Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

[fossten]

So when war is called everyone should shut up? That's the American thing to do? Don't look now, but you just shat on the Constitution.

No, the comment was not irrelevent, cold war or not.



Lol, you're right, if everyone would shut up and let Bush do whatever he wanted the war would of been over long ago and the people killing US soldiers would never dream of doing such acts. If you think that, then you're a moron.

Now you've made the logical flaw of oversimplification. You are equating "just shut up" with "not telling lies" and "not knowingly making false accusations" and "providing aid and comfort to our enemies."

There's such a huge difference between legitimate criticism and what your libwack leaders are doing it's laughable. If you don't see that, then you're a -- no, I'm not going to sink to your name-calling level.

Don't look now, but you just shat on our troops and emboldened the terrorists.

 

[TheDude]

Now you've made the logical flaw of oversimplification. You are equating "just shut up" with "not telling lies" and "not knowingly making false accusations" and "providing aid and comfort to our enemies."

There's such a huge difference between legitimate criticism and what your libwack leaders are doing it's laughable. If you don't see that, then you're a -- no, I'm not going to sink to your name-calling level..

You make me laugh.... You see any criticism on Bush as terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. While there are some people that go over the edge with accusations, that is not the majority.

I name call? Take a long look at your previous threads.

Don't look now, but you just shat on our troops and emboldened the terrorists.

Oh man, thanks for proving my point. 'Since I do not agree with Bush, therefore I must be a terrorist sympathizer.' It's the only logical explanation.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Bin Laden - the son of the Bush families best friends....

And thus, we know the real reason he is still on the loose. To the shrubbies, shatting on the graves of 3000+ dead New Yorkians is more palatable than pissing off fellow oil-buisness butt buddies.

 

[fossten]

You make me laugh.... You see any criticism on Bush as terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. While there are some people that go over the edge with accusations, that is not the majority.

I name call? Take a long look at your previous threads.



Oh man, thanks for proving my point. 'Since I do not agree with Bush, therefore I must be a terrorist sympathizer.' It's the only logical explanation.

Now you've switched from oversimplification to overgeneralization. You now equate "any criticism on Bush" with "terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. "

What you're doing is misusing my words, and you're not even good at it. I will say this one more time, and I dare you to understand it:

Legitimate criticism is NOT equal to lying and falsely accusing. And you're wrong: The MAJORITY of your Dem leaders are lying and falsely accusing Bush of lying, and they know they're doing it, because their quotes are being played back for them, and they're ignoring the facts while continuing to prevaricate.

Chew on this: (November 6, 2005, Meet The Press)

MR. RUSSERT: You talked about Iraq. There's a big debate now about whether or not the data, the intelligence data, was misleading and manipulated in order to encourage public opinion support for the war. Let me give you a statement that was talked about during the war.
"We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them. ... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon. ..."
Are those the statements that you're concerned about?

SEN. KENNEDY: Well, I am concerned about it, and that's why I believe that the actions that were taken by Harry Reid in the Senate last week when effectively he said that we are going to get to the bottom of this...

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002 -- let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein. You, yourself, said, "Saddam is dangerous. He's got dangerous weapons." It wasn't just the Bush White House.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

BuSh was in such a rush to remove Saddam from power, he has ignored a more real threat..............

Posted on Tue, Nov. 15, 2005


Nuclear threat lingers, 9/11 commission says

By Sylvia A. Smith

Washington editor


WASHINGTON – Terrorists will have 14 years to get their hands on material to make nuclear weapons unless Congress and President Bush step up the pace of a program created in 1991 by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., members of the Sept. 11 commission said Monday.

They said that half the nuclear arsenal amassed by the former Soviet Union has been dismantled in the 14 years since Congress created the Nunn-Lugar program, named for Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. At that rate, the commission said, it will take 14 more years to defang them all.

“We know Osama bin Laden has been trying to get weapons of mass destruction for a decade, yet our response will try to secure these fissile materials in the next 14 years, giving Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida time to get these weapons and attack the United States,” said 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer, a former Indiana congressman. “That’s not acting quickly and responsibly enough.”

The commission issued the third in a series of updates on how Congress and the White House have adopted the recommendations the panel made after its investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. In its original report, issued in mid-2004, the commission listed “maximum effort by the U.S. government to prevent terrorists from acquiring (weapons of mass destruction)” as one of its top recommendations. In the report issued Monday, the commission rated the effort so far as “insufficient progress.”

“Is there anybody anywhere who thinks we have 14 years?” said Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and the chairman of the 9/11 commission. “This is unacceptable.”

The commission said the unsecured stockpile of nuclear weapons – mostly in Russia – is “the most serious threat” to national security.

Kean said “positive signs” include an agreement reached last February by Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure nuclear warheads and material and an amendment the Senate adopted to streamline the use of Nunn-Lugar money.

“But they’re not nearly enough,” he said.

The report says that “preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other problems of national security” and called on Bush to accelerate the timetable for securing all material that can be used to make nuclear weapons. “The president should publicly make this goal his top national security priority and ride herd on the bureaucracy to maintain a sense of urgency.”

Lugar, in a speech two weeks ago, said both the United States and Russia could work harder to dismantle nuclear weapons.

“Not everyone in the former Soviet Union, and indeed, not everyone in our own country, believes these programs should be a priority,” Lugar said at Foreign Relations Council.

He added, “We could accelerate the program, but that requires two to tango. The Russians have to want to accelerate the program.”

In its report Monday, the Sept.11 commission gave a mixed critique about the Bush administration’s performance in other areas. It said the administration has not adopted standards for treatment of captured terror suspects but offered praise for U.S. attempts to integrate the Arab and Muslim world into the global trading system and in fighting terrorism financing.

 

[TheDude]

Now you've switched from oversimplification to overgeneralization. You now equate "any criticism on Bush" with "terrible lies, false accusation and general psycho babble. ".

Ever time I say something you claim I'm doing something else.... Idon't see this stopping. Get's old.

What you're doing is misusing my words, and you're not even good at it. I will say this one more time, and I dare you to understand it:.

YOU GOT ME! I am misusing your own words(sarcasm). Didn't you accuse Raven of the same thing on another thread and Johnny for that matter? As far as I can tell, no one has added, deleted or otherwise tampered with what you write. They're your own words; I dare you to understand that.

Legitimate criticism is NOT equal to lying and falsely accusing. And you're wrong: The MAJORITY of your Dem leaders are lying and falsely accusing Bush of lying, and they know they're doing it, because their quotes are being played back for them, and they're ignoring the facts while continuing to prevaricate.

I do not agree that the majority of Democrat leaders willingly lie about or knowingly falsify Bush's actions (my opinion, you have yours). I find it extremely ironic that what you wrote (BOLDED) is what the left and some on the right are accusing Bush of doing.

 

[fossten]

The fact of the matter is that your lib leaders are so upset that they lost the election that they will say or do anything to bring down the President, even if it means lying or undermining our troops and causing more deaths.

This is a political strategy that was put out in a memo by (D) Senator Jay Rockefeller. They planned this. There is NO EVIDENCE that Bush lied. In fact, the only evidence out there indicates that he DIDN'T lie. Yet you people keep demagoguing and asserting something you don't know to be the truth. That makes what you are saying lies.


Rockefeller memo

Here is the full text of the memo from the office of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.) on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.

For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.

In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.

The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:

A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:

B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.

In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.

SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.

The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives.

 

[TheDude]

The fact of the matter is that your lib leaders are so upset that they lost the election that they will say or do anything to bring down the President, even if it means lying or undermining our troops and causing more deaths. .

So the Democrats are somehow letting troops die out of spite? That's what you're basically saying.

 

[fossten]

So the Democrats are somehow letting troops die out of spite? That's what you're basically saying.

That's what ROCKEFELLER basically said.

By the way, I could post the same question right back at you with Bush's name inserted. "So Bush is somehow letting troops die out of spite?"

 

[fossten]

Kurds Campaign Thanks U.S. for Liberation


A group representing Kurdistan thanks America for liberating that nation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship of terrorism.

"The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say ‘thank you for helping us win our freedom. Thank you for democracy. Thank you America.”

The print and broadcast advertisements are sponsored by the Kurdistan Development Corporation, an organization created by the government of Kurdistan to encourage international investment.

The ad campaign began Monday in the United States with ads in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News Channel. Ads begin airing Nov. 14 airing in Europe.

The group describes Kurdistan as a place "where peace and prosperity have reigned since liberation from Saddam Hussein.”
Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Chairman of the Kurdistan Development Corporation and Kurdistan’s High Representative to the UK, says the commercials are necessary to counter the American media’s largely negative coverage of Iraq.

"We feel the mainstream media,” she tells Newsmax, "is focusing on the negative stories coming out of Iraq and very rarely highlighting the good news.”

"We’re not saying that the media doesn’t tell the truth. They do tell the truth. There is violence. There is an insurgency. But it’s not the whole truth, or the whole picture.”

"The truth is that while there is violence,” she continues, "there are big strides being taken towards democracy in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan. There are vast sections of Iraq, and again particularly Kurdistan, where the region is safe, stable, and people are getting on with their lives, doing business, trying to build a future.”

Indeed, not a single coalition soldier has died in Kurdistan since March 2003.

Rahman worries, however, about suggestions that the United States should pull out of Iraq.

"If people are saying that America should withdraw their troops now, that would be a catastrophe, not only for the people of Iraq but also for the Middle East and the wider intentional community and the United States,” she says.

The current peace and prosperity is a welcome change from conditions under Saddam Hussein, who targeted the Kurds throughout his rule.

Among other atrocities, Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds, a majority of which were women and children.

Following the Gulf War in 1991, the United States and the United Kingdom established "no-fly zones” in northern Iraq to prevent continued bombing of Kurdistan by Saddam. Kurds ran a semi-autonomous government under the protection of the "no-fly zones.”

Kurdistan President H.E. Masoud Barzani thanked President Bush for his dedication to Iraqi freedom in an Oct. 25 visit to the White House.
"It was a brave decision that you have made,” Barzani told the president, "you have liberated a people from a dictatorial regime that has hurt a lot of people.”

Rahman goes further, calling President Bush a "hero.”

"The people of Kurdistan and the government of Kurdistan,” she gushes, "admire President Bush’s courage in fighting Saddam Hussein despite some of the doubts of America’s international partners.”

Rahman says there is no question that the decision to liberate Iraq was just.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant,” she notes, "a dictator who committed genocide against the people of Kurdistan ... To get rid of someone like that, there should be no question.”

In addition to the advertisments, the group maintains a Web site, www.theotheriraq.com, expressing its gratitude to the U.S. and the value of Kurdistan to the world community.

 

[TheDude]

That's what ROCKEFELLER basically said.

By the way, I could post the same question right back at you with Bush's name inserted. "So Bush is somehow letting troops die out of spite?"

No, that question really wouldn't fit that way... The final call for war was his choice, he did make the final decision, so the 'somehow' aspect is invalid. So if you had asked "So Bush is letting troops die out of spite?" I would say, I don't believe he is doing anything out of spite, I don't think anyone here said that was a motive. Unless someone before brought up that he was after Saddam to one-up his father?

 

[fossten]

Unless someone before brought up that he was after Saddam to one-up his father?

Oh yeah, that. That's a ridiculous premise. There isn't one bit of evidence in Bush's character that points to a desire to one-up GHWB.

It would be less of a stretch for me to say that Ted Kennedy is calling Bush a liar to ease his own guilt about Chappaquiddick.

 

[TheDude]

Oh yeah, that. That's a ridiculous premise. There isn't one bit of evidence in Bush's character that points to a desire to one-up GHWB.

I didn't know you were a psychologist and that you had studied Bush.

One thing though, anyone will tell you that presidents are extremely competitive. They don't reach the highest seat of a country by not being so; it's just the nature of the beast. A country needs its leaders to have that drive. So it would be ridiculous to say with 100% certainty that one-upping his father had nothing to do with his motives.

 

[Calabrio]

I didn't know you were a psychologist and that you had studied Bush.

One thing though, anyone will tell you that presidents are extremely competitive. They don't reach the highest seat of a country by not being so; it's just the nature of the beast. A country needs its leaders to have that drive. So it would be ridiculous to say with 100% certainty that one-upping his father had nothing to do with his motives.

Foolish statement.

But if it makes you fell better, he ONE UPPED his father when he was elected to a second term as President.

 

[TheDude]

Foolish statement.

But if it makes you fell better, he ONE UPPED his father when he was elected to a second term as President.

Did you actually read what I wrote? What Fossten wrote? I did not say he did any such action. I said that to say for certain that he is impossible of such action as Fossten stated is ridiculous. Read before you attack.

 

[fossten]

I didn't know you were a psychologist and that you had studied Bush.

Again, right back at you: I didn't know you were God and could know if Bush was lying without any evidence.

One thing though, anyone will tell you that presidents are extremely competitive. They don't reach the highest seat of a country by not being so; it's just the nature of the beast. A country needs its leaders to have that drive. So it would be ridiculous to say with 100% certainty that one-upping his father had nothing to do with his motives.

You need to stop measuring Bush by the Clinton yardstick. If you go back and read every speech that Bush has ever given, and don't pick out all the verbal errors like usual, you will see an underlying theme: He doesn't EVER make it about him.

In contrast, Clinton did that all the time, and is still doing it, as evidenced by his speech at Rosa Parks' funeral. I don't see Bush doing or saying anything that indicates that he's trying to compete with his father.

I know you're going to say, 'You're bringing up Clinton again!' But my point is that you view Presidents that way because that's how Clinton is. He's the one who launched missiles on an aspirin factory to distract from Monica Lewinsky. He's the one who keeps bashing Bush in TOTAL disrespect for the tradition of ex-presidents. It's all about HIM.

The reality is that Clinton is largely responsible for the mess we are in. He's the one that left bin Laden on a silver platter. He's the one who abandoned our troops in Somalia. He's the one who's responsible for the wall of intelligence that Able Danger is all about. Because of his administration, Atta was in the country for a year and our intel services didn't know about it.

 

[barry2952]

Try looking a little further back than Clinton. King George the First headed the CIA and fostered the lax coordination that carried all the way through his, Clinton's and the heir apparent's reign. Try placing the blame for failed intelligence where it belongs.

 

[fossten]

Try looking a little further back than Clinton. King George the First headed the CIA and fostered the lax coordination that carried all the way through his, Clinton's and the heir apparent's reign. Try placing the blame for failed intelligence where it belongs.

Actually, 'Wild' Bill Donovan headed the first CIA, which was known as the OSS, or Office of Strategic Services.

 

[Calabrio]

Try looking a little further back than Clinton. King George the First headed the CIA and fostered the lax coordination that carried all the way through his, Clinton's and the heir apparent's reign. Try placing the blame for failed intelligence where it belongs.

And you base this on what information?

George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA in the mid-70s. That is completley unrelated the the decisions made by the Clinton White House. It has nothing to do with the decreased funding, it has nothing to do with Clinton's new reliance of surveilance and electronic spying and his abandonment of using human resources. It also has nothing to do with the policy under Clinton that basically stated we would no longer pay for information from informants who were engaged in unsavory activities. The Jamie Gorelick memo, putting a communication wall up between the different agencies, that happened under Clinton too.

Do us all a favor, and before you start posting nonsense that you're pulling off the top of your head, don't limit your research to free-association, try doing a little reading.

 

[barry2952]

It's not unrelated, and you know it.

 

[fossten]

It's not unrelated, and you know it.

That was a really weak response, barry. I expected better from you.

Try using some facts to back up your assertion.

 

[TheDude]

Again, right back at you: I didn't know you were God and could know if Bush was lying without any evidence.

No, you're God and know the truth................

You claim that just because no proof of WMD's have been found where they were supposed to be doesn't mean that they were never there. So, just because there's no solid (smoking gun) evidence that Bush lied, doesn't mean it's not to be found. You may like it both way's, doesn't mean it’s so.

You need to stop measuring Bush by the Clinton yardstick..............

Lol. Clinton again? lol

So if a democrat is elected next and he/she makes an error any error I can turn around and blame it on Bush? That's really sad that your main weapon for anything gone wrong during this admin is "CLINTON DID IT!" If Bush were to come out and say he rapes small children, I am certain you would blame the fault on Clinton.

 

[TheDude]

It also has nothing to do with the policy under Clinton that basically stated we would no longer pay for information from informants who were engaged in unsavory activities..

So it's ok to tolerate mass murderers, tyrants and any unsavory folk if it benefits us? Would Bush turn a blind eye on Saddam longer had he given us some juicy info on North Korea or any other 'hot' country? Somehow that would make the atrocities Bush so vehemently spoke against and why Iraq needed to be freed from Saddam's grasp acceptable?

I really do not get you righties sometimes..............

 

[fossten]

So it's ok to tolerate mass murderers, tyrants and any unsavory folk if it benefits us? Would Bush turn a blind eye on Saddam longer had he given us some juicy info on North Korea or any other 'hot' country? Somehow that would make the atrocities Bush so vehemently spoke against and why Iraq needed to be freed from Saddam's grasp acceptable?

I really do not get you righties sometimes..............

Once again, your premise is flawed. You attribute 'tolerating' Saddam to Bush, yet neither Bush ever did anything of the sort. You are trying to couple the actions of previous administrations during previous wars with this administration and this war. A very shoddy, sophomoric attempt to compare apples with oranges.

 

[TheDude]

Once again, your premise is flawed. You attribute 'tolerating' Saddam to Bush, yet neither Bush ever did anything of the sort. You are trying to couple the actions of previous administrations during previous wars with this administration and this war. A very shoddy, sophomoric attempt to compare apples with oranges.

Once again you really don't read what I write.... I said 'WOULD' Bush as a question, not Bush did as a fact. Talk about childish.

I was stating that I found it wrong that Calabrio was critizing Clinton for making it illegal to deal with murderers/tyrants if it suited us. Nothing else. Not that Bush did anything. Relax, your hero was not under attack here.