PDA

View Full Version : More of Bush’s lies, and “Sixteen Words”



elder999
22nd July 2003, 20:49
It’s not what you think.

I really don’t think that the President lied about Iraq buying uranium from Niger.

I know he didn’t lie about Iraq and other WMDs, but that’s neither here nor there.

This is about accountability.

Harry Truman had a famous sign on his desk that read:”The Buck Stops Here,” and his words and actions proved that he meant it.

American presidents have been caught in big international lies before, but have at least admitted culpability when the evidence against them was overwhelming. In 1960, when a U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union, President Dwight Eisenhower initially denied U.S. involvement. The CIA told Eisenhower that the pilot, Frances Gary Powers, had to be dead and carried nothing incriminating with him, and that the plane wreckage could be labeled "Communist propaganda." When Powers turned up alive in Moscow and made a full confession, Eisenhower sheepishly changed his story. When people in his administration tried to shift blame to a lesser CIA bureaucrat, Eisenhower hotly squashed the plan, insisting that as the Commander in Chief it was his ultimate responsibility.

A year later, as the CIA carried forward its scheme to invade Cuba with a battalion of “freedom fighters” trained in Central America, CIA pilots pretending to be Cuban Air Force defectors bombed Cuban installations. President Kennedy and United Nations ambassador Adlai Stevenson hotly denied U.S. involvement in the attack, which they attributed to independent Cuban "freedom fighters." However, the Cubans had proof. The planes the CIA pilots were flying were the same make and model as Cuban Air Force planes the Batista dictatorship had bought from the U.S. in the 1950s, but Batista had bought cheap planes with Plexiglas noses -- he was probably saving his money for the gambling dens and bordellos of Havana -- while the CIA planes had solid nose cones. Stevenson particularly was humiliated, and Kennedy was compelled to admit responsibility after the invasion turned into a disastrous defeat.

But Bush is admitting nothing, while Iraqis and U.S. troops continue to die.When asked about those sixteen words, he insists on our “darn good intel,” and offers, weakly, that it was "British intelligence" that reported this attempt by Iraq to buy uranium…well, Bush can say that "it wasn't my fault!" but everyone will agree that that's a far cry from "The Buck Stops Here."

Shitoryu Dude
22nd July 2003, 21:22
I agree that this whole thing is being handled poorly. Seems like they can't get a scapegoat on the altar fast enough.

This is going to haunt Bush for quite a while unless something comes up to distract from it. Even then its going to fester while the opposition keeps hammering on it throughout the election campaign.

:beer:

Rogier
23rd July 2003, 07:22
have you noticed that at the moment in just about every speech Bush and Blair give they emphasize how important it was to stop the regime killing thousands of people... their slowly but surely moving away from the weapons of mass destruction..

Mike Williams
23rd July 2003, 10:00
I really don't think the US administration (or public) ever gave two hoots about WMD. That was just a sop to bring international allies on board.

If the US felt strongly that WMD was a serious political issue, you can bet that some would have been "found" by now.

It's the British government that has come out of this with the eggiest face - by selling the war solely on the basis of eliminating the weapons, when all along it was clear that Bush had an entirely different agenda.

Cheers,

Mike

william northcote
23rd July 2003, 10:58
What some people are saying in the UK is that Bush is carrying on from where his father left off.

Even though it seemed the the claim from the BBC about inserting facts into a document was false and a respected scientist took the flak for it, there has been no WMD's found.

It is the same with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They have been there for 2 years nearly, and they have not been tried.

So untilBush decides to admit he lied, or partially admit liability, you can be sure no statement will come over lying. After all, he needs the position to maintain a standing in political world affairs. The next president may not be so willing to plan a New World Order :p

elder999
23rd July 2003, 14:54
Originally posted by Mike Williams
I really don't think the US administration (or public) ever gave two hoots about WMD. That was just a sop to bring international allies on board.

If the US felt strongly that WMD was a serious political issue, you can bet that some would have been "found" by now.


While I have stated that we should "just get it over with," in reference to Iraq, I can assure you that I cared about WMD as well as Saddam's oast ties to terrorist groups......

L-Fitzgerald
23rd July 2003, 18:43
It seems quite apparent that you really don't like him at all?

elder999
23rd July 2003, 18:52
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
It seems quite apparent that you really don't like him at all?

Well, I liked him a lot between Sept. 11, 2001 and the start of war in Afghanistan.
He seemed damned....."presidential" to me.;)

I loathe almost everything about his domestic policies, his cronyism, his oh-so-phony good ol' boy, hominy and cornpone, good cracker routine,his lack of intelligence(as I know quite a few intelligent genuine good ol'boys),his complete disregard for the environment, his complete disregard for social programs, his complete lack of fiscal senbsibility,his wanton disregard for the Constitution, his his lies, his more lies, and his damned lies.......

Did I mention he lies?

L-Fitzgerald
23rd July 2003, 18:54
Were you talking about him or the cracker from Arkansas? You know the one whose wife couldn't find any billing records from her work as an attorney, and then a UFO planted them in a White House Office........

elder999
23rd July 2003, 19:23
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
Were you talking about him or the cracker from Arkansas? You know the one whose wife couldn't find any billing records from her work as an attorney, and then a UFO planted them in a White House Office........

Didn't like the cracker from Arkansas or his wife much, either, but at least he was a genuine Rhodes scholar.....
....and they were GOOD liars, to stay out of jail the way they did!:(

Read my original post- I don't see how anyone could be happy with the way Mr. Bush and his administration are handling this particular issue. If he were just to come out and say it was his responsibility and he made a mistak, we could all forget about it. Instead,it's going to cast a pall over everything hed does for the next two years-even if we pull out of Iraq by thenm, which we probably won't.....

L-Fitzgerald
23rd July 2003, 19:30
Being intelligent does not necessarily mean a person is also wise. And if I'm not mistaken isn't there an old adage [perhaps Chinese] that states: "a diploma does not change a fool, it only disguises him?"

By the way, are you also aware that the "gentleman" from Arkansas is also a pardoned Federal Felon? And I'm not referring to the Impeachment proceedings.

elder999
23rd July 2003, 19:45
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
Being intelligent does not necessarily mean a person is also wise. And if I'm not mistaken isn't there an old adage [perhaps Chinese] that states: "a diploma does not change a fool, it only disguises him?"

By the way, are you also aware that the "gentleman" from Arkansas is also a pardoned Federal Felon? And I'm not referring to the Impeachment proceedings.

Yeah, but he's not the presidentnow;is he?

My Dad, one of the most educated people anyone could ever meet, used to say almost the same thing:

"You can stack a whole encyclopedia on a donkey's back, and you'll still just have a jackass."

Surely you're not saying that Bush is "wise?"

Were you aware that the "gentleman" from Arkansas said that Bush's mistake was understandable on national T.V. last night?


Bill Clinton, on "Larry King Live""You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," he said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=37&u=/ap/20030723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton_iraq_3

Mitch Saret
23rd July 2003, 20:39
First off, let me say that I agree the White House has doen a miserable job concerning the supposed lie in the 16 words. They should have stood by the comment. After all, the Brits are standing by it so in no way is it a lie. Unless you take it the way a new Democratic party ad has cut and spliced it.

Next, everyone who has focused on WMD's is missing the point of the action. Sure, WMD's were a part of it, but one of several reasons for going. Regime change, liberation of an oppressed people (like Bosnia, Somalia, etc.), ties to terroist groups, and more, through out the last 14 months or more and each reason was the focus of a different speech. Now, I am not there, nor am I an expert, but finding 2 trailers almost exactly as Colin Powell describes them, finding a centrifuge under a guys rose bush...I know it was old, but it was still functional. How many drive 10 year old cars, or have 10 year old TVs? Finding some material...to me, as a bystander, it certainly seems as if there is evidence and more will be found.

It boils down to this. The Clinton administration had enough evidence to make the same claims as well as bomb certain sites in Iraq. Then weapons inspectors were kicked out. Are we to believe that Sadaam Hussein, after kicking out these inspectors, survivng several bombings, and trying to get this program going for years, all of a sudden decided to comply with all of the UN resolutions, disarm, and not show anyone the proof before going to war with the U.S.? I tend to think otherwise. That's just my common sense.

As far as Clinton being a genuine Rhodes Scholar, well he was a Rhodesm Scholar, but he is not very genuine. Besides, how many book smart people do you know that are absolute idiots when it comes to life? I am not saying Clinon is clueless, just making a point. In regards to his comments on Larry King, well, it may just be another way of covering his a$$, even if he was closer to being correct than usual.

On our troops being killed at a daily rate. What we don't heear about is the response factor and how we are daily rooting out the Baathist's. I am sure by now everyone has heard on the firefight last night that resulted in the deaths of Uday and Qusay. This same kind of thing went on for several years at the end of WWII with those that were sympathetic to Hitler. Remember, we didn't know Hitler was dead or that he committed suicide for about 5 years. I think this was expected, at least I expected it. And I am sure military leaders expected it. I love all the politicians who say "I thought the president said the war was over." Something he never said. He said thatmajor combat operations were over. Not all combat, not the mission. This is a mission that over all will take several years and we have to be prepared for that. By the way, an international coalition of 19 nations have troops in Iraq right now.

elder999
23rd July 2003, 20:50
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
On our troops being killed at a daily rate.... ....By the way, an international coalition of 19 nations have troops in Iraq right now.

How many of them are dying every day?

I'd really like to know......

The reason the White House hasn't stood by the comment is that it has become evident that "somebody" in the administration knew that those words were based on false intelligence before the State of the Union Address..who knew, and how far up it goes continues to unravel

william northcote
23rd July 2003, 22:48
I smell a consiracy theory brewing here.

Nyuck3X
24th July 2003, 03:37
Quote from Mitch Saret:

Next, everyone who has focused on WMD's is missing the point of the action. Sure, WMD's were a part of it, but one of several reasons for going. Regime change, liberation of an oppressed people (like Bosnia, Somalia, etc.), ties to terroist groups, and more, through out the last 14 months or more and each reason was the focus of a different speech.

The problem here is, it was supposed to be a "pre-emptive strike".
Pre-emptive suggest stopping something before it starts.
Everything you described was already happening. That would be called
an intervening strike.

The White House cannot admit to lying because that was the whole
crux of the Clinton impeachment. If it's established that he lied
during his duty, he could theoretically be impeached.

One side plays to one set of rules, then when it gets into office,
it changes the rules again. Example: Clinton on smoking pot,
"I didn't inhale." George Jr. on cocaine use, "next question..."
He never really addressed the subject and no one pushes it.
Curious George doesn't answer half the questions asked. He always
dishes out a red herring and avoids the issue.

Mitch Saret
24th July 2003, 04:49
How many of them are dying every day?

That is a good question and I wish I had the answer. We have seen reports of Brtish troops being killed, but no others.


The reason the White House hasn't stood by the comment is that it has become evident that "somebody" in the administration knew that those words were based on false intelligence before the State of the Union Address..who knew, and how far up it goes continues to unravel

Where is it false? The statement was British intelligence has learned...the British still stand by the intelligence. What is incorrect about the statement?


The problem here is, it was supposed to be a "pre-emptive strike".

Actually, it has been termed a resumption of hostilities in a response to failure to abide by the terms of the cessation of them. Pre-emptive is the term that has been used by opponents of the war saying it has never been done before. And if you think that there is a terrorist connection then it is a continuation of the war o terror which was unanimously approved.


The White House cannot admit to lying because that was the whole crux of the Clinton impeachment. If it's established that he lied during his duty, he could theoretically be impeached.

I think the difference was Clinton lied under oath during a court proceeding earning him a perjury charge, contempt of court charge, and removal of his law license for a few years. Hardly comparing apples and apples.

While I agree that some of the things elder has come up with are lies that we should be concerned about, these 16 words have yet to be shown as a lie. I believe WMD's will be found. I believe there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Even when I was in service, in the early 80's, when Iran and Iraq were at war and we were helping Iraq, we heard talk of how someday we would have to "take care of that problem someday." Now it seems as though Iran is trying to be our friend. If one thing is for sure, particularly in that part of the world, it's that nothing stays the same.

Mike Williams
24th July 2003, 09:57
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Next, everyone who has focused on WMD's is missing the point of the action. Sure, WMD's were a part of it, but one of several reasons for going. Regime change, liberation of an oppressed people (like Bosnia, Somalia, etc.), ties to terroist groups, and more, through out the last 14 months or more and each reason was the focus of a different speech.

The point is that there was a UN mandate for the removal of WMD - and that mandate could be (and was) used to justify military action under international law. There was no mandate for any of the other stuff, and initiating a conflict without UN backing is illegal. Hence all the emphasis on WMD in the run-up to the war, and hence the reason Tony Blair is so desperately clinging on to that issue. US public opinion would forgive Bush for fighting an illegal war in Iraq under false pretenses - the British public (who were largely against the conflict from the outset) would not.

I'm still really surprised that Bush hasn't helped his buddy Tony out by making sure some stockpiles of chemical agents were "found" somewhere in Iraq. I'm sure suitable "evidence" could be presented to the world media if the administration really thought WMD were a big deal.

Cheers,

Mike

larsen_huw
24th July 2003, 10:07
President Bush may be a moron (i beleive that is someone with an IQ of below 85, something a phycology student told me ... dunno if it's accurate?), but he seems to have surounded himself with some very clever advisors. I personaly see him as an announcer type puppet for his advisors.

I question i would like to know the answer to is: is he clever enough to know when he's being manipulated into saying what his advisors want?

L-Fitzgerald
24th July 2003, 12:02
In response to the question: "are you saying Bush is wise." I was not speaking of George Bush, but the disbarred lawyer from Arkansas, and give very little credence to any comments he makes. My point was that even with his "notable" education the man decided to be known in history as a skirt chaser, not unlike the man he so admired and met in the White House many years ago.

And in closing I must admit that I often forget how quickly political discussions meaningless diatribe mumbled by the masses that don't have a clue.........

elder999
24th July 2003, 14:31
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
In response to the question: "are you saying Bush is wise." I was not speaking of George Bush, but the disbarred lawyer from Arkansas, and give very little credence to any comments he makes. My point was that even with his "notable" education the man decided to be known in history as a skirt chaser, not unlike the man he so admired and met in the White House many years ago.

And in closing I must admit that I often forget how quickly political discussions meaningless diatribe mumbled by the masses that don't have a clue.........

Since you keep bringing up the pardon Clinton received from Jimmy Carter for draft evasion, should we get into Bush's lies about waht he did before he was President?
I was talking about Bush. The disbarred lawyer from Arkansas has, as you have pretty much stated, been relegated to history and the lecture circuit.Since you mentioned Kennedy as well,we could just as easily mention the peccadillos and foibles of each President-Eisenhower's affair, Roosevelt's as well, Wilson's racism, back to Jefferson(affair, and misegenation-oh, the horror!)

Presidents have always been human-and fallible.


We were speaking of Mr. Bush's humanity (or lack thereof) and failings, about which I am far from clueless.

Ben Bartlett
24th July 2003, 14:45
On the uranium issue, the fact that it was a lie or misstatement (whichever you prefer) revolves around the fact of the use of the word "learned" as opposed to "claimed", and the fact that the CIA had already informed the White House (and British Intelligence) that any claims of Iraq attempting to buy uranium from Africa were highly suspect.

Of course, the bigger lie that's been missed in all of this is the supposed Al-Qaida connection to Iraq, which was always a rather dubious claim, and which more and more evidence shows never actually existed. If anything, that's the claim most likely to come back to haunt the administration.

That said, it will be interesting to see where the fault for the uranium claim ultimately lies. Odds are, it's going to either end up in the lap of Rice or Cheney, as Rice is in charge of the NSC, and the request to review the Niger documents came from Cheney. What Bush has to worry about is not that he'll end up looking like a liar (as I don't think he ever did have knowledge that the uranium claims were false), but a fool who was easily manipulated by his advisers. That may sound like a long shot, but remember, that was one of the concerns about him back when he was first running for President. Anything that confirmed that fear could be deadly, politically speaking. What puts him in worse shape is there's a lot of bad blood between the CIA and the White House, as the former feels though the latter pushed them to produce intelligence they didn't feel was credible, and so we can expect to see further leaks from various members of the CIA about who in the administration did what.

Bush may manage to survive all this, of course, if he has enough political savvy. But some heads in the administration are almost certain to roll.

L-Fitzgerald
24th July 2003, 16:55
At the risk of repeating myself:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald:
It seems quite apparent that you really don't like him at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

elder999
24th July 2003, 17:04
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
At the risk of repeating myself:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald:
It seems quite apparent that you really don't like him at all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And your point is??

I certainly don't bear Mr. Bush any personal animosity. I don't, as some others on this board have said, think he's evil-as much as I think he's stupid.

It's his policies I don't like, and his lies-not just the fact of them, but the quality and quantity of them.

L-Fitzgerald
24th July 2003, 17:18
I simply made an observation, and minor comparison to others that have gone before him. And although, according to some he is stupid and a liar, there is one quality no one seems to want to acknowledge in that he doesn't fit the mold of past presidents [his father is also excluded]in that he doesn't "cat" around.

As for the war, I'm not thrilled with the fact that we've gotten rid of an extremely unenlighted despot, and his two lunatic sons, and our soldiers are still being killed, but consider this: where we would be if Saddam had been allowed to continue, and had later managed to hook up with the man running North Korea?"

It seems that the UN is the paper tiger of the world, but it is the President is being taken to task for having the courage to remove a mad man from power after more than a dozen UN resolutions were ignored. And this president used the same reasons cited by the previous administration to act, and instead of just bombing an aspirin factory decided that it was reaching a point where no action could possibly have cost more lives than just those lost on 9-11.

Ben Bartlett
24th July 2003, 17:29
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald

As for the war, I'm not thrilled with the fact that we've gotten rid of an extremely unenlighted despot, and his two lunatic sons, and our soldiers are still being killed, but consider this: where we would be if Saddam had been allowed to continue, and had later managed to hook up with the man running North Korea?"


Well, first, there's a bit of silly speculation here, in that there's no evidence whatsoever that Iraq and North Korea were interested in forming any sort of alliance. Second, there's no question Iraq was a problem, but it was a problem that intelligence estimates showed we actually had about 5 years to deal with. That means we could've given the weapons inspectors a year like they asked, built up some more international support, and, most importantly, taken some time to come up with a good post-war strategy for rebuilding Iraq. Basically, what we had was a rush job (which would've been fine if there actually had been some sort of imminent threat, but there wasn't).

What's worse, we've been ignoring North Korea, where there really is an imminent threat. Not to mention there are still ongoing problems in Afghanistan that need to be dealt with (and we still need to finish tracking down bin Laden). And we could've spent more of the money we're spending in Iraq on our national security while we were at it.

At any rate, it's not that Iraq wasn't a problem. It's just that it was a very hyped-up problem, and shouldn't have taken the priority it did. Bush was correct in dealing with it, but he dealt with it in a relatively poor way, while ignoring more important threats.

elder999
24th July 2003, 17:32
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
I simply made an observation, and minor comparison to others that have gone before him. And although, according to some he is stupid and a liar, there is one quality no one seems to want to acknowledge in that he doesn't fit the mold of past presidents [his father is also excluded]in that he doesn't "cat" around.

Well, we don't know that he doesn't "cat" around, now do we?
Maybe he just gets away with it better, for now.
Maybe he and the wife have an "understanding."

What difference does it make? If he did he would be in good company:Roosevelt, Eisenhower,Kennedy and Jefferson all had mistresses.

I'll acknowledge that he doesn't. Good for him and the Mrs.
I don't either, nor do I lie, and I'm not President.




As for the war, I'm not thrilled with the fact that we've gotten rid of an extremely unenlighted despot, and his two lunatic sons, and our soldiers are still being killed, but consider this: where we would be if Saddam had been allowed to continue, and had later managed to hook up with the man running North Korea?"

This has nothing to do with my feelings about the war; hell, I was in favor of finishing off Saddam before 9-11. This isn't even about his lying-all Presidents and politicians have been guilty of one sort of lie or another. This is about accountability. As pPResident, he should come forward and shoulder the blame for what was said in his speech, instead of "blaming" the British, Condoleeza Rice, the CIA and anyone else. He should say it was his mistake, and move on.




It seems that the UN is the paper tiger of the world, but it is the President is being taken to task for having the courage to remove a mad man from power after more than a dozen UN resolutions were ignored. And this president used the same reasons cited by the previous administration to act, and instead of just bombing an aspirin factory decided that it was reaching a point where no action could possibly have cost more lives than just those lost on 9-11.

Again, this isn't about the reasons or necessity of removing Saddam,
or the mess of the war's aftermath. I agree with you about the U.N., and then some. History will show whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good thing;I still think it was, though it may prove to be more of a mess than anyone anticipated.

This president has acted decisively, but he has also told numerous lies, and his domestic policies are a mess-an equally decisive mess that shows no regard for the American public, the middle class, the working poor, the environment or the economy.

Of course, we're at war, so I shouldn't care about those things, or his lies, huh?

L-Fitzgerald
24th July 2003, 17:35
I cannot recall the wording of the last UN resolution, but wasn't Saddam given a specific deadline [after more than 12 other UN Mandates had been ignored] to comply, and was not in fact complying, regardless of what Hans Blix said. As a result of the war Saddam and his cronies were proven to have been playing a shell game with the Inspectors down to the point of monitoring their radio frequencies, and knowing of their itinerary before the Inspectors left their compounds.

I read and hear news reports about how the UN is up in arms about the genocide that is taking place in Africa, but not one word of the genocide Saddam implemented against his own people.....

To quote a movie line......."the evil has been demolished" Amen and Thank God for that....

elder999
24th July 2003, 18:20
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
I cannot recall the wording of the last UN resolution, but wasn't Saddam given a specific deadline [after more than 12 other UN Mandates had been ignored] to comply, and was not in fact complying, regardless of what Hans Blix said. As a result of the war Saddam and his cronies were proven to have been playing a shell game with the Inspectors down to the point of monitoring their radio frequencies, and knowing of their itinerary before the Inspectors left their compounds.

I read and hear news reports about how the UN is up in arms about the genocide that is taking place in Africa, but not one word of the genocide Saddam implemented against his own people.....

To quote a movie line......."the evil has been demolished" Amen and Thank God for that....

Yeah, but Bush is still a liar-and he'll let someone take the blame for it,instead of doing what's right.

L-Fitzgerald
24th July 2003, 18:56
Ah yes, your are correct its a shame that in the rather short history of our Republic he is the first President that has told the American public a lie!

Cady Goldfield
24th July 2003, 19:19
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
Ah yes, your are correct its a shame that in the rather short history of our Republic he is the first President that has told the American public a lie!

Hm? But when Clinton lied everyone was all over him like a cheap suit. Why isn't that happening with the current president?

william northcote
24th July 2003, 19:30
By saying that Bush is a liar to his face and proving it, you also say that the American spy network, the information gatherers, and the people that work to keep your homeland safe liars as well. On Fox they even said there is stil no communication between government agencies, so any infomation can be added or withdrawn without anyone actually knowing.

If he did admit to the lie, he would have to justify an invasion of a 3rd world country and drag the UK and USA intellegence, government and our own security agencies along with him.

To say that their was no WMD at this point would see him ousted from office and humiliated. All Bush wanted was to get rid of Saddam and has done his goal with some white lies along the way.

elder999
24th July 2003, 20:02
Originally posted by Will Northcote
By saying that Bush is a liar to his face and proving it, you also say that the American spy network, the information gatherers, and the people that work to keep your homeland safe liars as well. On Fox they even said there is stil no communication between government agencies, so any infomation can be added or withdrawn without anyone actually knowing.

If he did admit to the lie, he would have to justify an invasion of a 3rd world country and drag the UK and USA intellegence, government and our own security agencies along with him.

To say that their was no WMD at this point would see him ousted from office and humiliated. All Bush wanted was to get rid of Saddam and has done his goal with some white lies along the way.

Don't misunderstand me.

I believe Iraq did possess weapons of mass destruction.It's an easy place to dispose of them rapidly, and it may never be proven.

This thread isn't about lying; though I do take issue with some of Mr. Bush's lies, I recognize that they have their place in...uhhhh...."statesmanship.":rolleyes:

I simply am saying that he should take responsibility for saying something that has been proven to be untrue.He doesn't even have to say "I lied," though he may have......he just has to say it was his fault.

In it's own way, this is a bigger indicator of faulty character than the act of lying-or sleeping around, or sleeping around and lying about it.

I don't really think most of America cares about WMD when it comes to Iraq, or connections between Iraq and N. Korea-whose biggest source of income is arms trade, BTW-something I know a lot about.

Or Iraq's proven connections-however weak-to al Qaeda.

I don't think this is an indictment of the support apparatus-intelligence, advisors, etc. It's being made fairly clear that the CIA had their doubts about hte whole "attempt to buy uranium from Niger" scenario and documents MONTHS before the SOTU address.

America is going to oust Bush from office, and those sixteen words will be part of the reason why. The continuing quagmire that is proving to be post-war Iraq is another, but in the end it will be about-as in all things American, it seems-MONEY.

Our economy is in suffering, and Mr. Bush's attempts to correct it will not change anything in the next 2 years. In the end, his high popularity won't gain him anything, just like his father before him.


Hm? But when Clinton lied everyone was all over him like a cheap suit. Why isn't that happening with the current president?

Because we're at WAR,Cady. Haven't you heard?

Chuck Munyon
24th July 2003, 20:21
What the hey, I'll call him on it. Mr. Bush, I think you're a liar and a moron, and furthermore...

Can I help you gentlemen?
Guantanamo? No thanks.
What do you mean I have no choice? I want a lawyer!
No lawyer? You can't do this! I'm a US citizen!
What do you mean I'm not a citizen anymore?

This scenario brought to you by PAPSMEAR- Patriot Act Paranoia Starts Making Everyone Appease Republicans.

elder999
24th July 2003, 20:30
Originally posted by Chuck Munyon
What the hey, I'll call him on it. Mr. Bush, I think you're a liar and a moron, and furthermore...

Can I help you gentlemen?
Guantanamo? No thanks.
What do you mean I have no choice? I want a lawyer!
No lawyer? You can't do this! I'm a US citizen!
What do you mean I'm not a citizen anymore?

This scenario brought to you by PAPSMEAR- Patriot Act Paranoia Starts Making Everyone Appease Republicans.

PAPSMEAR!!ROFLMAO!

It's not funny, though...

william northcote
24th July 2003, 20:43
In one of the free newspapers in the public transportstion system (the bus), it said on the front of the paper that Guantanamo bay is abusing the human rights act :o

So will anyone tell Bush to get his act together and get them to stand trial, for if their are any violations, they will walk for mistreatment they have suffered.

Also what are these 16 words?

elder999
24th July 2003, 20:49
Originally posted by Will Northcote
Also what are these 16 words?


The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

No one, outside of those at Guantanamo, really knows what exactly is being violated.

L-Fitzgerald
25th July 2003, 11:59
"Gee Sargent Krumpsky - I'm depraved cause I woz deprived" my life is such a mess - my sister wears a mustache - my brother wears a dress..." but lets give those that wanted to kill us in the night, or without warning, those that killed more Americans in a single day than the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor the freedom to do it again. And don't forget that when Mossauri [sp?]is permitted to have other Al Quida members testify as witnesses for the defense that they wont lie because they're under oath, and have nothing but the greatest respect for our laws and freedom. Just look at the freedom they gave women and children in Afghanistan! A shining example of human rights, just as the Russian Constitution was when Stalin was running the country....

As Sherman said "war is hell" and we are at war! against rogue states, and terrorists....

william northcote
25th July 2003, 12:55
Well as America is always wanting to go from Iraq to N. Korea, when are the armed forces going to stop over in Zimbabwe and stop the human rights violations that is being commited there?

It seems that Bush only had one agenda and he has completed that. Now all he has to do is quash the lie and make himself popular with the people who have short term memory loss.

L-Fitzgerald
25th July 2003, 12:57
If our troops go through Zimbabwae does this mean that Koffe Annin wont get his cut from having the UN supervise food handouts?

william northcote
25th July 2003, 13:16
Within Africa there are many human right abuse cases, they are not brought to the UN due to political or economical reasons.

Whether Mugabe is in power or not, the etire contenant is commiting abuse. Villages was burned during the Gulf War this year and it was not reported. Hundreds massacred and no one batted an eyelid to the plight of the people. I mentioned it a few months ago in another thread about the Gulf War when the fighting had "officially" finished.

william northcote
25th July 2003, 13:27
found that thread it is here:

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=18377&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

Mitch Saret
25th July 2003, 19:56
It seems that Bush only had one agenda and he has completed that. Now all he has to do is quash the lie and make himself popular with the people who have short term memory loss.

Will, if you were talking about the ones elder999 brought up in another thread, ok. If you are still harping on these 16 words


The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

I can't find any untruth here. The British government still says this is the case. Beyond all that, those 16 words were not the reason for going to Iraq.

One other thing, Will. Those in Gitmo...Guantanamo Bay, are POW's, or at least enemy combatants. At least that is how they have been classified. As such, they do not get trials and are not subject to our judicial rules and laws. Is this a matter of convenience? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. How should terrorists and their enablers be classified?

You also mentioned one other point:


I mentioned it a few months ago in another thread about the Gulf War when the fighting had "officially" finished.

In this case I focus on the part about the fighting officially finished. Who said that? I don't ever recall the fighting being finished or the war being over. I recall "major combat operations" being over. No troops in mass fronting an assault, but still there for fighting in the "mop-up" operations...like they are doing.

william northcote
25th July 2003, 20:15
According to UK news the fighting is over, the Gulf war logos have dissapeared and it is now an occupation. They were supposed to remove the armed forces a few months ago, but they remain.

Everyone believes that the war in Iraq is over, but the War on Terror is ongoing, according to Fox news.


One other thing, Will. Those in Gitmo...Guantanamo Bay, are POW's, or at least enemy combatants. At least that is how they have been classified. As such, they do not get trials and are not subject to our judicial rules and laws. Is this a matter of convenience? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. How should terrorists and their enablers be classified?

Terrorists are dealt with through the courts. The Provisional Irish Republican Army, or the IRA, was sentenced through normal court procedures. McVeigh, an American terrorist was tried through civillian court. So these people that Bush says "Are nasty men", should not be tried? Since when was the last time America or the UN held someone without trial for a few years?

By saying Enemy Combatants, they are just being P.C about not saying P.O.W. Depending on the circumstances surrounding their capture, they could either be civillians trying to defend themselves in a country that is more backwards than a tachyon particle, or a armed malitia fighter. Nothing is know of the prisoners details, and nothing is known of what is actually going on. Claims against the camp have been made of human rights violations, and then nothing, no one wants to know.


I can't find any untruth here. The British government still says this is the case. Beyond all that, those 16 words were not the reason for going to Iraq.

And if it is proven wrong, the war was a lie and unfair. But no one cares now, it is over and done with. Life moves on. All we have to wait for now is the next war, while we show repeats on National Geographic's History channel.

Ben Bartlett
25th July 2003, 22:02
Actually, they're using "Enemy Combatants" instead of POWs not because they wish to be PC, but because under the Geneva Convention POWs are accorded certain rights that the administration doesn't wish those who were captured in Afghanistan to have.

Mitch Saret
26th July 2003, 02:12
And if it is proven wrong, the war was a lie and unfair.

Only if that were the sole basis for the war, and it was not.


Everyone believes that the war in Iraq is over, but the War on Terror is ongoing, according to Fox news.

Who is everyone? The war on terror is ongoing, and Iraq has been and will continue to be a part of it. It is an occupation as well, but an occupation does not end combat. It didn't in Germany or Japan in WWII, it still hasn't in Korea as there are DMZ encounters regularly, it didn't in Viet Nam as we were trying to evac, and we could go on. The only thing over in Iraq is "major combat operations" as the president said. We will continue to have minor altercations for quite some time.

elder999
30th July 2003, 16:49
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday accepted personal responsibility for a controversial portion of last winter's State of the Union address dealing with claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear material in Africa.


"I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference where he sought to quell a controversy that has dogged his administration for weeks.

Starkjudo
30th July 2003, 17:04
I just wish he had said that two weeks ago. It would have calmed everything down quite a bit.

Rob Thornton

L-Fitzgerald
30th July 2003, 17:19
clever than people would believe. And the tactic of letting the hue and cry remain unanswered is a direct response to prevent giving any appearance of being sensitive to the whims of the media, or their polls. Or perhaps, he knows more facts than he cares to reveal, and is not yet ready to reveal these or the reasons why the British remain steadfast in their original assessment. Simply taking another tack in the daily chore of dealing with those that want him gone, either now or in 04.

And this is being stated in light of a recent news report wherein it was stated that in Iraq a trove of documents detailing all the various programs had been found, but that it would take over 6 months to sort through. However, it was also noted by a former Weapons Inspector that these documents would eventually provide the proof being demanded regarding the "missing" WMD.

elder999
30th July 2003, 17:27
Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
the reasons why the British remain steadfast in their original assessment. Simply taking another tack in the daily chore of dealing with those that want him gone, either now or in 04.


Their original assesment was wrong, pure and simple.

In the first place, Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake uranium-the material he's alleged to have been trying to obtain from Niger-that's been under lock and key since 1992 or so.

He didn't need to try and get it;he had it. Get it?

In the second place,there are four countries that produce uranium in Africa:Niger, Nigeria, Gabon and South Africa.

We won't bother with South Africa-it's pretty much divested itself of the nuclear "business" after Nelson Mandela.

Gabon, Niger and Nigeria all produce uranium under the direction of....France...hmmmm? you might say, but the French have a fairly extensive nuclear power program-they're not selling uranium to anyone, unless it's in the form of fuel rods, something Saddam couldn't use to make a bomb.

This "assessment"(funny how no one wants to say "forgery") was proven to be far from true more than a year ago.

It sure sounded good, though.....

L-Fitzgerald
30th July 2003, 17:32
since I longer have access to Intel assessments as I once did while serving in the Navy, I can not say what is absolute........ and I refuse to accept the selective drivel that passes for news these days as truth..... I prefer to wait just a bit longer until all the facts are in................ beats spiking the blood pressure

Jeff Cook
30th July 2003, 17:32
Point One: The British government has said they have evidence that has NOTHING to do with the fake Niger document. So why is the Niger document still being discussed?

Point Two: The war is not illegal by UN standards. The charter clearly states that if any member country is threatened, the member country can take action WITHOUT further UN authorization. There was considerable evidence provided BY THE UN that Saddam still had WMD. He clearly expressed the intent and had a history of using WMD. We felt threatened, we took action.

Pres. Bush a liar? Maybe, but not proven. Innocent until proven guilty, therefore I will not use the harsh and unproven lable of "liar."

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

elder999
30th July 2003, 17:39
Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Point One: The British government has said they have evidence that has NOTHING to do with the fake Niger document. So why is the Niger document still being discussed?

Pres. Bush a liar? Maybe, but not proven. Innocent until proven guilty, therefore I will not use the harsh and unproven lable of "liar."

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu


I said in the beginning that i didn't think he was lying in this instance.

I-for one-would be interested in what this evidence the "British government" is, exactly.

Pres. Bush is a proven liar-time and time again.I will use the simple lable:if the shoe fit's , wear it.:rolleyes:

Jeff Cook
30th July 2003, 17:43
I would love to see the British intel too.

Can you give me some examples of what he lied about? I must have missed them when I scanned this thread. I got the impression he was branded a liar because of the 16 words.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

elder999
30th July 2003, 17:56
You can start with a look here:

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20084&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

He's been lying since he started campaigning for the job, though, and hasn't stopped. Many of his latest and greatest are substantial...

George W. Bush is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was.

On the web, Bushwatch.com maintains a special "Bush Lies" section, while another site, Dailyhowler.com, keeps up a running commentary on the president's alleged untruths.

Bush is getting away with his lies even as his predecessor was flayed for lesser offenses. If a Democrat, say, Bill Clinton, engaged in Bush-scale dishonesty, the press would be all over him.Unless the voters and the press start paying attention, all the president's lies will have little political consequence — except to certify that we have become something less than a democracy.

In his October 7 address to the nation on the subject of Iraq, the president warned that Saddam Hussein had a growing fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used, in Bush's words, "for missions targeting the United States." That statement, was dubious, if not wrong, because a CIA report on the unmanned aircraft said nothing about having sufficient range to threaten the United States.


"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.

Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a U.S. invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "¤¤¤¤ Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.
Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for U.S. control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a U.S. that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the U.S. Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.

2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.
Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.
Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way:
"Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S. government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."
4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.
The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The U.S. persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges."
5) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.
Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.

In 2000 and 2001 Bush promised that Social Security Funds would remain in a lockbox and that “we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits even if the economy softens” since his budget projections are “cautious and conservative”.

This is a classic case of The Big Lie and fuzzy math. The simple truth is that, due to Bush’s $1.35 trillion giveaway, a $236 billion budget surplus has been wasted and we face a projected record deficit of $307 billion in 2004. Bush’s 2004 budget will increase the national debt by $2-3 trillion and require that the government use the entire Social Security surplus to fund its deficits.
As the budget deficit emerged, Bush assured us that the deficits would be “small and temporary” while repeatedly claiming that during the 2000 campaign he said he would allow the federal budget to go into deficit in times of war, recession or national emergency, but never imagined he would have a “trifecta”. When asked to identify when this occurred, the Bush administration claims it was during a 2000 Chicago campaign stop.
Bush never made such a statement in Chicago nor anywhere else during the 2000 campaign. In fact, these three caveats on deficits were stated on several occasions by Vice President Gore.

Bush’s attempt to pin the deficit on the war also is a misstatement, since the cost of the Bush tax cuts is three times the cost of the response to 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Faced with growing deficits, President Bush and Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, now claim that deficits do not matter and have no impact on interest rates.

As recent as 2002 the President said, “I’m mindful of what overspending can mean to interest rates or expectations of interest rates.” As for Hubbard, the 2002 edition of his textbook “Money, the Financial System and the Economy” not only states that higher deficits increase interest rates but also provides a formula to calculate the increase in interest rates per dollar increase in spending or tax cuts.
In fact, in July 2003 interest rates on 10-year U.S. Treasuries jumped from 3.1% to almost 4%. Leading Treasury Secretary Snow to call the deficit “worrisome” and express concern that federal borrowing would crowd out private investment.
2003 STATE OF THE UNION LIES

LIE: “To date we have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaeda.

FACT: Most Al Qaeda leaders remain at large, including Osama bin Laden and September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The US has captured and/or killed as many as 16 lower echelon Al Qaeda leaders. (AP 12.27.02, Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response)

LIE: “We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to strengthen the global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.”

FACT: The Bush administration has cut funding for programs to remove nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union, rejected a Russian proposal to eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons (preferring instead that they be kept in “storage”), and blocked efforts to strengthen treaties preventing the spread of biological and chemical weapons. (Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response)

LIE: Bush asked Congress to “add to our security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorist, call Project Bioshield. The budget I will send will propose almost $6 billion to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments”.

FACT: Bush proposed no increase in funding for the National Institute of Health but this did not stop Bush from a photo-op visit the day his budget was released. (Milbank – Washington Post 02.07.03)

LIE: “We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations.”

FACT: Bush’s budget calls for a record deficit of $307 billion deficit without even including the potential cost of a war with Iraq.
LIE: After being transferred from the Texas Air National Guard “I was in [Alabama] on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time.”

FACT: Bush was AWOL and never showed up at the Alabama Air National Guard, despite orders to report on specific days. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush returned to Houston after his temporary Alabama assignment and performed Guard duty at Ellington Air Force Base.

FACT: National Guard records indicate Bush had “not been observed” at the Houston base and the unit’s administrative officer has no recall of Bush returning and believed he was still in Alabama. (Democrats.com)

LIE: Bush applied to Harvard Business School in 1972 since “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I has [sic] trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”

FACT: Bush’s commitment was through May 1974 and his unit continued to fly F-102s through 1974.

gmanry
30th July 2003, 19:01
You are just a big liberal meanie...;)

elder999
31st July 2003, 02:02
Originally posted by gmanry
You are just a big liberal meanie...;)

I'm NOT a liberal at all...

I would have voted for McCain, if he had gotten the nomination.
Of course, better Bush after 9-11 than McCain.....

With hindsight, I should have voted for Gore TWICE.

mtom1234
7th March 2004, 05:24
Britain:

<A href="http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/apostolou200401281314.asp">Baathist Broadcasting Corporation Blasted</a>
The great antiwar claim has been exposed as a lie.

By Andrew Apostolou

Iraq-AQ:

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29949">Iraq-al-Qaida links go back decade</a>
December 11, 2002

<A HREF="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571">Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection</a>
By <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=557">Jonathan Schanzer</a>
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy | January 17, 2003

February 18, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
<A HREF="http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-ijaz021803.asp">Hand in Glove
Iraq and al Qaeda.</a>

By Mansoor Ijaz

<A HREF="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidhorowitz/printdh20030404.shtml">The War Has Refuted The Opposition</a>
David Horowitz
April 4, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34841">Iraq-al-Qaida link revealed </a>
Saddam part of 'money-laundering operation' for Islamic terror group
September 30, 2003

Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 12:54 p.m. EST
<A HREF="http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/18/132000.shtml">Woolsey: Iraq-al Qaeda Link a 'Slam Dunk'</a>

<A HREF="http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20031201-123723-4738r">Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus</A>
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 1, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36719">Prisoner links al-Qaida to Iraq?
Allegedly led terror plan to intimidate Europe from supporting war</a>
January 22, 2004

<A HREF="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37255">Iraqi prisoner details Saddam-al-Qaida link</a>
Man worked for Hussein aide who funneled cash, arms to terror group
February 23, 2004

Walt. V Kopitov
7th March 2004, 21:41
I don’t know how many people recall the Reagan era, but there had been many terrorist groups that murdered people. Nothing could slow them down and it was said nothing could stop them. After the fall of the evil empire documents were found in East Germany that linked East Germany to many if not all of the terrorist groups. East Germany supported these groups financially and with its fall the money stopped and many of these groups withered away. Thank you President Reagan.
President Reagan was probably hated as much as President Bush is now. The neo-communists acted the same with President Reagan as they do today with President Bush. If President Reagan had not stood up to the neo-communists and the evil empire these acts of terrorism would have continued and the Soviet Union would still be a danger. We now find the USA in similar situation, not exactly the same but close. The danger we and the world are in was demonstrated on 9/11 by the murder of 3000 people. Al Qaeda took responsibility for this action, and they had support of at least one country, Afghanistan. There is absolutely no doubt that Iraq supported terrorist groups. The anti Bush crowds do not believe there are links to al Qaeda, but in the secretive world it would not be advertised. As of today there is no concrete proof but there are many links that suggest Iraq helped al Qaeda. I for one beleive any country that supports terrorism should be taken out, if they don't stop.
If President Bush can be as successful as President Reagan then the world will be a much safer place, and so far President Bush is doing it right. Evidence that President Bush’s actions are working is demonstrated by the actions of Iran and Libya that are now allowing inspections of their nuclear programs. This makes the world a tiny bit safer, but much more needs to be done

On the web, Bushwatch.com maintains a special "Bush Lies" section, while another site, Dailyhowler.com, keeps up a running commentary on the president's alleged untruths.
These dangerous neo-communists anti Bush groups care not a thing about the safety of the citizens of the US. Their goal is to take President Bush out of office. If these groups can convince the public to vote out President Bush then we will be at the edge of world wide disaster. These groups by default are supporting the terrorists, since these groups are doing exactly what the terrorist would love to see, President Bush out of power(it was reported that N. Korea is supporting Senator Kerry for Pesident). We have two choices, believe President Bush is honorable and support the war on terrorism, or believe the neo-communist anti-Bush crowd and by extension support what the terrorist would like to see, Bush out of office. The choice is yours.

Gene Williams
7th March 2004, 21:45
Thanks Walter. You are right on the money.

Walt. V Kopitov
17th March 2004, 10:20
Al Jazeera Praises Kerry (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/16/132854.shtml)

elder999
22nd March 2004, 04:23
Ex-adviser blasts Bush's Terror Response (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040322/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser&cid=544&ncid=716)

Walt. V Kopitov
22nd March 2004, 10:56
9/11: For The Record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html)

Walt. V Kopitov
22nd March 2004, 11:28
Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143)

Iain
22nd March 2004, 11:33
I love the way western media establishments go after Al-Jazeera simply because they have scooped every single story since the outbreak of open hostilities between Arab countries and the West. Al-Quaida network my pasty white a$$. Exactly which westerners believe al-jazeera is a vehicle of evil, pray tell? How many westerners could even tell you what the hell Al-Jazeera broadcasts? It's an Arabic network, and last time I checked, there weren't a great deal of yellow-dog republicans that could speak Arabic.

Walt. Go elsewhere for your news. I can smell the reek of partisan trash from across the border. Don't get sucked in by the partisan propaganda machine. Especially not one as woefully concieved as the current republican effort. Honestly, I've read more sensible things from copies of Pravda circa 1935. I really honestly have. Pravda was much more poetic too. I always say the state of your nation is inversely related to the quality of your propaganda.

I never thought I would have the distinction of watching someone so openly and freely smearing their brain-poop across the internet as this. I mean it really ranks up there with one of the 'communism experts' of the Macarthy witch hunts telling everyone he went to the extreme lengths of learning Russian so he could read Marx 'in his original language':rolleyes:

The Jackassery that passes for politics in North America never ceases to amaze me.

Walt. V Kopitov
22nd March 2004, 12:32
Gee I think I hit a nerve. I went to Al Jazeera on the net and read the article in question. I don’t read Arabic but luckily the have an English version of their Arabic web site. The article is accurate in its summary of the Al Jazeera article.

Iain
22nd March 2004, 13:26
Al Jazeera is no more biased in its writing than CNN, and -I believe- less so than Fox 'news'.

So what if the people running the station prefer Kerry to Bush? Everyone has an opinion on everything, and that is inevitably going to taint whatever is written. What you do is read as much as you can, sift through the muck, and do your best to make an informed opinion.

Yeah, you hit a nerve. I know propaganda when I read it, and that news article -regardless of what it might say about Al Jazeera supporting Kerry- is most certainly propaganda. Al Jazeera is not a pro-terrorist mouthpiece. It recieves much of its funding from wealthy Saudi and Jordanian princes who have their own rather substantial problems with fundamentalist militants within their own countries. Al Jazeera was at the butt of some reporting by Fox 'news' based not on what or how they were reporting it, but because they have consistently scooped Western media outlets on almost every story in the middle east. Yeah, they aren't forever ballyhooing the war in Iraq, and they don't air a 9/11 montage every other week, but that's not their audience. They play for people living in the area, deal with salient issues to the people living in the middle east, and the coverage reflects that. They are critical of the US on a rather consistent basis, but unless you by the 'for or against us' crap that mini-Bush spoon-feeds you, that doesn't mean they run around promoting terrorism or harboring criminals.

Yes they air Osama-Bin-Laden tapes. They've been doing it for years. When terrorists blow things up, they are beholden to let people know why. If you're a crazy terrorist trying to reach out to Muslims, why the hell would you send the tape elsewhere? And if you were a producer working for Al Jazeera, and you had the hot new Osama Tape in your hands, providing you with a healthy ratings boost, another scoop, and something to air repeatedly laden with 'expert' commentary for the next few days, why wouldn't you do it?

I have no problem with the notion that they praise Kerry, what I take exception to is slandering a relatively legitimate news agency simply to pump up the anti- Kerry propaganda machine. The implication of the Piece is that Al Jazeera likes Kerry, and Al Jazeera are a bunch of terrorists, therefore Terrorists like Kerry. If you can't get that out of the article, you need to work on your critical reading skills.

Walt. V Kopitov
22nd March 2004, 17:39
I have no problem with the notion that they praise Kerry, what I take exception to is slandering a relatively legitimate news agency simply to pump up the anti- Kerry propaganda machine. The implication of the Piece is that Al Jazeera likes Kerry, and Al Jazeera are a bunch of terrorists, therefore Terrorists like Kerry. If you can't get that out of the article, you need to work on your critical reading skills.


What do you think this thread is about? This thread is about pumping up the anti-Bush propaganda machine. It’s only fair to use similar tactics. As for Al jazeera their actions demonstrate whom they support.

Walt. V Kopitov
22nd March 2004, 18:12
Al-Jazeera star accused of terrorist links: September 13, 2003 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/12/1063341769979.html)


The investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon has formally accused an Al-Jazeera war correspondent, Taysir Alouni, a Syrian-born Spaniard, of terrorist activity, and ordered him held without bail on charges of financing, logistical support and recruitment for the al-Qaeda network.


Perhaps Al Jazeera doesn't support Al Qaida as company policy, but some of the people that work there do and that makes them biased towards the terrorist group. In this case they are working very closely together.



The implication of the Piece is that Al Jazeera likes Kerry, and Al Jazeera are a bunch of terrorists, therefore Terrorists like Kerry.

yup.

Gene Williams
22nd March 2004, 18:51
Yep. That's what I get. Kerry is furthering the aims of the terrorists just by running. Of course, I believe the entire Democratic party to be a terrorist's dream of an effort to bring down the US from within. If Kerry gets in, the terrorists can just kick back until the next Republican gets elected.

elder999
22nd March 2004, 20:35
Originally posted by Walt. V Kopitov
What do you think this thread is about? This thread is about pumping up the anti-Bush propaganda machine. It’s only fair to use similar tactics. As for Al jazeera their actions demonstrate whom they support.

This thread was about Mr. Bush's lack of accountability and responsibility-a charge which he answered by taking responsibility for those "sixteen words."

It was also dead until you revived it to "pump up the Bush propaganda machine.":rolleyes:

gozanryu
22nd March 2004, 20:41
Did any of you guys see anything in the news about that 200+ pounds of Fissionable Material recovered in Africa (Congo ?)

Iain
23rd March 2004, 03:51
nabbed from this (http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/terrorism2/part5/articles.html) site.

Democracy by Decree" The success of Al Jazeera, writes the New Yorker, "has much to do with its willingness to test the limits of what is acceptable in the Arab world." <http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?011029fr_archive01>

"Why Is America Scared of Al Jazeera?" A Times of India reporter finds Al Jazeera's coverage of events since 9-11 less biased than that of the U. S. networks. <http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=2128936835&art_id=536525524>

"Captive Audience" Radio interview with Fouad Ajami regarding his New York Times Magazine article "What the Muslim World is Watching" http://www.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/wnyc/raotm/otm

"The CNN of the Arab World Deserves Our Respect" Despite Colin Powell's entreaty to stop doing so, Al Jazeera continues to broadcast bin Laden's taped addresses to the world, as well as images of civilians reportedly killed in the current U.S. military action. The following article from a Palestinian on-line journal argues that Al Jazeera deserves respect for this stance, rather than the vilification it has suffered at the hands of much of the mainstream American press. <http://electronicintifada.net/features/articles/20011022alihussein.html>

Al Jazeera's Website. In Arabic, but has pictures not run in the U.S. press. <http://www.aljazeera.net/>

Your crap, my crap. It's all crap unless you're willing to look critically at the subject matter and draw your own conclusions. Which some people are clearly unable to do. Sometimes journalists overstep the boundries of acceptable behaviour in search of a story. Sometimes this lands them with terrorists, sometimes it lands them with murderers. Al Jazeera is right in the thick of things, missteps are bound to have happened. You know, for a 'terrorist' news agency, they have a stunning ability to regularly piss off various elements within the Arab world.

elder999
23rd March 2004, 05:26
Originally posted by gozanryu
Did any of you guys see anything in the news about that 200+ pounds of Fissionable Material recovered in Africa (Congo ?)

Two fuel rods of enriched uranium (19.9% or less) have been reported missing from a research reactor at a University in Congo (Zaire, at the time of one of them) since the 70's. One was reprotedly recovered from Italian gangsters (!)-also in the 70's or maybe 80's.

In any case, this was not material that would have been suitable for weaponization or a dirty bomb without some sort of irradiation. These were new fuel rods that hadn't ben in the reactor, and relatively benign in that state. Nor were they ever-to the best of my knowledge-in the posession of al-Qaeda, Iraq, Hamas or anyone but greedy people without a buyer.

gozanryu
23rd March 2004, 19:50
Aaron, no, this is recent. I will try to find it, and re-post. Italian Gangsters! That has the makings of a Steven Segal movie.;)

gozanryu
23rd March 2004, 20:02
Here it is http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-3-21/20529.html