It would come as no surprise to you at all in that I completely disagree with you on the following point. Both of us, primarily because of our backgrounds, would have got more out of a briefing by Sir John Scarlett than either Robin Cook, or Tony Blair ever could. I am certain that we both would have asked far tougher, and far more probing questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:25 AM

October 2002 statement by one person who was not fooled:

"I know that invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East and encourage the worst rather than best impulses in the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars. "

Excerpt from an address by Barack Obama, 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:58 AM

Bush/America in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM

Excerpt from a news story on the Scooter Libby trial:

"The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested documents and interview transcripts from the Inspector General's office, while the Senate Armed Services Committee seeks further interviews with Mr. Libby and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. "The bottom line is that the intelligence relating to the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq," committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said at recent hearing.

"
(Italics mine)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:06 AM

And lets not forget the 15 years old college term paper that was not only used but altered to provide the final piece of so-called evidence that Saddam was tryin' to buy uranium... Our own XCIA anaylists said it looked so bogus that most folks with any intallegence would know it was a fake from a mile away... Not exactly their words but that's purdy much what it boiled down to...

Yet Balona Blair went right on in providing just 'nuff of the fabrications from a fabricated college kids old term paper to tell Bush is was fine to tell the "BIG LIE" in the Sate of the Union Addrss... These two guys must think that the rest of the world is made up of friggin' retards, ahhhhhh, not retards as that is no longer politically correct but intellelectually challenged people...

I mean, lets get real here... Using an altered 15 year old college kids term paper as the final piece of evidence to justify the killing of over a half million people and destabilizing an entire region is purdy danged shamefull...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:09 AM

Amos adheres to the Muslim extremist terrorist philosophy:

"It is much easier to contemplate that acts of extreme violence against persons is justified, than they might be the act of insanity made manifest."

Who did Amos vote for?

Other words of Wizdom:

"Bush invaded Iraq, Clinton did not."

Clinton used "intel" from the Chalabi crowd as a reason to punatively bomb Iraq. How many innocent people died then?

"Pathetic.

Generations of military service has brainwashed you.

Time to bring in the de-progammers."

The antiwar crowd is marshalled by Ramsey Clark and his Socialist, Marxist group A.N.S.W.E.R.. It an offshoot of the SWP, WWP and PSL who engage in brainwashing and that are the product of brainwashing.


Sidebar on Clark:

"in a BBC interview while defending Saddam, Clark claimed that some of the massacres which the former Iraqi President was accused of ordering were done out of necessity, saying: "He Saddam had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt"

Other defendants of Clark:
Karl Linnas
Jack Reimer
David Koresh
Jennifer Casolo
Charles G. Taylor
Elizaphan Ntakirutimana
PLO leaders in the Klinghoffer murder
Radovan Karadžić
Slobodan Milošević
Lori Berenson

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:15 AM

There is NO question that Hussein deserved to be dead. The MF should have been shot decades ago. However, he served a purpose for the balance of power and took the heat with Iran. Saying that Hussein was a bad guy is like a distractor in multiple choice exams. It is a correct answer, but it is not THE correct answer. The issue is not whether Hussein deserves to be dead (or deserved to be overthrown); the issue is the manipulations Bush and others used to get America's might into Iraq. Let's don't lose track of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:39 AM

Dickey:

Who I vote for is my own damned business, and your scurrilous arm-waving is the last thing that would prompt an answer to a question like that.

Looking in on the Wikipedia link you posted it is obvious that you -- in typical demagoguery style -- have conflated Ramsey Clark's outfit with Socialism as an identity, whren it fact the report states that the two organizations associate and some members of one were members of the other.

"Formed within three days of the September 11th attacks, and officially founded on September 14, 2001 by Ramsey Clark and members of the International Action Center, ANSWER was one of the first organizations formed to protest the policies of the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Its first major action was a September 29, 2001 "Anti-War, Anti-Racist" political rally and march in Washington, D.C., primarily in protest of the then-impending U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently the organization has organized rallies drawing crowds in the hundreds of thousands, including several with record-setting numbers of people. ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, Marxists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that formed in 2004."

I suppose, using your confllationary logic, that you, by definition are a pro-war capitalist who believes in racism, right?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:52 AM

Bobert,

"the killing of over a half million people"


As has been proven multiple times before, YOUR numbers are false, fraudulent and lies of the first order. PLEASE refrain fron using such obvious bogus numbers when you have a point to make- it causes many of us to suspect the rest of your comment is of the same value.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:57 AM

Amos makes derisive remarks about who people voted for but gets defensive when asked who he voted for.

Amos does not mind making connections between Bush and Enron or Exxon or PNAC etc. in order to prove his attacks but when others make those same associations to charactarize someone like Clark or ANSWER, he goes berserk.

Better re read the definition of Demagoguery Amos and apply it to yourself:

Demagoguery, from Greek demos, "people", and agogos, "leading" refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes.

The term is commonly used as a political pejorative: political opponents are described as "demagogues", while politicians approved of are "men of the people", or "statesmen".

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:02 PM

Dickey:

I'm sorry. You are being a jerk. Perhaps you have been drinking, or perhaps you are that way naturally. I am not defensive about who I voted for. I said, and will say it again, that it is none of your goddamned business. No defense involved, just a statement of simple fact.

Nor, as you put it, have I gone berserk. I do get annoyed at your covert needling, but that is a long way from berserk.

Thanks for the definition -- it matches exactly what I thought it meant, and is a primary tool of control exercised by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and their henchpersons, their talking points, and their press conferences.

And, to a lesser degree, yourself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM

Wrong again, Dickey.

I don't even know who this is:

"Ramsey Clark and his Socialist, Marxist group A.N.S.W.E.R.. It an offshoot of the SWP, WWP and PSL."

I arrive at my conclusions by listening and reading a variety of materials. I draw my own conclusions and they are not based on blind obedience.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM

>>Have you ever done it? Have you ever disobeyed, or refused to carry out, an order that you considered to be illegal? I have Captain, not the best of career moves, but right just the same.<<

Quit lying. A soldier not only does not obey an illegal order, he is REQUIRED not to. If you carry out an illegal order, THAT would not be the best of career moves because you will be charged no matter who gave the order. Nothing will happen to anyone who disobeyed an order they considered illegal as long as they can make a case for it (as opposed to trying to justify simple dereliction). But if you carry out an illegal order, you WILL be charged.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:33 PM

>>As has been proven multiple times before,<<

No, it has not. The death toll among Iraqis stands at at least 600,000 and climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM

>>My only observation on the above would be that Mr. Cook is obviously a man of little imagination<<<

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yep, imagination is what it takes to buy the Bush-Blair story because facts alone certainly can't support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM

listening to and reading what?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:38 PM

" The death toll among Iraqis stands at at least 600,000 and climbing. "


This number has been shown to be false.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:45 PM

Loath as I am to come to Teribus' defence, there are grey areas and it is wrong to accuse a man of lying until you are in possession of all the facts.
I have refused to carry out an order because the person giving it was not in a fit state to issue such an order. For a few seconds I saw my career hanging by a gossamer thread, but fortunately there were no repercussions (very fortunately, because had I carried out the order it would have terminated the career of an unfortunate subordinate). The event was glossed over and the fool who gave the order later went on to retire with the plaudits of many ringing in his ears.
The key phrase is 'believe to be illegal'. On that pin, many angels dance. I honestly do not know how I would have reacted had I still been in a position to be sent to Iraq. I did not believe in the legality of the war, but I don't know if I would have had the balls to make a stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:48 PM

By whom, por favor???

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:56 PM

"The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans' tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-24-iraqi-deaths-poll_x.htm?csp=34

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:01 PM

Amos condemns others by saying that because of their opinions they voted for so an so. Yet when the same logic is applied to him, he gets angry.

Only Amos is permitted to use political pejoratives like demagogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:38 PM

Dickey:

I don't know where, specifically.. you think I accused someone of this ordinary act of voting based on their opinions. The logic, if you really dare to call it that, is that you have now chosen, as you have done before, to pose behind ad hominem attacks because you cannot or will not look clearly at the issues.

You may use whatever perjoratives you wish. When you wave your arms and flap your tongue in large and hateful generalizations, I call it demagoguery. Do correct me if I am wrong, won't you?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:17 PM

I'm counting the seconds till he does... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:23 PM

BB:

" The death toll among Iraqis stands at at least 600,000 and climbing. "

This number has been shown to be false.


That's right! It is false. The real death toll is only 599,812.......hmmm...no, wait, I've got another report just coming in here....

Okay. Make that 599,843. There. Now we're back on track. ;-)

Oops. Sorry, apparently 3 more just got killed while I was typing that entry above.

Shit. Okay, let's make it official at 599,815 dead Iraqis as far as we know right now this minute, give or take a margin of error of a few thousand either way, because it's hard indentifying all the separate body parts that are lying around in the street right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:35 PM

>>This number has been shown to be false. <<

And apparently your evidence is that statement itself but the truth is that impartial estimates have placed the death toll at 600,000 and no credible evidence to the contrary has been produced. Like it or not, it stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM

Estimates on the death toll in any widespread regional conflict always vary wildly. You can easily detect people's political bias by which end of the scale they regard as most accurate... ;-)

In Vietnam, for instance, there were body counts of enemy dead announced in the US media after most battles. Those body counts were generally wildly exaggerated to give the impression that the Americans were doing just great at killing commies.

Now if it had been the other way around, and the USA military had wanted for some reason to give the impression that they were NOT killing large numbers of people, well, then, they would just have divided the real body count by 10 instead of multiplying it by ten. It all depends what impression you want to create in those impressionable minds back home...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:41 PM

Yeah, I have more faith in the scholars at Johns Hopkins than I do a reproter or editorialist for USA Today, whcih in MHO, is the 2nd worst newspaper in the country with the Washigton Times being the absoluite worst...

...BTW, bb, if you get real sick--you know, real sick-- call USA Today and just don't bother yerself with Johns Hopkins...

So until someone can trump the the study that Johns Hopkins did which conducted houasehold surveys in 47 areas around Iraq and interviews with doctors, examined death records, etc., I'm stickin' with their findings...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:58 PM

GUEST,282RA - regarding your post of 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM - with all due respect you ahven't got a clue about what you are talking about - stricktly a UK armed services thing that Captain Ginger and I know something about and about which you know damn all.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:10 PM

Has anyone else noticed jus' how the new & not-so-improved T-Bird ain't a very nice person since the days of the mad-dash-to-Iraq??? Lotta four letter words an' all... At least the old & unimproved T was civil but now he has to play tough guy and talk dirty...

What's that 'bout, T-zer??? You okay??? Seriously... An' the old & unimproved T-Bird never would have let a "ahven't" slide...

I'm worried...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 08:57 PM

Four letter words? And YOU BOBERT are picking me up on typos - You have got to be joking!!!!

Simple example:

"Yeah, I have more faith in the scholars at Johns Hopkins than I do a reproter or editorialist for USA Today, whcih in MHO, is the 2nd worst newspaper in the country with the Washigton Times being the absoluite worst...

...BTW, bb, if you get real sick--you know, real sick-- call USA Today and just don't bother yerself with Johns Hopkins...

So until someone can trump the the study that Johns Hopkins did which conducted houasehold surveys in 47 areas around Iraq and interviews with doctors, examined death records, etc., I'm stickin' with their findings...

Bobert

1) "reproter" - reporter
2) "whcih" - which
3) "Washigton" - Washington
4) "absoluite" - Absolute
5) "yerself" - yourself
6) "houasehold" - Household

Hey Bobert you stick to whatever you want to - But by Christ be prepared to be able to argue that cause on purely logical and reasonable grounds that are in some form of understandable english.

Oh, by the way Bobert, no-one from John Hopkins was actually in Iraq to carry out THEIR SURVEY - marvellous isn't it??? Believe what you will, fact remains that in the period of all this calamity and disaster the overall population of Iraq has grown from about 18.6 million in 1990 to about 26.7 million in 2003 - amazing isn't it Bobert, what with all this death and destruction going about!! Why that's a 43% increase in population over 13 years - Amazing really considering how bad things have been - any explanation for that Bobert? By the way Bobert what would a similar rise in population in the USA have resulted in with regard to overall population - Just to get things into perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:07 PM

Now, guys....(smile)...let's not get totally petty here.

I think Bobert's dreadful spelling is part of a sort of hillbilly style he likes adopting for amusement's sake. Or else he's dyslexic. I'm not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:16 PM

Danged testy, too, I'd have to say, T-Bird...

Hey, me an' Al Gore invented bad spellin' and badder yet typin' so don't get all huffy puffy wid me there 'bout somethin' that me an' Al do 'cause we like to do it...; You hate to do it... Back in yer old & unimproved days you wouldn't let so much a single typo go into yer danged "War n' Peace" length posts... Nor would you use four letter words...

..but, gosh, man, you've come down a few rungs on the laddwer... I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that you ain't bathin' 'er cuttin' yer danged toenails... You know, kinda like Howard Highes before he died...

Like I said: I'm worried about you...

Maybe the marriage din't pan out, I don't know but there's somethin' real outta sorts with you... Hope things turn around fir ya' though 'caue when yer on top of yer game yer somethin' else... Right now you ain't...

Sorry... Jus' observations...

Okay, now you can say that I have lost some hair since the mad-dash days an', yeah, I have... But I ain't lost my way or my sense of humor...

Sniff... I hate these things...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:31 PM

Hell Bobert, the marriage is panning out just fine, here's me at 58 with a lovely bride of 38, four wonderful children from a previous marriage (First wife died of cancer in 2001 after twenty-six years together) so don't you worry about that one jot.

And PLEASE don't for christ's sake pull me up on one typo when in the same post you make six - kinda like the pot callin' the kettle black if you know what I mean.

I have long since given up reading your posts, you are a weak, bitter, bigotted, narrow minded individual that I have no need of discourse with - On any subject - Understood.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:00 PM

>>GUEST,282RA - regarding your post of 27 Feb 07 - 12:30 PM - with all due respect you ahven't got a clue about what you are talking about - stricktly a UK armed services thing that Captain Ginger and I know something about and about which you know damn all.<<

It's not going to be any different and you know it. What you are talking about is disavowing actions of which you are, in fact, guilty. That certainly can be a career killer. And I'll grant you that you probably know a good deal more about these matters than Captain Ginger.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:00 PM

"Why that's a 43% increase in population over 13 years"

Wow, seems like we've only been occupying for four years. My how time flies.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:02 PM

Oops. Hit send before I had a chance to chuckle about how Teribus has "long since given up reading" Bobert's posts....but can certainly comb through them for typos (without reading them I presume).