Intelligence Strikes Bush

Originally posted by Colonel
Oh, and this is from Mr. Intel himself.

you got a point here col? or do you like to spew the bull when you're backed into a corner?

I just respond to ridiculous and spurious coments as they should be.

Originally posted by Colonel
I just respond to ridiculous and spurious coments as they should be.

Good for you, hope it works out for you.

at any rate, when you come out from the conspiracy closet you've locked yourself into, you may find that even more scary then a grand right wing intel conspiracy is the possibility that our intel was flawed from the start.

I hate to bring this up again BUT.....
What about the intelligence that ole billy boy relied on with the Asprin factory in Sudan?

Just trying to show you that ALL presidents have to rely on intel that may or may not be 100% accurate.

What did you say, Colonel, dems (or should I be as pathetically insultive as you and say "dumbs"? No, I'm far better than you!) never lie about what?

Where did Bush lie? About intel?
Hmmm....seems to me that innocent people were slaughtered in an aspirin factory when someone felt the need to launch some cruise missiles during a time when the press needed to be diverted because of....hmmmm. Let's see, he had bad intelligence, he didn't mean to blow up an aspirin factory....hmmm!?!

Let's see, did the entire war against the one whom you think is a more fit leader revolve around that one piece of intel, the same piece that some are stoked because they say it wan't as flawed as Bush said it was...hmmmm....
as usual, there seems to be some hypocrisy in teh democratic whining campaign.
No matter, as long as some people are swayed to the DNC, the truth and principle means nothing, its the ends that count.

Sorry about rehashing your point, Fry, I just went off of the first post, I didn't read any further. Didn't mean to step on your toes.

Originally posted by Colonel
I just respond to ridiculous and spurious coments as they should be.

Many would disagree. Some would even say that was sophomoric. I be one of those that would say that.

I would like to point out that it is not a logical response to a criticism of Bush to point to Clinton and his faults. The discussion was about Bush. Clinton is no longer in office and so should not even be in this conversation.

The problem here is that both Democrats and Republicans are PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS and thus, none of them can be trusted.

DEN OF THE DAMNED

Ok no Clinton.... How about Daschle or the other dems that said there was a need to remove Saddam. That he had WMD's. In fact most of the Dem party at one time or another agreed that Saddam had WMD. I guess the dems intel was wrong also.

You are correct hat both groups are politicians, and would be correct had you gone farther and stated that both answer to the same master - and it isn't us!

The reason Clinton is relevant is that the originator of the political debate (that is to say republicans - v - democrats) is extremely hypocritical. He isn't actually looking for a conspiratorial discussion in what we see as conspiracy ideas, he wants it to be "those nasty republicans", therefore it is very relevant to deal with him in a political manner, and showing the error in his non-critical thinking is entirely proper. Furthermore, Clinton may be out of the executive office at this time, much of what he did will haunt us for some time to come. As a matter of fact, some of us may die by our own technology given to those who see us as their enemy.

Personally, I'd rather discuss points of interest in current events in regard to donspiratorial relevance. Some can't see past the political arena that is used to keep the chattel property occupied, anyway.

Funny thing about this,everyone's intel said Saddam was a danger. Dem,republicans,Germany,France, pretty much the whole world. The only person that said there were no WMD's in Iraq was ta da Saddam.

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by Tassadar
K, first of all the Dems never started or finnished any wars, 2 cowardly and timid.

Secondly, dude, Colonel, you should start your own website message board on anti-Bush sentiments, that's all you ever talk about.

Tassadar

because I HATE him and I like politics.....dude.

Hate is such a strong word from such a nice young man.[sarcasm]

Here's my simplified synopsis: Bush is absolved of any misdeed, the UN/Nato help out in Iraq, stabilizing the nation by election time, people see few more green backs in a slowly growing economy and four more years of---------------BUSH

Tyriffic, no need to gloat
I think you may be quite correct in your assumption if the Dems don't pull someone out of their collective colons who is a viable option. What we need is another Perotesque candidate to distract from both parties and really shake things up a bit again (Have to admit it was a "colorful" campaign.)

Seriously though, I only go after Colonel as much as I do because he really is no different than a racist. He looks at one with a LABEL and applies the actions of one to all with the same LABEL. I prefer to judge a person by actions not associations. I wish more would do the same and we could end all of this internal bickering (I mean internal as the planet earth) and accomplish something even greater.

(This is probably gonna really irk Colonel)
I don't hate Democrats! Generally speaking, they have some good ideas as a party. I don't love Republicans! Generally speaking, they have some good ideas as a party. I have a BIG problem with some of the Dem. ideas for the Federal Govt. as well as walking all over the Constitution. I have a BIG problem with some Rep. ideas for foreign policy as well as walking all over the Constitution.
I look at my stance on the issues involved at the time and decide which is better given the circumstances.
Precicely the reason I am registered with Neither party. I do have to admit that since the fiasco(s) of the last administration I have been leaning FAR more to the right. So much so that I come here to talk politics because my wife is WAY over to the left
(Keeps peace, don't ask )

OK, enough on this one for now....

Moving on

Sheesh. All of your comments were just too funny (particularly the one where I was likened to a racist) But, as you continue to defend the moron-in-chief, he continues to LIE:

This is just one more example of president Bush hiding one lie behind another.

07/15/03: During a press briefing at the Whitehouse with United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday, 07/14/03, our president continued to lie to the American people.

This latest instance of Presidential deceit relates to the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

When questioned about his comments in the state of the union address relating to the now discredited claim that Iraq tried to buy Uranium yellowcake from Niger, the president said.

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."

This as clearly a lie by our president, "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"

President Bush has rewritten history and provided a new reason as to why he ordered the US invasion of Iraq.

The actual circumstances were that the UN inspectors were in Iraq and the Iraqi government was providing unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors. UN inspectors were busy dismantling Iraqi missiles when they were instructed to leave Iraq, prior to the US - UK invasion.

This is just one more example of president Bush hiding one lie behind another.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

[Edited on 16-7-2003 by Colonel]

Oh, and here's a father's letter reciting his soldier son's experiences:

07/04/03: From a soldier's father:

"My son is in the U.S.Army and currently stationed in Baghdad. I hear from him every three or four days. He is like most of the young men and women who went to fight over there inasmuch as he was proud to go and achieve what President Bush said was necessary. I have seen his attitude take a U-turn during the last month. At first he was saying: "I wonder why we are not doing this or that to help make life better for our soldiers?" Then he started to wonder why we were not doing more to help the Iraqi people who are suffering under terrible conditions. Not enough water or food, no electricity most of the time, a terrible shortage of medical supplies and medical staff, basically they are living like animals. Then he started to worry about the safety of our troops in the area. He says they are sitting ducks and easy targets for Iraqi people bent upon gaining revenge for slain family members and by those who hold the U.S. responsible for the terrible conditions they find themselves in. Ye sterday he had a different message altogether."

"Get us out of here now! There is nothing we can do to pacify the Iraqi people except get out of their country and allow them to restore order in whatever way THEY wish."

And, allow me to give you his remarks when he was informed of President Bush's brash remarks saying "Bring them on." He said:

"Myself and every last man in my unit are deeply offended that our President would make such a statement inviting us to be attacked. President Bush has lost the respect of every soldier I have spoken to because of his speaking those irresponsible words. Those words spread like wild-fire amoung the troops.

We are here because he ordered us to be here and now for him to make such a ridiculous statement inviting violence towards us causes us to lose respect for him and his judgement. We are learning that we never should have come here in the first place. Believe me Dad, there is a completely different attitude now. The fact that the President gave rich people a tax cut and didn't do anything for military families is hurtful. Where there was once pride and satisfaction in defeating an enemy there is now regret and shame. God Bless America.

Your loving Son, Donny

webx.tennessean.com...@24.NaVVaJXhniB^[email protected]/88

CF, that is such old news. I don't know why it is now being paraded about again. The Brits were duped and America used it to help justify an invasion of Iraq. Do you seriouslly deny that Iraq had WMD's? Perhaps I can introduce you to some Iranians or Kurds.

Colonel

Don't forget that actual knowledge of the then current wherabouts of imminently threatening WMD's has been softened in the orchestration of lies to 'we know he had weapons programs'.

Liars always get caught out. I don't understand why people are so compelled to defend them.

But, I know none of the repugnants care about either since it besmirches Lord Bush and his Cabal of EVIL.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Colonel

Don't forget that actual knowledge of the then current wherabouts of imminently threatening WMD's has been softened in the orchestration of lies to 'we know he had weapons programs'.

Liars always get caught out. I don't understand why people are so compelled to defend them.

I agree. Its so weird. That's why I've come to the conclusion that the repugnants are more of a CULT than a political group.