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

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:13 PM

Talk to one of these instead. It will be just as useful.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:13 PM

Above post for CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:16 PM

In three months the assholes in Washington will be telling us we harboured a potential terrorist threat.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: kendall
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:20 PM

What should we do if North Korea pulls a pre emptive strike against South Korea, or any other country? We did it, the Japanes did it in 1941, why shouldn't some other country do it?

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them. However, when we invaded Iraq he no longer had them, and I believe Bush knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:36 PM

Susu's hubby:

Typical ignorant post from a die hard republican. Please notice that none of those ypu quote caused the death of anyone. Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands so he and his gang can get rich.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:38 PM

brucie,

As usual, you insist on making ad hominim attacks. Perhaps you would care to tell me why, if you do not read my comments, you feel capable of passing judgement on them? Did you just climb off the cross?

If you don't want to know my views, that is fine- but I have as much right as you do to comment here. If you want to comment on MY statements, that is fine- but try at least reading what I say before making declarations about them.

Or are you one of Bobert's ubermench that need not find out other's views to pass judgement upon them?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 09:57 PM

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: brucie - PM
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 05:48 PM

"Incidentally, I didn't say that Bush lied. He is a liar over many issues--no doubt due to fabricated or poorly interpreted information he receives from other liars--but I don't think of him as a liar."

So....he is a liar....but I don't think of him as a liar.


Huh???

I guess this is brucie trying, like Amos, to talk out of both sides of his mouth.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:04 PM

bb, I got the idea that brucie kind of gave up on you when it became evident you were not reading his links. I don't see how you expect to make points when you don't answer his.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:16 PM

Oh here we go again, bb... You wanta go another round, Big Guy?

Well, first of all, I would just like to reiterate what Ebbie said. I find it real intersting that now that Iraq is going very poorly for Bush that folks wanta blame Clinton and blame_________ and blame__________, when we all watched as THIS ADMINSRATION, not Bill Clinton's decided to invade Iraq... And on bogus charges... I don't think there is any disputin' these facts....

Now, one one hand they wanta have folks believe that if was okay to attack Iraq because Clinton said it was but on the other hand when Clinton warned them of the dangers of Al Quida, they turned a deft ear on him...

This is typical of the Bush administartion. Scrw up and blame others. Promote the screw-ups to higher positions... Man if I had run my business like that I never would have gotten to where I am today... But Bush has a history of screwing up businesses.... Might of fact, one would be hard pressed to find anything the guy has *Attempted* to do where he was successful. Baseball, oil, Air National Guard... You pick it and he had been a failure... But he's allways had folks to clean up after him or buy or scare off the folks who might land a solid punch on him...

Well, the troubvle with history is that it usually gets sorted out and that's why I am so glad that so many of the Bushites here in Mydville have the 10 or 20 years left on the planet for Bush to get what he deserves which is to been seen as the incompitent, arrogant loser that a lot of us here already clearly see...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:39 PM

Bush lied because he is the one who decided to invade Iraq almost a year before 911. He used the combination of WMD's and terrorism to justify his aggression. He has tried many excuses, including the 'Oil for Food' scandal which was sanctioned by the U.S. He has lied and distorted the truth for the sake of money and power. Now he is as bad as Saddam and has dragged other nations into the turmoil he has created.

Bush wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass.

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat but it was the Republicans who actually invaded unilaterally, not the Democrats. Its the Republicans who continue to erode American democracy, not Democrats. Its the Republicans who endorse the liar named George Bush, not the Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:41 PM

Every statement SH quoted was made within the context of a larger policy statement of some sort. Any one of them may have been made as an argument for more U.N. inspections, more funding for flyovers in what was called the "no-fly zone", or more iraq-specific intelligence funding, just to name a few. None of them were made with the aim of justifying launching an invasion of another country without the backing of the larger world community. Period.

Anyone can pull statements out of context and make it appear that two speakers with opposing viewpoints were in full agreement on any issue. It's a cheap trick. If I felt the inclination, I could go through George W. Bush's public statements and pull out enough instances where he's expressed regrets about the casualties of the war he started to make him sound like a total pacifist. I repeat, it's a cheap trick.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Once Famous
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:48 PM

Great post, Hubby. You've got most of them howling and throwing everything you can.

I'm sure glad that Bush treats the enemy as the enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:51 PM

You're over your head, Marvin. Take your meds.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 10:55 PM

Ebbie,

I do look at his posts- and answer them. But where are HIS answers to my 03 Jun 05 - 08:27 PM? Or will you just look at me, and ignore brucie's lack of response?

Bobert,

By YOUR definition, I am no more a bushite than you are a democrap. Try looking at what I post instead of what you would like to think I have posted.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 11:17 PM

bb, I do not answer you. You are fulla shit. Hell, I seldom read your posts. If I want Neocon crap, I won't turn to you for their official policy. Wrong end of the horse. One time I did answer you--after reading your posts, because one time you were actually not so wrapped up in the Bush doctrine. Now, who knows. I don't, and I don't care anymore. That's why I simply say eff off. You and Susu's other half--not the smart half obviously--have your friggin' heads so bent outta shape over justifying the invasion of Iraq that you've forgot you are human and he's forgot he's supposed to be a Christian. Hence the fuck off--to both of you.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 11:45 PM

bb, I reread it and still don't have a clue what you are trying to say but if I had to guess it's like yer accusin' me of not reading yer posts???? 'Er somethin like that??? Well, like brucie, sometimes I don't have to get to far into them to arrive at Brucie's conclusion... I'm not sure if you were around here during the Teribus days but Teribus could write reems and reems of pro-Bush stuff and say absolutely nuthin'... Some of yer posts seem to be thick in jargon and thin in ideas... Hey, I mean no offense seein' as we' ain't been locked into no head-butt thing fir quite awile but when I ain't even popsted to a thread and see where you using' my name to argue some point, hey, gets my attention...

No if you want continue the truce, fine, but like, ahhhhhhh, using me in one of yer posts when yer arguing with other folks, sho nuff ain't gonna help much...

And, fir the record, Bush did and continues to lie about just anything one can think of...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,From Tom Paxtons Pen
Date: 03 Jun 05 - 11:52 PM

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine

I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die   
I learned that everybody's free   
That's what the teacher said to me
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine

I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine

I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine

I learned that our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
So we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 12:01 AM

Well, looks like another one got "left behind"....

No Child Left Unrecruited....

And the beat goes on....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 12:24 AM

Gee, wonder what THIS is? No liars here!

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 01:32 AM

brucie: I have read your multiple posts stating your position that the coalition forces should withdraw from Iraq immediately.

Do you REALLY believe that? And you, who is so adamant about saving, not destroying human life? What do you think would be the result if your wish were to come true? Do you think the Iraqi people would be better off? Do you give a crap?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: heric
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 02:18 AM

Susu's Hubby: Would you kindly review and comment upon this article from the International Herald Tribune , perhaps stating whether it does or does not affect any of the opinions you have expressed to date on U.S. conduct in Afghanistan or Iraq, or on the continued isolation of Guantanamo Bay from international inspectors? Whatever you'd like. Of course I will not view anything you say as an indication that you may have "Liberal" tendencies, so speak freely. I will only be thinking of your response as one from a Southern Protestant churchgoer. Please feel free to make snide evasive insults or jokes if that is your preference.

Thanks,

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Boab
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 03:10 AM

Who ever said that Bush is the only liar in America? A charitable thought---some of the quotes are from those who were a) Liars, pure and simple and b) plain gullible or stupid. Bush comes across as a bit of both. I find it quite incredible that there are those---and not only on humble mudcat---who still pretend to find justification for the instigation of the slaughter in Iraq. I find it sickening--as many another does, I'll bet---that any death or injury to a child due to the actions of Iraqi resistance or internecine strife is siezed upon as a kind of propaganda-op by the Bush-support media. How many kids' deaths and mutilations did they sieze upon during the blind slaughter in Fallujah? A friend in the States has just sent me a car sticker [ not inclined to flaunt these, no matter how pertinent]which is "in your face, Mr Bush"; it reads "How Many kids would Jesus have bombed today"?
   Saddam was a bad Bastard. That was NOT the reason for the attack on Iraq. Some always knew that. Some 'my-country-right-or wrong"types
knew, but didn't care. Some now want to believe it, in order to salve a pricking conscience. There is proof, every day, that the whole mess is the result of greed and a ghastly misjudgement of the reaction of a people to being attacked by materially superior forces. Only a realisation by the American people about how badly they are being led will prevent similar tragedy from occurring again and again, and avoid an almost inevitable confrontation involving Russia, China and consequently most of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 03:22 AM

CarolC,

As before, I have stated that the failure of Saddam to comply with the cease-fire conditions is sufficient to allow the use of force.

"The UN again authorized a peace enforcement mission in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After Iraq refused to comply with UN demands to withdraw, the UN launched a military operation to expel Iraq from Kuwait. This operation was again led by the United States, and it included a vast coalition of forces from many UN member countries (see Persian Gulf War). UN-sponsored peace enforcement operations remain rare, however, because of the difficulty of getting all five of the veto-wielding great powers to agree to military action."

His non-compliance requires the original UN resolution authorizing force to be in effect. EVERY time he fired on US planes in the no-fly zone, he was committing an act of war against the UN/US forces.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 06:01 AM

Yes Carol, and if they'd finished the job in 1990, two things would have happened.

1. Saddam would have been removed, and his removal would have been clearly, and unequivocally justified. The whole world would have backed THAT.

2. The thousands of Iraqi citizens, who were primed to rise up in support of the Coalition, would have formed a cadre of western support, and the foundation of a democratic Iraqi government.

In other words JOB DONE to the satisfaction of all concerned except Saddam and his cronies.

What actually happened? They wimped out, hung the Iraqi resistance out to dry, and went home!

Then they went back, on the flimsiest of trumped up excuses, and were SURPRISED that the Iraqis didn't want them there. The few of the resistance fortunate enough not to have been murdered by Saddam after 1990 don't have any faith in the Coalition. Small wonder!

When it comes to winning hearts and minds, Bush and Blair make Attila the Hun look like a philanthropist.

BTW, I have to add that our Mr. B. is a worse liar than yours, having seen a memo that showed that, as early as 2002, he knew Bush planned war, and was fixing the facts about WMDs to justify it. So there's no way our lying b*****d can claim to have been misled by faulty intelligence. Thinking about it, neither can yours claim to have based his final decision on intelligence at all.

We let them have these powers, either by choice or inaction, so I guess we carry the shame also.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 08:50 AM

Yup, that was the OTHER George Bush. It's a congenital defect.....

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 10:59 AM

From the Tribune article linked upthread:

"...Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers repeatedly abusing prisoners. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.

In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.

In sworn statements to army investigators, soldiers describe one female interrogator with a taste for humiliation stepping on the neck of one prostrate detainee and kicking another in the genitals. They tell of a shackled prisoner being forced to roll back and forth on the floor of a cell, kissing the boots of his two interrogators as he went. Yet another prisoner was made to pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning.

The Times obtained a copy of the file from a person involved in the investigation who was critical of both the methods used at Bagram and the military's response to the deaths.
Although incidents of prisoner abuse at Bagram in 2002, including some details of the two men's deaths, have been previously reported, American officials have characterized them as isolated problems that were thoroughly investigated.

And many of the officers and soldiers interviewed in the Dilawar investigation said the large majority of detainees at Bagram were compliant and reasonably well treated.
Yet the Bagram file includes ample testimony that harsh treatment by some interrogators was routine and that guards could strike shackled detainees with virtual impunity.
Even though military investigators learned soon after Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by Captain Carolyn Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to a high-level army inquiry last year, Wood instituted harsh techniques there, including stripping prisoners, depriving them of sleep and using dogs to frighten them, that were "remarkably similar" to those used at Bagram.

Last October, the army's Criminal Investigation Command concluded that there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses in the Dilawar case, ranging from dereliction of duty to maiming and involuntary manslaughter. Fifteen of the same soldiers were also cited for probable criminal responsibility in the Habibullah case.

So far, only seven soldiers have been charged, including four last week. No one has been convicted in either death. Two army interrogators were also reprimanded, a military spokesman said. Most of those who could still face legal action have denied wrongdoing, either in statements to investigators or in comments to a reporter.

With most of the legal action pending, the story of abuses at Bagram remains incomplete. But documents and interviews reveal a striking disparity between the findings of army investigators and what senior military officials said after the deaths.

Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides.

The Bagram Collection Point was a clearinghouse for prisoners captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. It typically held between 40 and 80 detainees while they were interrogated and screened for possible shipment to the Pentagon's longer-term detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

A new interrogation unit arrived in July 2002. Only two of its members had ever questioned prisoners.

"There was nothing that prepared us for running an interrogation operation" like the one at Bagram, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the interrogators, Staff Sergeant Steven Loring, later told investigators.

The detainee known as Person Under Control No. 412 was a portly, well-groomed Afghan named Habibullah.

He was identified at Bagram as an important prisoner and an unusually sharp-tongued and insubordinate one. One of the guards, Sergeant Alan Driver Jr., told investigators that Habibullah had risen after a rectal examination and kneed him in the groin.
On his second day, Dec. 1, the prisoner was "uncooperative" again, this time with Specialist Willie Brand. The guard, who has since been charged with assault and other crimes, told investigators he had delivered three peroneal strikes, potentially disabling blows to the side of the leg, just above the knee, in response.

By Dec. 3, Habibullah's reputation for defiance seemed to make him an open target. One guard said he had given him five peroneal strikes for being "noncompliant and combative." Another gave him three or four more for being "combative and noncompliant." Some guards later asserted that he had been hurt trying to escape.

When Sergeant James Boland saw Habibullah on Dec. 3, the prisoner was in one of the isolation cells, tethered to the ceiling by two sets of handcuffs and a chain around his waist. His body was slumped forward, held up by the chains.

When Boland returned to the cell about 20 minutes later, he said, Habibullah was not moving and had no pulse.

Finally, the prisoner was unchained and laid out on the floor of his cell.
Habibullah died on Dec. 3. His autopsy showed bruises or scrapes on his chest, arms, head and neck. There were deep bruises on his calves, knees and thighs. His left calf had been marked by what appeared to have been the sole of a boot.

His death was attributed to a blood clot, probably caused by the severe injuries to his legs, which traveled to his heart and blocked the blood flow to his lungs.

On Dec. 5, Dilawar arrived at Bagram.
Four days before, on the eve of the Muslim holiday of Id al-Fitr, Dilawar set out from his tiny village of Yakubi in a prized new possession, a used Toyota sedan that his family bought for him a few weeks earlier to drive as a taxi.

After picking up three passengers, he passed a base used by American troops, Camp Salerno, which had been the target of a rocket attack that morning.
Militiamen loyal to the guerrilla commander guarding the base, Jan Baz Khan, stopped the Toyota at a checkpoint.

Dilawar and his passengers were detained and turned over to American soldiers at the base as suspects in the attack. The three passengers were eventually flown to Guantánamo and held for more than a year before being sent home without charge.
At Bagram, Dilawar was quickly labeled "noncompliant."

One of the guards, Specialist Corey Jones, said the prisoner spat in his face and started kicking him. Jones responded, he said, with a couple of knee strikes to the leg of the shackled man.

"He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god," Jones said to investigators. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny."

"It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,"' he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."

On Dec. 8, Dilawar was taken for his fourth interrogation. It quickly turned hostile.
The interpreter who was present, Ahmad Ahmadzai, recalled the encounter. "About the first 10 minutes, I think, they were actually questioning him; after that it was pushing, shoving, kicking and shouting at him," Ahmadzai said. "There was no interrogation going on."

The military policemen were instructed to keep Dilawar chained to the ceiling until the next shift came on.

By the time Dilawar was brought in for his final interrogation in the first hours of Dec. 10, he appeared exhausted and was babbling that his wife had died. He also told the interrogators that he had been beaten by the guards.

When Dilawar was unable to kneel, said the interpreter, Ali Baryalai, the interrogators pulled him to his feet and pushed him against the wall.

"It looked to me like Dilawar was trying to cooperate, but he couldn't physically perform the tasks," Baryalai said.

Soon afterward he was dead.

The findings of Dilawar's autopsy were succinct. He had had some coronary artery disease, the medical examiner reported, but what killed him was the same sort of "blunt force trauma to the lower extremities" that had led to Habibullah's death.
One of the coroners later translated the assessment at a pretrial hearing for Brand, saying the tissue in the young man's legs "had basically been pulpified."

"I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus," the coroner, Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, added.

After the second death, several of the army interrogators were temporarily removed from their posts. On orders from the Bagram intelligence chief, interrogators were prohibited from any physical contact with the detainees. Chaining prisoners to any fixed object was also banned, and the use of stress positions was curtailed.

In February, a U.S. military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Dilawar and his passengers had been detained. The commander was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said.

The three passengers in Dilawar's taxi were sent home from Guantánamo in March 2004, 15 months after their capture, with letters saying they posed "no threat" to American forces.."...

If that ain't disassembling, man, I just dunno.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 11:16 AM

heric,

I read your linked story and it hurts my heart to think that those possibly innocent people died in a manner so horrible. But from what I read in the story, those responsible were arrested and are being tried. That's the way it should be and the way it is being done.

But the point that I'm making in this thread is that some of us have remained constant and consistent in the task at hand. We have supported the gov't in the big picture. As in every war, you're going to have the exceptions that will be trumped up in some publications and put off as possibly being the norm instead of the exception.

So, let me ask you this. Do you believe the article in that the abuses that took place were correct but discount what the article says about the ones that are being held accountable for those same abuses?

If that's the case and you refuse to acknowledge part of the article if it doesn't support your cause then you, my friend, are seriously undermining your own ability to put forth an effective argument.

   I just ask for consistency. That's it. Why do you refuse to show any in your unsuccessful quest in trying to discredit the current administration?


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: heric
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 11:53 AM

Thanks SH! I agree that the documentation and accountability is a wonderful thing. It warms my heart that you actually care. I had actually expected to be called a liberal expletive, so that the actual merits and SERIOUS issues would be drowned out, as usually happens around here.

However, I wish the accountability was taken more seriously, and it can be. Foot dragging and attempts at cover ups have occurred (and have been documented), while one of the worst types of crimes on Earth was allowed to persist. If all of this was predictable, then so is the plain fact that more accountability and independent review will lessen these crimes.

I've been called a Bushite around here several times, btw.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 11:56 AM

As before, I have stated that the failure of Saddam to comply with the cease-fire conditions is sufficient to allow the use of force.

Yes, in other words, there is no specific language that authorizes the US or any body other than the UN to instigate force or to take any action other than providing full support to the inspectors who were doing the job that the UN gave them to do. And furthermore, the most recent evaluations by Hans Blix show that Saddam was complying with the cease-fire conditions.

Only in your mind does what you consider to be a failure on the part of Saddam to comply, justify the US/Britain led invasion. But your fantasies about international laws and treaties, and the actual laws and treaties themselves are two entirely different things. According to international law and the treaties signed by the US, the US is in violation of the UN resolutions that prohibit any country from invading Iraq while the UN inspections process was still underway, as stated in the resolution that you, yourself, provided a link to in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: heric
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 11:59 AM

(And I think the INDEPENEDENT review is mandatory. I don't think there is any way that these are isolated to a few rogue sadists. Many of these sick people were sent from Afghanistan to Guantanamo at Rumsfeld's specific directive precisely because he felt they got better results. I do not want this to be the American way.)

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 12:25 PM

The current administration discredits itself repeatedly by being exposed in lies.

Consistency? Let's see -- "We should invade Iraq because they are threatening us with WMD....buying uranium in Africa...building long-range missiles....whoops...no, I meant because they were rude about ignoring the UN...no, wait...we should invade them because they are cruel dictators who abuse people in prisons... no...wait.... regime change, maybe....no....freedom, that's it. We will invade a foreign nation to bring them freedom!! There ya go. Spin it, George. You da MAN!"

The current administration has only the vaguest idea what their task IS, pal -- they didn't plan for it, they were totally off the wall in their estimations of the consequences of their actions, and in consequence they have dragged us into a colonial exercise of a kind not seen since the days of EM-pahr.

You who insist this sandbox was inevitable and necessary in the war against terrorism are just buffooning around. The number of civilians killed in Iraq has risen from around 25 a month to 600; the number of foreigners in the ranks of insurgents in-country has risen from 100 in May 03 to over a thousand today, estimated. In the same time frame the number of Iraqi insurgents has risen from 3,000 to 16,000 estimated, while the attacks against US forces has risen from 10 to 70 daily.

All of this is adding up to a really ugly piece of work to complete the task at hand. IF we can figger out what the hell that is.

I happen to agree with you that we do have to finish it, but I doubt your fur-topped leader could tell you what the completion of it would look like.

At a guess I would say what he'd LIKE to do is clean out the furriners from the ranks of the insurgents, suppress the insurgent operations by stompin' them out like so many roach hotels, and then man up civilian security forces in order to give the gummint some muscle, and leave them tot heir own devices with a notional government and some notional power to implement it with.

Given that we have created an ungodly dog's breakfast of this nation in the first place, yeah, we have to clean it up, and perhaps in the final analysis after the dead are all buried and the widows have run out of tears and the orphans -- still too young to buy their own Kalashnikovs just yet, but keep your eyes open....have been sent to bed...maybe in some important respects the place will be better than it was before we began, if a little shorter on personnel.   . But this operation has been one of the thick-head foot-in-mouth assholeries of all time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,Since you asked
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 12:28 PM

Of course he lied. Read the links posted HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 03:47 PM

"Since you ask", Thank you for bringing this thread back to the original point.

YES, HE LIED.........HE IS STILL LYING..........HE WILL CONTINUE TO LIE!

As long as the truth does not serve his purpose he will disregard, ignore, and spin it to what he needs it to be.

This is the truth about the man you have re-elected to continue to head the world's (former) leading democracy. And we in the UK have done the same for his partner in untruth.

As Del boy would say "What a bunch of plonkers we really are".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 06:39 PM

"Do you REALLY believe that? And you, who is so adamant about saving, not destroying human life?"

Doug, let's you and I cut the shit.

I have asked when your force of invasion--which has become a force of occupation--will be leaving Iraq. All I have heard from the 'element of the right' is that you won't leave until--WHEN?

Define what you mean by a functioning government in Iraq. Do you mean a government with which the people of Iraq are happy or a government with which the American government is happy?

And until you answer that for me, Doug, stop already with the bullshit about what an uncaring individual I am. I have told you before--and I will again in case you forgot--I think Hussein should have been disposed of decades ago. He wasn't because he served the geopolitical purposes of various American administrations, and you know that to be true.

George Bush has continued a policy of disrupting governments that do not serve its purpose. In this case, I think two agendas are at work.

1) The serious intent to 'stabilize' the Middle East

2) The serious intent to secure vast supplies of oil.

As to my feelings for the people getting killed in Iraq: I ain't there pulling triggers or dropping bombs. Soldiers of YOUR country are, WITHOUT UN sanction. Get that straight. And get straight also that MY country refused to participate this time 'round because the UN did NOT sanction what has be a few years of warfare. I suppose you are proud. Frankly, I am more proud of Canada's decision, despite the fact I thought we were wrong initially. So if all you have is shit to throw at me personally, say so. Otherwise, KMA.

Bruce Murdoch

PS I missed you on the BNP threads. But then I don't suppose your support of democratic principles extends to being anti-Nazi. Just pro-USA, right?

BM

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 08:39 PM

He posted to it, brucie. Unless someone else was pretending to be him. It was posted with an anonymous guest heading, but he signed his name to the bottom of it. Do a "control f" search on DougR and you'll find it.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 12:14 AM

My apologies for that then, Doug. Thank you CarolC. You say it's there then it's there. Sorry again, Doug.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 02:38 PM

On second thought, Doug, maybe hold that apology up for a bit.

"Subject: RE: BS: British Nazi Party ((BNP))
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 05 - 12:47 AM

Am I correct that those who refer to the British Nationalist Party as the British Nazi Party in Great Britian reflect the same attitude as those in the U. S. who who refer to Conservatives as Neo-Cons?

DougR"

Tell me, Doug, are you afraid to step on their toes? (I won't say anymore about it if you are--probably wise. However, you seem to be lots less than clear as to where you stand and exactly what you will tolerate from gorups AS LONG AS THEY ARE RIGHT WING.)

Clarify this for me if you will.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 02:44 PM

It's immaterial whether he lied or not. What did he was decide in advance what he wanted to do in Iraq, rejected any fact that contradicted his decision, grasped desperately at any rumor that supported his decision, and, in the grand tradition of other demogogues, tried to stoke hate and fear in the US public as much as he could--with marvelous success.

Even anybody who read the Wall St. Journal would have known that the ties between Al Queda and Saddam were tenuous at best.

It is also obvious to all thinking individuals (which seems to exclude a few on this thread) that the UN never authorized the invasion of Iraq. So it would be appreciated if the towering intellects who still want to employ that argument would go bark up another tree.

Very few people here deny that in 2002 and early 2003 there was a widespread conviction, including most politicians and a good portion of the US public, that Saddam had WMD's. The main question was how to deal with it. Invasion of Iraq was not the preferred solution for most of the US public--until Bush's propaganda campaign.

OK--so you say that many presidents have made the facts fit their theory. Fine--but I'd prefer somebody who wants to starts a war to have a modicum of intellectual honesty, (admittedly intellect at all is perhaps not a reasonable request for our current "leader".)
Don't bother to cite FDR--the Japanese played right into his hands by giving him the justification he needed. And Hitler obligingly declared war on the US, as he had agreed with the Japanese he would do.

Saddam never gave Bush the excuse he needed, so he fabricated one.

Therefore every death direct or indirect, caused by the war, can be laid at Bush's door.

That's not the kind of leadership a person with any sense of morality would want.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 02:48 PM

dougR - Thats the problem. The U.S. will now have to maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely. Nobody thinks Saddam was a good man but by going into Iraq based on lies and by "going it alone", the U.S. has dug their own economic grave. Not only that, they have destroyed so much of Iraq and its infrastructure, the people of Iraq are worse off than before the invasion. The rate of starvation has actually increased. It also appears that the U.S. has had to resort to the same type of torture that Saddam used to maintain power. Whats the difference between George and Saddam? If you ask me, the only difference is that George calls himself a Christian.

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

Also, anybody who wants to cite the torture of Iraqis and death of Kurds as justification for the Iraq invasion is invited to tell us just how many of the dead killed by Saddam have been brought back to life by the Iraq invasion--and perhaps to compare the numbers of dead killed by Saddam in Iraq with the numbers killed since the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 03:10 PM

Obviously, the numbers to be compared are the numbers killed by Saddam in Iraq versus the number killed by either the "Coalitiion" or any other group in Iraq since the start of the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 03:59 PM

cool down, brucie, I lost my cookie when I posted the message about the "British Nazi Party" and did not realize it at the time. That's why it was posted as a Guest I suppose. As to the statement, I think it is a fair question. What's wrong with it?

On when will U. S. (and other coalition troops)leave Iraq I thought I had made that quite clear. They will leave when the Iraqis can defend themselves. Were they to leave now, as you seem to favor, Bush would be leaving the Iraqi people to the mercy of the Terorists. It would be ridiculous to say the Terrorists are only intent on killing the "infidels" occupying Iraq at the present time don't you agree? What then would explain their attacks on the Iraqi civilian population? Even many of the most liberal politicians in the U. S. believe that withdrawal of the troops now would be a disaster. Of course if Bush did withdraw them, and there were mass killings of the population after the troops are gone, folks could say Bush is responsible for it because he withdrew the troops and abandonded the Iraqi people. Right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 06:56 PM

Thats the problem. Doug. He shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. Then he wouldn't be in this mess. He lied to justify the invasion and then went in unilaterally without a plan. If any other country did that we would call it unjustified aggression against another nation. We would also call it stupid. He is responsible for the mess he created and that includes restoration of the infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:23 PM

Of course Zarqawi is answereing to Osama bin Laden and it looks more and more we are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq now.

Ron Davies and a few others here seem seem oblivious to that.

Remember Al Qaida Ron and dianavan?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:43 PM

For time 97 or something like that: What is America's plan for Iraq? Does it have anything as inconvenient as a timeline? A departure date? Are y'all gonna stay there for a few more years? Cut the crap, Doug, and give us an answer, will ya?

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 01:00 AM

"(In my opinion, as long as the terror attacks keep happening, then we must be doing something right to keep them exposing themselves.)"
- 03 Jun 05 - 06:07 PM

Wow, what spin. I'm so dizzy now.

So...we're winning the War on Terrorism because the terrorist attacks continue to occur?

I don't think even Bush has thought of that one. You'd better fire that one off to him straightaway. He'd much appreciate it.

...As to your initial post: all that proves is Democrats like abundant - for now - supplies of cheap oil for their SUVs too.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 07:56 AM

Oh yes he did guest,

Quote:- "We are defeating the insurgents. That's why they keep on fighting".

In response to a journalist asking if he thought the insurgents could really be defeated.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 08:04 AM

Amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 09:00 AM

Let's just sum this thread up.


Did Bush lie?

No, I don't think so. After years and years of listening to people on both sides of the aisle talk and fret about the WMD threat, Bush is the one who decided to do something about it. At the same time, a brutal dictator was forced out of power and the documented rape and torture rooms were closed down. 25 million Iraqi's lives were returned to them to live as free citizens so that they could start to make their own decisions and live their lives as they see fit. Sounds like a good start to me.
In the meantime, al qaeda, in the effort to fight American troops, have descended upon Iraq. This was possibly the worst decision that they could have made. Why in the world would you focus all of your resources against the world's strongest military in a place where the men and equipment are dug in? Doesn't sound too smart to me. But if that is where they want to have the party then let them all come to Iraq. Brucie, you keep asking when are we leaving. The answer that I know you're looking for is (and I'll say it) "I don't know." But we have maintained a presence in Japan after WW II. We have maintained a presence in Europe after WW II. We have maintained a presence in South Korea after the Korean war. Why would we NOT maintain a presence in Iraq after the current conflict there? The only place where we haven't maintained a military presence after a conflict is in Vietnam and the last time I checked, their government was communist. Coincedence, I think not.
Brucie, pull your head out of the clouds and put your self-righteousness to rest and stop being so apologetic for the shortcomings of the UN. It impresses nobody here (except for maybe the few wacko's that have continuosly have made their point known that they do not want what's best for America).
So now that we have determined that Bush did not "lie" about the reasons for going to war (and if you continue to argue that he did, it just shows your ignorance and exposes your hateful attitude toward what's right and decent) let's go on to the next subject. Like I've told you before, you better back up your positions with hard proof if you want to convince me otherwise.

I hope everybody has a good week and may God continue to bless America.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: So.....you say Bush lied?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 09:02 AM

and by the way................100.