BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:07 PM

"...cloud of misdirection..."

Sounds an awful lot like a propaganda campaign dunninit?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:24 PM

No, the misdirection did NOT come only from UNSCOM, by any means. It came from Bush. It came from Rice and her "mushroom cloud" scare-tactics. It came from Rumsfeld and his bullshit about "north, south, east, and west". Your effort to re-paint the past in rosy hues for the klutzy shmuck called Bush is just misguided claptrap, in my humble opinion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 06:29 PM

Well, least we forget in this gleefull attempt by the Bush apologists to blame Bush's failures on Clinton that Wolfowitz and Pearle presented the same hair-brained scheme to Clinton and Clinton threw them outta of his office...

'Er Treasury Secretary O'Niel statin' that Bush was hell-bent on attacking Iraq from Day 1...

'Er Richard Clark's testimony before the 9/11 Commission that the Bush folks didn't seem to take Al Qeada too serious...

I mean, let's get real here, folks...Tryin' to pin the mess on Iraq on Clinton is about as illogical as blamin' cancer on Clinton... 'Er lunar eclipses...

Why is it that you Bushites will not accept responsibility fir yer own screw-ups??? I thought you all were into that "personal responsibility" stuff??? Guess not...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 11:03 PM

Teribus--


Interesting. We have provided many quotes by Bush admininistration figures--and Mr. Blair-- linking Saddam and 9-11. Particularly predicting that the next 9-11 style attack would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's.

The vast majority of sentient beings who understand English recognize the propaganda campaign.

You don't. Being a charitable soul, I wouldn't suggest that you are stupid. The only other explanation is your tender ego. It must be just agony to have an ego as fragile as yours.

It also remains noteworthy that, after more than a year, you have not come up with even one quote by a Bush regime spokesman refuting the idea of a connection between Saddam and 9-11--during the period of the propaganda campaign, which again was--all together now--between summer 2002 and March 2003.

Your pride and joy--the Cheney 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press quote--blows up in your face in the very next paragraph. Too bad.

You need not "prove the absence" of such a propaganda campaign. But surely you can come up with just one quote to start to refute it. Unless of course such quotes do not exist--for the rather good reason that the propaganda campaign is a fact.

Just one quote?   It's not asking much.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:42 AM

When did Clinton take responsibility for his screw ups?

The Washington Post Jan. 29, 2001:

"of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.""

Those assertions about Perle and Wolfie are from the people who claim that 9/11 was done by the US in order to spark a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:36 AM

Ron--


Interesting. We have, as a matter of record, clearly provided evidence that "the next spectacular terrorist style attack would be supplied by Saddam--with his WMD's". Here I am referring to Bill Clinton's speech of 17th February, 1998

According to you, "As the vast majority of sentient beings who understand English recognize the propaganda campaign" - was this the start of the propaganda campaign you are so keen on Ron? If so then say so, but one thing Ron, GWB and his administration were not the first ones to identified Saddam and Iraq as a potential threat via a linkage of WMD and international terrorists - True?

It also remains noteworthy that, after more than a year, and having come up with two clear examples of quotes by a Bush regime spokesman refuting the idea of a connection between Saddam and 9-11, broadcast on MSM in the USA in September 2002. You have not come up with even one quote by a Bush regime spokesman stating that there was any connection between Saddam and 9-11 period.

Your contention regarding the Cheney 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press interview provides both quotes:

"From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:
Russert:
"One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"

Russert (On the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press):
"Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"
   
Cheney:
"No."
   
Russert (Asked on the 2002 show):
"Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney:
"Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that.


Blow up Ron? Hardly it only demonstrates your lack of comprehension in the english language. You also have to rely on taking pieces of the interview out of context to support your baseless contention. You see what Ron fails to mention is that Cheney is on the programme to discuss the significance and import of reported and alleged meetings between Atta and an Iraqi Intelligence Officer in Prague. Matters that at the time of this interview were under investigation.

I asked you before Ron what part of "No" do you not understand. That was Cheney's answer to the question posed in 2001, he then states that his opinion has not changed in 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:06 AM

Bobert,

You state:

"Why is it that you Bushites will not accept responsibility fir yer own screw-ups??? I thought you all were into that "personal responsibility" stuff??? "

You have also stated that the figures YOU keep throwing out about 600,000 dead civilians are correct, since there "has never been any " criticism og the report you refer to.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece

So, 'fess up now. YOU lied to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:15 AM

No, bb...

I have given you opportunities to offer up ***proff*** that the Johns Hopkins findings were flawed but you have offered up the ***opinions*** of others who were ***not*** even part of the study...

When you have ***proff***, get back to us... Yer little article would not hold up in an academic environment as *** proff*** seeing that its authors weren't involved but rather second guessers...

As for you bad habit of calling people "liars" you need to quit this very bad habit... It makes you sound like an assh*le and doesn't make anyone, but quite the contarty, accept anything you say as having any validity... Especially whyen not only fo you do it but you do it with CAPS which, in case it hasn't made it into yer thinerator, is RUDE INTERNET BEHAVIOR... Get some counseling...

No, Dicky,

What you think are boobie-traps are quite the opposite... The first thing that Bush did when he came into office was do a 180 on all of Clinton policies... Yeah, if Clinton said to keep engaged on the Isreali/Palestian situation then Bush said "screw 'um"... If Clinton said to Bush to keep an eye on bin Laden Bush said "screw 'um"... If Clinton ssid to Bush that tax cuts for the wealthy would bring about deficits then Bush said "all speed ahead for tax cuts for the rich", etc, etc...

Yeah, you still seem to be in some world that doesn't exist where everything that is good and beautiful is the reuslt of Besh and everything ugly is Clinton's fault...

You, and yer buddy bb, are so partisan that from just about any non-true belivers perspective would be laughable if it wasn't so sad...

But, both of you have nice days, ya' hear...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:17 AM

Bobert,

You, and yer buddy Amos, are so partisan that from just about any non-true belivers perspective would be laughable if it wasn't so sad...

But, both of you have nice days, ya' hear...

beardedbruce

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:27 AM

Bobert,

I have given you opportunities to offer up ***proof*** that Bush lied but you have offered up the ***opinions*** of others who were ***not*** even part of the situation...

When you have ***proof***, get back to us... Yer little articles would not hold up in an academic environment as *** proof*** seeing that its authors weren't involved but rather second guessers...

As for your bad habit of calling people "liars" and "bushites" you need to quit this very bad habit... It makes you sound like an assh*le and doesn't make anyone agree with you, but quite the contrary, refuse to accept anything you say as having any validity...



"little article would not hold up in an academic environment as *** proff*** seeing that its authors weren't involved but rather second guessers"

Don't bother poor ol' Bobert with world view and common sense stuff, world ... Bobert ain't wired that way... He likes his discussions to be confined to a tiny drop of acedemia under a high power microscrope... That's his comfy zone...



But then I guess the rules you try to apply to other people aren't supposed to be applied to YOUR statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:51 AM

"Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark – hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war – but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency.

The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household, was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts.

Iraq Body Count says there is "considerable cause for scepticism" and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence.

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of "main street bias" – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that "there was no main street bias" and later amended their reply to "no evidence of a main street bias".

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word "casualties" to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the "three-to-one rule" – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

"The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions," contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. "They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated." The paper had "no scientific standing". Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? "No."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:53 AM

"Iraq Body Count relies on passive surveillance, counting civilian deaths from at least two independent reports from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers ( The Times is included). So Professor Gilbert Burnham, Dr Les Roberts and Dr Shannon Doocy at the Centre for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, decided to work through Iraqi doctors, who speak the language and know the territory.

They drafted in Professor Riyadh Lafta, at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, as a co-author of the Lancet paper. Professor Lafta supervised eight doctors in 47 different towns across the country. In each town, says the paper, a main street was randomly selected, and a residential street crossing that main street was picked at random.

The doctors knocked on doors and asked residents how many people in that household had died. A person needed to have been living at that address for three months before a death for it to be included. It was deemed too risky to ask if the dead person was a combatant or civilian, but they did ask to see death certificates. More than nine out of ten interviewees, the Lancet paper claims, were able to produce death certificates. Out of 1,849 households contacted, only 15 refused to participate. From this survey, the epidemiologists estimated the number of Iraqis who died after the invasion as somewhere between 393,000 and 943,000. The headline figure became 650,000, of which 601,000 were violent deaths. Even the lowest figure would have raised eyebrows.

Dr Richard Garfield, an American academic who had collaborated with the authors on an earlier study, declined to join this one because he did not think that the risk to the interviewers was justifiable. Together with Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr Garfield wrote to The Lancet to insist there must be a "substantial reporting error" because Burnham et al suggest that child deaths had dropped by two thirds since the invasion. The idea that war prevents children dying, Dr Garfield implies, points to something amiss.

Professor Burnham told The Times in an e-mail that he had "full confidence in Professor Lafta and full faith in his interviewers", although he did not directly address the drop in child mortality. Dr Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?

Professor Rosling told The Times that interviewees may have reported family members as dead to conceal the fact that relatives were in hiding, had fled the country, or had joined the police or militia. Young men can also be associated with several households (as a son, a husband or brother), so the same death might have been reported several times.

Professor Rosling says that, despite e-mails, "the authors haven't provided us with the information needed to validate what they did". He would like to see a live blog set up for the authors and their critics so that the matter can be clarified.

Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: "Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates."

Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: "I'm sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don't see how they could have done the study in the way they describe."

Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews "took about 20 minutes". The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : "I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don't actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can't rattle off basic information suggests they either don't know or they don't care."

And the corpses? Professor Burnham says that, according to reports, mortuaries and cemeteries have run out of space. He says that the Iraqi team has asked for data to remain confidential because of "possible risks" to both interviewers and interviewees"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:05 AM

Bobert:

You were correct then, and you are correct now.

They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

The internet makes it possible to find links to support any whacky position imaginable, and if all else fails, they can blame it on the Clintons.

They, like their heroes, will never admit any mistake, and will never alter their position - no matter what "reality-based" information is revealed.

Please don't waste any more time and effort on their nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM

Is there an echo in here?

Methinks, someone stole a fool's trick...

The Fooles Troupe may have to leave here - too much competition...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:17 AM

A new axiom!

Bobert's Logic:

Whatever Bobert believes can only be disproven by rigorous, academic proof.
Whatever Bobert disagrees with can only be proven by rigorous, academic proof- and THEN he applies the SRS rule.



Bobert's Corollary to the SRS Rule:

Attack the source, ignore the facts.




TIA's Axiom:

If a liberal repeats a lie, it becomes true:, If a conservative repeats the truth, it becomes false.



SRS Rule

" I will only accept information that

1. agrees with what I want to believe.
2. Is from a source that agrees with MY viewpint.
3. Can't be used to show that I am wrong in any aspect."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:46 AM

Hey, bb, the Johns Hopkins folks ain't friggin' slouches so I'd say the burden of ****proff**** is exlucsively on yer back... Not mine and not opinions of folks who weren't part of the study...

Where's the illogic in this???

Yeah, it's you who is blind to "world view", not me...

As fir me bein' partisan??? Yer gonna have to define that term...

Speakin' of definitions: Busite = Bush supporter... You certainly haven't swayed too far from the company fight song...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:55 AM

Bobert,

You might ask that the the claims you present must be proven wrong, AND the claims that have been presented here by those YOU call "bushites" must be PROVEN wrong,


The claims you present will be assumed correct until PROVEN wrong, AND the claims others present ( that you disagree with) MUST be assumed correct until PROVEN wrong.


You can't pick just half- what applies to YOU has to apply to others.


The burden of PROOF is upon those who claim that Bush lied about WMD-

TO PROVE that Bush lied about WMD.

No such PROOF has been presented here.

On the other hand, if you want to accept the comments here that Bush lied because YOU think he did, you will have to also accept that the study you refer to, and state as fact, has been called into doubt by those more knowledgable about the topic than you are about WMDs in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:11 AM

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:17 AM

"After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power."

Bush on CNN from
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:OfkRlMBym1IJ:www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html+no+weapons+of+mass+destruction,

However, none of this is proof Bush lied. Perhaps the Neocons simply believed what they chose to.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

So glad to see the issue is sorted - not! If only I'd put money on it back at the start of February...after all I could have foretold what would happen to the thread. Bless us one and all, we don't just flog dead horses, we expect them to gallop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

"However, none of this is proof Bush lied."

True. The statements made were that Saddam had a program to develop WMD. Which he did. See the UN reports of Nov, 2002, Dec 2002, and March 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:45 AM

BB's Axiom:

Just keep posting poorly-source crap over and over again (preferably five to eight times in a row, with lots of CAPS).

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:48 AM

Bobert's Corollary to the SRS Rule:

Attack the source, ignore the facts.




Have you ever looked at the actual UN reports? READ them, then tell me about my poor ( ie, ones you don't agree with) sources.


Can you even try to find anything incorrect with the FACTS, other than YOU don't want to believe them?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:24 PM

BB:

I posted a dozen links enumerating specific statements made by Bush and Co that were false, or whose implications were false.

Uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, "north south east and west of Tikrit", implied connexctions with Al Queda, and the scary 45-minute Mushroom Cloud scenario were all just terror tactics designed to strike fear. Why do you think these were honest or intelligent statements?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:33 PM

What happened to that British memo?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:34 PM

More than you wanted to know about it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:38 PM

"Uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes, "north south east and west of Tikrit", implied connexctions with Al Queda, and the scary 45-minute Mushroom Cloud scenario were all just terror tactics designed to strike fear."


The " scary 45-minute Mushroom Cloud scenario" was what the people who opposed action said- Bush was talking about the danger of an Iraq with the weapons Saddam was working on developing.

Implied connections? You mean like the ones the Czech government said existed?


You have not shown that the information AT THE TIME would not lead one to the conclusion that the statements made were true.

first post here

"Subject: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall - PM
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 08:35 AM

What proof do we have that Bush lied about WMDs? "

The question was asked, and the EVIDENCE has not been presented to provide proof at anything like the level that Bobert insists upon for his own statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

"if Clinton said to keep engaged on the Isreali/Palestian situation"

Did he?

"If Clinton said to Bush to keep an eye on bin Laden"

Did he?

"If Clinton ssid to Bush that tax cuts for the wealthy would bring about deficits"

Did he?

People like Tenet, Freeh, and others were kept over from the Clinton administration and continued their previous policies.

If you will notice the recession, rising gas prices and the reversal of Clinton's paper "surplus" all started in 2000, well before Bush took office. I remember the voice of Greenspan announcing an emergency 1% drop in the Fed rate early in Jan 2001 to try to head off a recession or at least Lessen it. That's the only reversal I recall.

What did Mr Clinton do after the attack in the USS Cole? He was too busy working on pardons for the likes of exiled, wanted, fugitive, criminal arms dealer convicted of 50 felony counts, including tax evasion of $48 million, Marc Rich who's wife contributed millions to HRC for congress campaign.

But charts, graphs, numbers and facts don't mean anything to Bobert, only ifs and personal opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

Awwwck, Clinton's Fault, aaawwck!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

Awwwck, Bush's Fault, aaawwck!

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:33 PM

The point that is being avoided adroitly in all this banter back and forth is this: Had the CEO of a major corporation not been aware of what his employees were doing and his employees ended up costing the organization billions of dollars and thousands of lives, that CEO would have been out on his ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:33 PM

Aawwck, who's in charge right now?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:05 PM

You are comparing apples to oranges Peace and you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM

Maybe. However, you have to admit that the President SHOULD know what folks who advise him are doing, no? Personally, I don't know so much that Bush lied as he is incapable of thinking beyond the script. Hell, even those of you who are defending the man--and doing a good job of it I agree--have to know that he just isn't very bright.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:17 PM

Preponderance of evidence is what we have. If that is too little for you, then you have a very sticky coat of whitewash on indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:19 PM

well the one indisputable link between the Iraq war and Alqaeda
is that it got them a whole lot of recruits.

it was a christmas present for OBL.

seems to me when bush says 'the reason I keep insisting there was a relationship between Iraq Saddam and Al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda' its pretty clear he should provide evidence - and he never did unless he meant to say the relationship is one of sworn enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

Yeah, Dickey, Clinton did... There is evidence that Clinton's transition team was concerned about and passed their thoughts onto the incoming Bush people his concerns about terrorism and the Isreali/Palestinian issue...

Richard Clark, for one, has testified before the 9/11 Commission on the latter and if you like to make a deal that you will admit you are wrong I will give you my source on the Isreali/Palestinain issue as well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:27 PM

After all this wheezing and whining and cussing and discussing, what it all boils down to is this:

Bush probably didn't lie per se.   He did what his advisors told him to do and said what his advisors told him to say. He may very well have believed most of it. But when he wasn't really sure, he accepted it. After all, he was doing God's Work. And that justifies anything. Even—well—lying, if need be.

Anybody see the 1972 movie, "The Candidate?" At the very end of the movie [Spoiler Alert], when, after a hard campaign, Bill McKay (Robert Redford) learns that he has won, he stands there among his advisors, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, and says

"What do we do now?"

The man is incompetent. Always has been. Always will be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:28 PM

Peace: You mean a CEO like warren Anderson?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:11 PM

Try this guy on for size. Clément Godbout: he heads the Chrysotile Institute. Our government spends lotsa dollars telling everyone how safe asbestos is. Of course, we don't want that shit used in Canada--but it's good enough for developing countries. Oh, we do have our winners here. Makes a guy sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:17 PM

My late father-in-law was a lobbiest for the American Peterolium Institute and he didn't know squat about squat... He was called to testify before Congress on the Valdez oil spill in Alaska and his standard answer was purdy much, "Don't worry, be happy, nature has a way of taking care of these things..."

Like I said, he didn't know squat from squat... I disagree, Peace... Bush ain't as stupid as he seems... I think he knew squat from squat but that is givin' him ther benefit of the doubt...

Then agian, you might be right in that he was and still is a moron...

Kinda a coin-flip...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

Bobert:

That is a very definitive statement. It illustrate your clear headed thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM

Well, Dickey... You make the call... Was Bush a dupe or a liar???

Dupe ________

Liar ________

Have at it...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM

Sorry Teribus--

No pun intended--(perish the thought).

Context counts. Why, pray tell, did you leave out (yet again) the rest of the story--the rest of Cheney's reply to the question? You know, the part that deals with Atta, Iraqi intelligence, Prague, etc. And therefore pollutes your supposed clear "no"--beyond hope. Just can't understand why you did that. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it destroys your argument.

It pains me beyond measure--I'm sure you know-- to have to tell you that, just as Franco is still dead, your ship is still sunk. And somehow, I think you know it.

If you can't do any better than the Cheney 8 Sept 2002 Meet the Press--totally worthless for your argument--you lose. You tried that gambit with Cheney over a year ago--it was pathetic then, and, sorry to say, it hasn't improved.

In other words, General Custer, if you have no further ammunition, I'm afraid you have a problem.


Too bad about your ego. Really sorry about that.

But keep squirming. It's fitfully amusing to watch you.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:32 AM

Bobert:

None of the above.

What is your final answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 01:43 AM

Ron,

The only thing that is pathetic, is your lack of comprehension of written english. No bloody wonder, you have to rely on others to report on things before you can form an opinion on anything.

By the bye, Ron, have you noticed that you seem to be the only person who didn't catch what Dick Cheney said in that interview. As I said Ron, what part of "No" do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:51 AM

"One of the most senior officials in the White House, Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was caught lying to the F.B.I. He appears to have been trying to cover up a smear campaign that was orchestrated by his boss against the first person to unmask one of the many untruths that President Bush used to justify invading Iraq. He was charged with those crimes, defended by the best lawyers he could get, tried in an open courtroom and convicted of serious felonies. Mr. Libby walked freely out of the court, had his say in public and will be allowed to appeal.

It was another reminder of how precious the American judicial system is, at a time when it is under serious attack from the same administration Mr. Libby served. That administration is systematically denying the right of counsel, the right to evidence and even the right to be tried to scores of prisoners who may have committed no crimes at all.

And although we still do not know the answer to the original mystery, the case provided a look at the methodical way that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Libby, Karl Rove and others in the Bush inner circle set out to discredit Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson IV. Mr. Wilson, a career diplomat, was sent by the State Department in 2002 to check out a British intelligence report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the government of Niger for a secret nuclear weapons program. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote in an Op-Ed article in The Times that what he had found did not support that claim. The specter of a nuclear-armed Iraq was central to Mr. Bush's case for rushing to war. So, the trial testimony showed, Mr. Cheney orchestrated an assault on Mr. Wilson's credibility with the help of Mr. Libby and others. They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip.

That is what we know from the Libby trial, and it is some of the clearest evidence yet that this administration did not get duped by faulty intelligence; at the very least, it cherry-picked and hyped intelligence to justify the war. What Mr. Wilson found, and subsequent investigations confirmed, was that there was one trip in 1999 — not "recently," but four years before Mr. Bush's statement — by an Iraqi official to Niger and that during that trip, uranium was never discussed. "

---

I think the pattern is painfully obvious. You guys backed a putz.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM

Amos:

"They whispered to journalists that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and that nepotism was the reason he had been chosen for the trip."

If Armitage did the whispering as he admits and as Novak admits, Why is Libby or anybody else at fault?

And was nepotism the reason he was chosen?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

Because Libby lied to investigators about when and where and who RE the whispering. And, why would Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff lie if the Bush Administration was being totally honest and straightforward? By all means let's get the answer to your question above about Armitage (and mine about Libby's motive) and all the others. Let's continue the investigation until we find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Dickey:

In the Wonderland of importances gone head-over-tea-kettle, you missed the actual importance. An act of nepotism, even a dubious hypothetical one, is far less weighty in terms of consequences than this little underscore: it is some of the clearest evidence yet that this administration did not get duped by faulty intelligence; at the very least, it cherry-picked and hyped intelligence to justify the war. What Mr. Wilson found, and subsequent investigations confirmed, was that there was one trip in 1999 — not "recently," but four years before Mr. Bush's statement — by an Iraqi official to Niger and that during that trip, uranium was never discussed.

Proof that Bush lied. Possibly, even probably.

But more important even than a fork-tongued President, is the question of consequences of actions taken.

What consequences?

Children screaming as their arms are blown off. Parents trying to protect their young from helicopter-launched rockers, only to see their home, their children, and all they have go up in violent, mistaken flames. Torture and mayhem. Madness in the eyes of veterans who have seen too much, and caused too much loss and pain. Dead men in the streets, scores of them. Dead women, babies and men lining thehalls of morgues, smoke-stained and scorched in the flesh, stinking like a charnel house. Lives ruined, families broken and destroyed. Widows and deprived mothers keening in the night in Baghdad and in Oshkosh and Madison and New York.

Individual responsibility for such mayhem cannot be borne easily -- the mind can't support it. The usual defense against such overburden is a criminal numbness, layered with justifications and rationalizations. To come face to face with this sort of guilt would drive a strong man mad.

But then, perhaps it has.

A