 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Proof that Bush lied
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:38 AM Och Amos, that's gonna hurt. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM Bush Watch log of Bush lies Eric Alterman's dissertation on Bush's lying The Bush Lies Blog A CHart of Bsuh Lies About Iraq Compilation of False and Misleading Assertions from Bush & Co Compilation of Bush Administration Lies up to 2004 The Economist on Bush Credibility Bush's Top 10 Lies About his Military Service, Etc. Bush Administration Lies Supporting the War Lie by Lie: Timeline of the Iraq War Exposing Bush and his Techniques of Deceit Bush Admits He Lied... G.W. Bush's Many Lies in Four Parts Bush's Worst Lies of 2006 Why Bush Lies About Iraq--2003 The Truth About Bush's Lies Bush, Lies, and Videotape Lies, Damn Lies and Bush's Iraq Statistics Bush's Enron Lies Archives of Bush Lies Kinda hurts mah fingers.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:08 AM Dickey-- As, usual, you are wrong--situation normal. "The numbers go down" after the war started--for the very good reason that it was obvious by then--US troops were in Iraq and could easily tell--that Bush's stories about Saddam's WMD were hogwash--so obviously he wasn't as big a threat as Bush had told us. But between summer 2002 and March 2003, "the numbers" do not go down. You lose again. Better luck next time. No time tonight to demolish Teribus' feeble arguments. Some of us don't post from work. But I'll attend to you, Teribus, tomorrow. Suffice it to say that your statements are amazing coming from somebody who alleges to have some knowledge of geopolitics and how propaganda works. But perhaps I was overestimating you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:42 PM He lied T 1,000 times yes. No, not every dog believed his WMD lines. Many were screaming for proof, he lied & ignore all calls. Look back many didn't & many relied on their own intellegance, I wish Bush would've been capable of doing the same. You lead the country around by the nose using fear & when the nation finally realizes there was nothing to fear from the start to take the finger out & then ask why did you have your nose on my finger to start with! I'd call that deceitful & lying. Again, call it what you want. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:27 PM "Repeating a false allegation a thousand times does not make it any truer." Except for those who have 'Faith'... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:13 PM Repeating a false allegation a thousand times does not make it any truer. "Public opinion polls only record the effectiveness of propaganda brainwasing." Ron claims his alleged propaganda campaign was highly sucessful yet the numbers go down rather than up. That means the poll records that if there was and alleged propaganda campaign, it was ineffective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM No need for brainwashing. A light rinse would have done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:04 PM "brainwasing" ahem - brainwashing... but on second thoughts "brainwasing"... "I like it! I like it!" Danny Kaye - Movie 'The Inspector General' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:58 PM Public opinion polls only record the effectiveness of propaganda brainwasing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:56 PM Bush in his own words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:47 PM The 9/11 commission report stated that there were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq: "...In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army. The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for "anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan..." "...a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said..." Apparently? Does that mean they did or didn't? MSNBC says: "They [Bush & Co] stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public." Critics say. Critics do not have proof other than what they say. Existing opinions before Bush: 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" Existing sentiment before 9/11: On Jan. 29, 2001 Washington Post "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." Public opinion 2 days after 9/11: In a poll 9/13/01 %78 of people polled answered it was likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Public opinion during the alleged propaganda campaign: In a poll conducted 2/6/03 %72 of people polled answered it was likely that Saddam was involved in 9/11. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:55 PM The answer once again is no, no, a thousand times no. Repeating a false answer a thousad times does not make it any truer. Even if it could be demonstrated that an statement that was self-evidently intended to mislead had actually failed to mislead anyone, it would still be intentionally misleading. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:42 PM Good point. One helluvan insurance policy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM "Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?" President Cheney? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:28 PM I do wish that the people who lied to Bush had been called to account. I have trouble believing that Bush wasn't a willing participant in one of the larger robberies in history--that is, the American taxpayer has contributed billions of dollars into a slush fund called the Iraq War, and many companies are making hundreds of millions of dollars from the war, and there is no real accounting of what was spent (in a DETAILED fashion). The whole thing stinks. That's just my opinion--which maybe is shared by a few hundred million Americans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:22 PM Ron, after it has been shown that he has nothing but sayso evidence, is back to square one again with his "What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained? Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence? Question. The answer once again is no, no, a thousand times no. I think this is a sterling example of repeating the same actions and expecting different results. Unless Ron can show some specific way that people were convinced by this statement that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, his allegation is a non sequitur. It has been shown that during Ron's specified period, Bush stated the opposite of what Ron claims he said and it has been shown that the number of people who thought Saddam was connected to 9/11 decreased during that time. Additionally it has been shown that prior to 9/11, even prior to the Bush administration, much of what is blamed on an imaginary Bush propaganda campaign was already public sentiment. Ron obviously believes he can wear people down with at least six methods that I can identify: The use of personal attacks to try to discredit the person, thereby discrediting anything they have to say. I have nothing bad to say about Ron except that I think some of his opinions are wrong. He is obviously intelligent but the reaches the wrong conclusions and is unsuccessful in supporting them. He constantly asks for proof which he immediately claims is not proof, it is wrong and than claims no proof was presented. At the same time he is claiming no proof was presented, he has no proof other than his opinion which he can only support with personal attacks. During his denials of proof, he makes some sort of a side statement and demands that it be responded to. If the person does not respond he tries to use that as proof that his original allegation is true. He avoids answering simple yes or no questions by asking another question. The he claims he has answered the question asked of him but his question was not answered. After he has runs out of material and has gotten nowhere, he wants to start all over again like the man with the stage fright He stated the the best way to loose an argument is to get mad so he constantly tries to provoke the person who disagrees with him. I think Ron needs to do better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Teribus Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:14 PM Barry Finn's post of 22 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM Number of questions for you Barry: 1) The date is 20th March, 2003 - What falsehoods were used to "bring us into war". 2) "Talk of WMD & this government supporting terrorism & that government doing something else. He's lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups & tried to lead us all to believe it's one cmplete network." Now tell us who lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups: Answer A - President Bill Clinton on 17th February, 1998 Answer B - Joint house Security Committee in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001, when they were asked to identify what posed the greatest threat to the United States of America Answer C - The Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, during the last term of the Clinton Presidency. Note Barry, GWB does not appear on that list because all of the above had put those pieces in place long before GWB made that State of the Union Address in January 2002. 3) The date is 20th March, 2003. What lies have been told? The world and its dog believe that Iraq is armed with WMD. The President of the United States of America has been advised by many sources that there is a threat and that he must act. 4) The date is 20th March, 2003. Call it whatever you want, bottom line is that it is duty and sole responsibility of the President of the United States of America to ensure the security of the United States of America and to defend it, and its best interests, against all threats. He can only do that by acting on the information and threat evaluations available at the time - he cannot, dare not, wait and see - A decision has to be made - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Arne Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM "beardedbruce": for a second time, let me post : [Arne]: "did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Where do you find ANY of this to be false? The bolded part is quite obvious and blatant. Did he have a prohibited weapons program? YES, according to the UN report. No. Even the U.S. was reduced to using the mealy-mouthed "Weapons of mass destruction program related activities". Did the UN demand that he allow inspectors in? YES That wasn't one of the assertions. Did he allow them the access that the UN had specified? NO, according to the UN report. False. But immaterial. He let them in. While they were initially hassled, Saddam did ease up even on that, allowing inspections of the palaces and such, and Blix said that the co-operation was improving. But once again, that wasn't the assertion Dubya made. So? So Dubya's a liar. And you're an eedjit for refusing to admit it. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:10 PM I choose ... .3 Intent to deceive |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: pdq Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:07 PM If you are going to accuse someone of lying, you must consider the following: 1. the facts in the case also known as the truth 2. you must have an absolutely accurate quote from the person in question (hint: you cannot make-up one to suit your purposes) 3. you must be able to tell intent to deceive as opposed to faulty memory or an accidental mistake in facts (Hint: I hate Bush therefore he lied is not good enough for any rational person.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM Ahem: (/11 comission stated: "No 'collaborative relationship' seen" It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq." "The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: TIA Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:49 PM BB: I have no idea what you just told me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:39 PM The multi-nationals and Neocons will ensure THAT never happens! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM What T gives above is a deceptive statment, Bush used this to terrorize the American people falsely. Bush used these falsehood to bring us into war. Tlak of WMD & this government supporting terrorism & that government doing something else. He's lumped all these evil nations with terrorist groups & tried to lead us all to believe it's one cmplete network. Of course these were lies, it sure wasn't the truth. No matter how it's spun it was deceptive & grossly wrong in it's content. Call it whatever you want, bottom line it's criminal & he needs to be tried in, not a court of his peers but in the World Court for War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM I think y'all are giving Bush too much credit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:49 PM Well, teribus, If Bush isn't transparent, then he is ambiguous, unclear and vague. If Bush isn't accountable for what he says and does, he is irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy. Not what I would consider good leadership qualities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:40 PM TIA, If you bother to read the post, the reference GIVEN was ""Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?"" Do you really think you can make a valid comment about whether someone lied when you don't know what he said? "FIrst the execution, then the trial" seems to be the standard that many here are advocating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,TIA Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM "What they do do, is believe anyone or any source that deliberately "invents" what he said, believe anyone or any source that selectively "quotes and reports" out of context. For just one refreshing minute why don't you actually listen to what is being said, instead of listening to a second hand report. Just for one refreshing minute read what was said, instead of reading what somebody else reporting on what was said." Are we referring to the 911 Commission Report, the Duelfer Report, and various NIEs here? Did they "invent"? Did they "selectively quote"? Did they report what somebody else said was said? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Teribus Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:16 PM "Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever?" Now that is the problem, very few posting on this forum do. What they do do, is believe anyone or any source that deliberately "invents" what he said, believe anyone or any source that selectively "quotes and reports" out of context. For just one refreshing minute why don't you actually listen to what is being said, instead of listening to a second hand report. Just for one refreshing minute read what was said, instead of reading what somebody else reporting on what was said. No Dianavan, not devious, responsible. What is this man's responsibility with regard to the security of the United States of America? In the evaluation of anything the use of words like "could", "threat," "might", "possible" and "imagine" is common. Dianavan: - "As a world leader, he is obligated to be transparent and accountable." Just where on earth did you dig that line of complete and utter rubbish from!! That is ridiculous and flies against reality, take any national leader and try to apply the words "transparent" and "accountable" to any of them - The list would be damn short, if there was a list at all. Notice Belgium was not on that list of countries Dianavan, I believe they tried that sort of crap before and lived to regret it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:24 PM Bush is devious. He uses words like "could", "threat," "might", "possible" and "imagine" to invoke fear and panic in his citizens. He couples those words with "make no mistake" and "decisive" to make the listener believe that he can overpower the evil. His speech is intended to deceive the public and pump up his own inflated ego. Call it lies or call it deception, its the same thing. As a world leader, he is obligated to be transparent and accountable. He is neither. He hides behind a cloak of Christianity and accepts no personal responsibility for his actions. Now that one of his big secrets (torture) has been revealed, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain are all prosecuting his goons for their hand in extraordinary rendition. Apparently even Cheney is being called to task. Although these countries cannot make the men appear before their courts, they can try them in absentia. Hopefully, one day, Bush will also see his day in court. Then we will see if Bush lies or if his cloak of deception will be able to protect him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Greg F. Date: 22 Feb 07 - 12:13 PM Who gives a crap WHAT this ignoramus said in any speech or address whatsoever? Its been proven time and time again that he lies virtually every time he opens his mouth. (or he lies by proxy by reading what the BuShites have put on the teleprompter for him) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Teribus Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM As selective as ever Ron. Just for once try telling the whole story so that anyone reading this thread gets things in perspective. Quote what was said on the subject in the 2002 State Of the Union Address. "Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it. Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will. Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." Quote what was said on the subject in the 2003 State of the Union Address: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." The matter under discussion in both cases was the War on Terror, why it had to be fought and how it would be fought. Now Ron's Questions: The Ron Quote: Bush: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". Ron Question 1: "What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained?" The USA was subjected to an a-symetric attack carried out by an unidentified (at that time) international terrorist group. Immediately following those attacks a Joint House Security Committee tasked with identifying the greatest potential threat to the USA came to the conclusion that the greatest potential threat was: An a-symetric attack on the United States of America carried out by a group of international terrorists armed with some form of weapon of mass destruction. That weapon either being self produced by the international terrorist group (Deemed highly unlikely), or supplied by a rogue state or regime at odds with the US (In the short term the most likely event). The date and events of September 11th, 2001, therefore became a watershed in terms of threat evaluation. Ron Question 2: "Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence?" No he did not, what he said was that before the watershed of 11th September, 2001, a policy of containmment towards rogue states and regimes could be considered, post-911 it could not. By the bye, those who quote and criticise GWB regarding his reference to "Axis of evil". Take a good look at what the man actually said, not what the populist press said he said: "States like these (North Korea, Iran & Iraq), AND THEIR TERRORIST ALLIES, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:06 AM Now some would say that that's not a lie Ron. He didn't actually say there was a connection, so it's just an untruth. So is it just a case of mis-direction? SLAP, no you idiot, it was a bold faced lie deliberately told so that the world would make the connection & that was how the war was started, mis-direction, on purpose. There was & still is no excuse for how this man "slicked" his way into the mess we're in & there surely is no way he's getting us out either. That we'll be our job. No thank you please. His way out is through Iran, Syria & Jordan. He's not done with the mid east yet, unless we are done with him first. Will those backing him now still support him then? What will it take? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:45 PM Teribus-- OK, since you and your faithful sidekick, Dickey ---(faithful sidekick for this year--next year it'll be somebody else)--- are still stalwart members of the Flat Earth Society: Let's just try one quote at a time: The scene is in the jailhouse--if the curfew rings tonight. No, actually, the occasion was the Jan 2003 State of the Union speech--yes, Teribus, one of your old favorites: Bush: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained". I thought Carol--(haven't heard from her lately--hope she's OK)--put it well: What happened on Sept 11 to cause many in the world to no longer believe that Saddam could be contained? Did Bush link Saddam to Sept 11 in this sentence? Simple questions. Looking forward to wonderfully imaginative answers from a true master of fantasy--that's you, Teribus. Perhaps Dickey will also reply-- though his grasp of the subject, unfortunately, has not been what one would have hoped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: guitar Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:36 PM they all lie these politicians, however that is a apart of their job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:06 PM Hopefully the march on March 17th on DC will give the impeachment process a nudge foreward. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: dianavan Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:15 PM "Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?" Perhaps he's not worth the effort, time and money. Lets wait until he's out of office and convict him of war crimes. Just be glad BB and teribus aren't in power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:10 PM Oh I read 'em. Now you read 9/11 Commission Report and Duelfer Report (and Downing Street Memo, and any number of NIE's and .....) In there, you will find plenty of "facts" that were certainly available to those who could have (and should have) bothered to check carefully pre-war (with all the original source citations you could possibly want). Certainly DO NOT trust the OPINIONS of TIA (or Amos or Captain Ginger). The FACTS are out there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM To be quite honest, I dunno, except that so far no-one thought they had a clear shot at A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:51 PM McG, " my opinion that the evidence is pretty overwhelming" But the opinion presented has no evidence presented at all. Much more of an underwhelming thing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Peace Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:20 PM All this begs the question: Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:14 PM I'm inclined to say that the Earth goes round the Sun, and smoking causes Cancer. But that's only my opinion of course, based on my opinion that the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Feel free to believe what you want... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:50 AM Amos, You state as fact something that seems to be an opinion. I would have expected YOU to be more precise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Amos Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:32 AM Bottom line is that some folks cannot come face to face with the fact that Furless Liter is a pathological misstater of facts and a spinner of realities. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:08 AM Perhaps the director was protecting humintel sources- I don't know. But the Czech government seems to have confirmed the meeting, and THAT was a fact ( the confirmation, not the meeting). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Captain Ginger Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:05 AM Bruce, no offence but on balance I'd rather trust the director of Czech foreign intelligence on this one. You stated it as a fact, he pisses on it from a medium height. What is a poor scmuck to think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:01 AM from your clicky: "Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, in an Oct. 26, 2001 press conference, confirmed at least one meeting between the two men, but refused to reveal further details. The existence of an encounter has been debated since then. In May, American media quoted senior U.S. government sources as insisting the meeting never happened, attributing its creation to overzealous Czech officials. These disclaimers led Prague's envoy to the UN, Hynek Kmonicek, to reiterate in June that an encounter had taken place. " If you can't trust the U.N., who can you trust?????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: Captain Ginger Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:58 AM Did the UN conclude by saying "Invade Iraq"? Oh, and on the Atta story, do read what the head of Czech foreign intelligence says here. In a nutshell, he says reports of a pre 9/11 meeting between Atta and Iraqi agent al-Ani are "unproved and implausible". Speaking before the invasion, he says that promoting a so-called "Prague connection" between Atta and al-Ani might have been a ploy by US policymakers seeking justification for action against Saddam. But you wouldn't be interested in that, would you bb? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:54 AM TIA, try reading my posts. 21 Feb 07 - 09:35 AM |
