Bush Lied, The Smear Continues

Wow I am surprised you didn’t bring up the war head they found with a chemical head on it also. So we invaded Iraq to get a few 10 year old chemical munitions the inspectors missed and a toxic river. That was a real danger to the united states and I got 2 warnings for calling people that still support the original war claim of WMD morons enough said.

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
So we invaded Iraq to get a few 10 year old chemical munitions the inspectors missed and a toxic river.

So what else did the inspectors miss? You state that they missed only a few......how do you know that's all there was? Provide some links to back up your proof please........

Originally posted by ferretman
So what else did the inspectors miss? You state that they missed only a few......how do you know that's all there was? Provide some links to back up your proof please........

AAhh you just posted the links dah. You want me to prove they haven’t found any WMD? We wouldn’t be having this conversation if they found WMD. I want my warning taken off this just proves my point.

Americanmadman,

were you by chance in the marines? Listen, I've always wondered how someone could be probush, it almost makes me think they have to be illiterate. here are some top reason to doubt bush.

- he stole two elections
- he lied to the American people
- Katrina
- he abandon his social security reform (which was what he pushed to get reelected)
- Our national debt is almost embarrassng, wait, it is!
- He is an idiot. Have you seen him speak publicly?
- everyone he's appointed have been criticized (Supreme court, fed reserve)
- even the GOP is sick of him
- my fingers are tired...

He is driving the GOP into the ground... What about him do you like?

When Hitler was in prison and making his plans for Europe he wrote Mein Kampf.
When Cheney and several other neo-con wrote their plans for the world. they were in a think tank developing their Project for a New American Century.
You can find all the lurid details at the following website
www.newamericancentury.org...

It sounds kind of familiar. Yea, it was Rudyard Kipling and "The White Man's Burden." I thought things had changed a bit since then. I quess Cheney didn't get the memo.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Americanmadman,

were you by chance in the marines? Listen, I've always wondered how someone could be probush, it almost makes me think they have to be illiterate. here are some top reason to doubt bush.

- he stole two elections
- he lied to the American people
- Katrina
- he abandon his social security reform (which was what he pushed to get reelected)
- Our national debt is almost embarrassng, wait, it is!
- He is an idiot. Have you seen him speak publicly?
- everyone he's appointed have been criticized (Supreme court, fed reserve)
- even the GOP is sick of him
- my fingers are tired...

He is driving the GOP into the ground... What about him do you like?

As a matter of fact I was not in the marines. I tried to join though, but was physically inelegible (because of several knee injuries from football).

as for your points:

1) He did not steal any elections. This has been proven.

2) Please, expand on what lies he has told us

3) Many of the problems caused by Katrina were because of the Louisiana state and New Orleans city governments playing partisisan politics, in particular, refusing federal aid untill AFTER the hurricane hit (where as every other state took the aid in advance).

4+5) This may surprise you, but I am not a mindless Bush supporter. His fiscal policy and domestic policy leave a lot to be desired.

6) Considering he has proven on standerdized testing to be SMARTER then Kerry, I am glad he got elected. I do freely admit he is a terrible public speaker, but public speaking is not any sort of indicator of ones intelligence.

7) Of course they have, tis the way of American politics. It doesn't mean such criticism is just or deserved.

8) Thats not true, believe me on that one.

9) You need to work on your stamina

As for what I like about him:

He is very pro military. He has increased funding for procurement and R&D. I am a 'big picture' guy, and so is he as far as geopolitics.

He sees the show down with China coming, and he also sees the more obvious problems in the middle east. Never mind the oil (and please don't presume that to mean it has no bearing on his decisions), the man is cleaning up one of the most unstable, volitile, and radical areas of the world.

He has given the US a strategic foothold in the most important geographical location in the ME, while also ousting a dictator who had litterally commited genocide. I am not so short sighted as to think that Iraq would be back to normal in a few short years - this is clearly going to take two or more decades.

Overall though, much like many who voted against Bush, I just could not bear the thought of Kerry as our leader. He would have been a disastor.

I would go so far as to say that while Bush may be driving the GOP into the ground, the Democrats are already there. They have lost every branch of government, and their greatest presidential hope is Senator Clinton. If she runs, you might as well just elect the new Republican canidate now, because she is completely unelectable.

Now, let me point out that I really do NOT like Bush's views on abortion, and do agree he is anything but fiscally conservative. But he is far better then Kerry, and since those were my choices, I like so many too the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Americanmadman,

were you by chance in the marines? Listen, I've always wondered how someone could be probush, it almost makes me think they have to be illiterate. here are some top reason to doubt bush.

being in the military does not make u pro Bush, only if they felt the Commander in Chief cares about them. which he has shown. and much of the military voted for him. but then u dink all military personnel are stupid right?

Yea Bush is known for his compassion and forthright honesty.

obscene gesture

One fingered Victory Salute, PRIOR to the Elections I might add. With Diebold in the GOP pockets he ahd little to worry about in terms of loosing the election. Yes, Bush has lied. Many Many Times. When asked what his relationship with Kenneth (Kenny Boy) Lay of Enron, the Man literally stormed off the stage and could be heard swearing at his staff, something to the effect of why can't you keep these bastards off me. He lied about WMD's in Iraq, it wasn't faulty intelligence, that faulty intelligence was MANDATED by Bush and his cronies.

In fact there is a grwoing list of Bush Lies you might want to take a look at, and even a book full of them.

bushwatch.org...



*Gave choice on viewing the Bush's bird*


[edit on 26-10-2005 by dbates]

erm.. I have a link... To a CNN thing...

Maybe you can use this?
Im not American.. (EU) myself. But i can see USA are on fire.

Link - Hey now!

I will give some help to the "Smear Bush" crowd that is
trying to take over this thread.

The original post cited the fact that the US was
truthful in actions that led up to attack in Iraq.
It did by citing these main actions along with some
additional information:

(1) It was charged by the US (Bush) that Iraq was suspected
of hiding a nuclear bomb research program.

(2) It was pointed out that UN inspections had been
brought to a halt by Iraq, and that when war was
again threatened by the US, Iraq let inspectors back
in for awhile and appeared to be cooperating in most
places, with them giving up some chemical and other
weapons like long range illegal rockets and weapon
sites. But, on one point Iraq refused cooperation.
That was on cooperating with interview of Iraq's
nuclear scientists. Iraq would not allow the UN
inspectors unhindered and un intimidating safe neutral
area interview of the nuclear scientists. It only
allowed interview with tape recordings made that
were turned over to the Iraqi government so that
Saddam and his bullies knew every thing the scientists
had said. It also refused to let the interview
take place outside of Iraq, where the scientists
were not coerced and scared.

(3) It was pointed out that if Iraq had complied
with inspections that the US's motive for invasion
would have been nullified, and the US would have
had no case to invade.

(4) It was pointed out that in actual fact the
US suspicions proved to be correct when the
Iraq nuclear program was dug up and put on display
and their top scientist gave all the details
of how it had been hidden away waiting on the
day that it could be continued.

(5) Since all this did happen, and is easily proved
you have to accept that the US position was
correct.


Now to give some help to the ones who keep trying
to make this situation into a Bush smear, here
is what you have to do.


You have to find proof or show evidence that
Bush said "Iraq had nuclear weapons". Find the
speech transcript that said this. You
can't just keep saying "No weapons were found".

It is accepted that no weapons were found, I even
pointed this out. It does you no good to keep
making the point that no weapons were found therefore
Bush lied. In order to prove the lie you have to
establish that Bush said Iraq had nuclear weapons.

You can bring up all kinds of other stuff like,
the Iranian who said we attacked for oil, but this
does not make any case concerning the original subject
matter of this post which is that Bush is being
smeared for lying about the cause of this war. If you
want to prove he lied, you have to show us the lie.
You have to show that day or time when Bush said,
"Iraq has nuclear weapons". Do that and you make your
case. But, you can't do that. You can't do it because
it never happened. Remember the original post pointed
to a New York times article that implied Bush lied
and said "Saddam was on the verge of attacking America
with nuclear weapons." That was the quote in the
article. My point was they were smearing him with
false information. Bush had not even said, that
Iraq had nuclear weapons, let alone that they were
going to attack us with them. He had charged that we
suspected they had hid their nuclear program,
and Bush was 100% correct. Iraq's top nuclear scientist
confirmed this and even wrote a book about it giving
all the details.

I pointed out that Iraq would never have been attacked
if they had complied with UN inspectors. The cause
of the war was Iraqi lies, not US lies.

Now you guys that insist this was all a US scheme and
the we lied have to go back to work and find that
lie and tell us when we did it. When did Bush say that
Iraq had nuclear weapons. If you can establish that
then you have confirmed the New York Times article to
be true. Until then though you have to accept that it
is nothing more than another unsubstantiated smear
coming from Bush enemies.

Major Cee its seems to me that you have narrowed the search for Bush's lies about going to war with Iraq too much. What about their attempt to connect Iraq to 9/11? What about their attempt to find a connection between Iraq and al-Queda before the war? What about the fact that the administration said that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake prior to the war? This is just a small portion of lies that Bush has spread over the last 5 years. In fact he lies so much thay had to write a book about it, "The Lies of George Bush" by David Corn. Perhaps you feel that Cheney is the real liar but if I'm the President and my Vice President is lying it's my responsibility to stop it. In fact they are both patholoigal liars and there is plenty of blame to go around

[edit on 27-10-2005 by polanksi]

everyone remember this one

or how about this

so in the end

I could go on and on but I know it takes time for some members to upload these images

I was interested in the post from Iran by an individual
that stated the US had invaded Iraq for oil. I found
this interesting for several reasons. First, the oil
revenues are going to the new Iraqi government and the US is
making sure that the new Iraqi government will be ran
by Iraqis, not Iranians. It is also interesting in
that Iran has been complicit with the U.S. in getting
the war in Iraq going. Iran has played a major part
in the background and Iran was actually working to
promote the war of US against Iraq. I wonder if the
poster from Iran was aware of that.

As long as we are on this subject of who was behind the
U.S. going to war with Iraq, I thought it would be
good time to tell of Iran's efforts to get it done.

Iran has faced threats from Russia in the north and
Iraq to the west throughout much of its history.

During and after World War II, the Soviets occupied
part of Iran. When the Soviet Union fell apart, this
relieved some tension in Iran, but in the west Iraq
had been a threat. Iraq's defeat in Desert Storm was
welcomed by Iran, decreasing the Iraqi threat, but Iran
wanted to see the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime
and have it replaced by a government more neutral toward
Iran and preferably under Iranian influence, so in this
regard Iran Developed a plan with these goals.

Goals-
(1) Iraq should not pose a threat to Iran.

(2) Iran wanted to shape Iraqi behavior to guarantee that it
would not become a threat, but it could not do this alone.
It needed outside help, the U.S., to further Iranian
interests. In other words Iran expected the U.S. to
invade Iraq and it intended to position itself favorably
when that happened.

Iran has patiently pursued these goals. Following Desert Storm,
Iran began a covert program to weaken Hussein's regime and to
gain influence in Iraq, with concentration on Iraq's Shiite
population.

If Hussein fell or were overthrown by U.S. effort, Iran
wanted to be positioned to neutralize the Iraqi threat.
To do this Iranian strategy had 3 parts:

Strategy-
(1)Take no action to discourage the U.S. from military
action against Iraq. Let it be known that Iran would in no
way hinder a U.S. action.

(2) Make information available that would help persuade the
U.S. to take down Iraq. The Iranians understood the methods
of Central Intelligence Agency and designed a program to
enhance those in the U.S. who believed that Iraq was a threat,
and they provided the U.S. with intelligence that emphasized
the perception of Hussein as a threat. This program went way
back and was even in place before the 2003 invasion and it also
preceded the Bush administration. Desert Fox, the air campaign
launched by the Clinton administration in December 1998, was
influenced in part by the same information as the 2003 invasion.

(3) Prepare a force in Iraq whose loyalty was to Iran. The
Shiite community, had many of the same interests as Iran and
Iranian intelligence services carried out a long, patient program
to organize the Iraqi Shiite community in preparation for the
fall of Hussein.

It was becoming apparent in 2002 that the U.S. was searching
for a follow-on strategy after Afghanistan that included
denying nuclear weapons from terrorist hands. The Iranians
saw this as an opportunity, and although they could not
direct the U.S. into action against Iraq, they could provide
help toward that goal by reducing the threat the U.S. felt
from Iran. They also increased, to the maximum, intelligence
available to those in the U.S. who supported the invasion.

To reduce any felt threat from Iran they had formal meetings
in Geneva and back-channel discussions around the world. They
sent the message that Iran would do nothing to hinder a U.S.
invasion, nor would it seek to take advantage of it on a direct
basis. The process to maximize intel to the U.S. was done
by filling the channels between Iraqi Shiite exiles and the U.S.
with what appeared to be solid information. This was where
Ahmed Chalabi played a role.

It is speculated by some that Iranian intelligence knew some
things that it intentionally left out of their relayed intel.
One thing was that Iraq's weapons programs had been abandoned
or at least hidden well enough no one knew where they were.
When Iraq stonewalled UN inspections, it gave the appearance
that they were hiding programs and gave a justification.
Iran did not volunteer the information that they believed
the programs were pretty much shut down, on the contrary
they gave any information that appeared to support WMD.
Iranians probably thought that none would be found, and did
not bother to relay this to the U.S., it being in their
interest to not give any information that talked against
invasion. Another thing believed by some is that Iran knew
Iraq was actually planning a guerilla war as their main
strategy. This they also did not relay to the U.S. but
they liked this fact, as it would make the U.S. more needy
of help from the Shiite community for success, and the
Iranians had influence into this community. The worse
things became in Iraq, and the less the U.S. prepared
properly, the more eager the U.S. would be in seeking help
from the large majority of Shia in Iraq. In a guerilla
war with the Sunnis in the north and the incoming jihadists
cropping up, the U.S. situation deteriorated in the summer
and fall of 2003, the U.S. needed a friendly Shia. The idea
of a Shiite rising and cutting lines of supply in the south
was driving U.S. thinking. It also pushed the
U.S. toward an accommodation with the Shia, and therefore
at least a partial accommodation with Iran.

So it was accepted in the fall of 2003, that the government
would be dominated by the Shia, and with this the government
would have some Iranian influence. During the Ramadan
offensive, when everything was coming apart in Iraq, the U.S.
was prepared to accommodate almost any proposal.

After the capture of Hussein in mid-December 2003. Iranians
started to make clear that they were defining the depth of
the relationship. When the U.S. offered to send help to
Iran after the earthquake, the Iranians vetoed
it, saying it was too early in the relationship. The
Iranians believed they had the Americans where they wanted
them and slowly increased pressure for concessions.

As George Friedman said "the U.S. started to suffer buyer's
remorse on the deal it made". Since the guerrilla threat
appeared to be decreasing in early 2004, the deal did not
look nearly as good as it had in November 2003. So the U.S.,
did not move then toward a Shiite government. Instead
the U.S. began talks with the Sunni sheikhs and thinking
of an interim government in which Kurds or Sunnis would
have veto power.

With this, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,an Iranian, began
to give evidence that trouble was brewing in Iraq. He staged
demonstrations in January, calling for direct elections now.
This would have meant a Shiite government. Now the U.S., without
being pressured so badly by Sunnis and growing uneasy about
the power of the Iranians coming to foreground in Iraq, pressed
on with plans for the interim government, and they also started
leaking that they knew the game the Iranians were playing. The
release of the news that Chalabi was an Iranian agent was a key
part of this process.

The Iranians and al-Sistani tried to convince the U.S. that they
were willing to send Iraq up in flames. During the Sunni rising
in Al Fallujah, they permitted Muqtada al-Sadr to rise as well.
The U.S. asked al-Sistani for help, but Al-Sistani did not lift
a finger for days. Al-Sistani was betting the U.S.would reverse
its political plans to get Shiite support, but the opposite
happened. The U.S. concluded that the Shia and Iran were not
reliable, and that they were not necessary. Rather than negotiate
with the Shia, the Americans negotiated with the Sunni in Al
Fallujah and reached agreement with them. Then the U.S. went
ahead with a political solution for the interim government that
left the Shia on the margins. This brought back cooperation
from the Shia. The U.S. made it clear to al-Sistani and others
that they could be included in the coalition, in a favored
position.

The U.S. reversed the process by trying to drive a wedge between
the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia, and it appeared to be working,
with al-Sistani and al-Sadr seeming to shift positions so as not
to be excluded.

In that moment the Iranians saw more than a decade of patient
strategy going down the toilet. To try and get back in the
game. first, they created a crisis with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear weapons that was
certain to draw U.S. attention. Second, they seized the
British patrol boats. They were letting the U.S. know that
it was on the verge of a major crisis with Iran.

There is more to be played out here. The U.S. cannot let
Iran get nuclear weapons, and the Iranians know it. They will
probably rattle the nuclear development saber hoping to get
more influence in the Iraqi government in turn for stopping
the rattling of the nuclear development saber. We will just
have to wait for this chapter to unfold.



[edit on 27-10-2005 by MajorCee]

I cant beleive this subject is still around, and even worse, i cant beleive some are still protecting Bush & Co.

Bush and his cronies lied. Plain and simple. They made a bogus case to go to war. Explosions and all.

Is there any doubt? I think not.

I'm sure we all remember these headlines I took this picture because I knew one day I would feed it to a BushBot yeap even here in North America, I laughed then, but now I shake my head in sorry despair along with the rest of the world.

But on a high note my oil shares are up





[edit on 27/10/2005 by Sauron]

Has anyone given any thought that Sadam was the one that was lied to?
I think that it is going to come out during his trial that he thought that he HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. The people in charge of it were SCAMMING him. It is my belief that he was spending billions of dollars to fund a weapons program that was non existant. When it came time for the UN weapons inspectors to investigate the facilities he was advised not to let them. It wasn't because there was anything to hide from the UN, it was to keep the inspectors from saying that the whole program was a fraud. It would not have been good to be the people in charge when Sadam found out that he was being DUPED. Heads would have rolled literally. I remember reading about some of Sadam's top advisors leaving as soon as war was declared. I guess they wanted to keep their heads. With all of the information out there this is the only scenario that fits.

Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, because I grew up with Nixon being my first president of memory, I cannot bring myself to believe any politician is telling the truth, ever. It doesn't matter which party you belong to, your favorite politician is a lying thief out to grab power and money. The trick is to keep them from taking too much of either.

As to Saddam and Bush I & II, Bush I created Saddam (and bin Laden) when he was CIA chief. This is a known fact in the intelligence community. It was part of the chess played by the Soviets and the Americans during the Cold War. Now, the CIA made sure to give Saddam plenty of weapons during the 1980s and pre-Gulf War I 1990s. The reason that many very rational people believed that there were WMDs was because of the fact the Bush I's CIA had sold them nerve gas and other WMDs. Saddam used it all up during the Iran/Iraq War.

Now, fast forward to the non-Republican 1990s. The Neo-Conservatives - who are NOT real Republicans - set out their master plan at PNAC (www.pnac.org). They do not hide this. It is out there for anyone to see. They want to control a major portion of the world's oil supply. This is understandable to a mind that is incapable of coping with change. Our society is about to change and it isn't going to be fun.

Well, Bush II decided to use his knowledge that Pappy Bush had sold WMDs to that there Saddam to justify an attack. Of course, being a subscriber to the 'Big Lie' theory he couldn't resist connecting the WTC to Iraq. (I have my own problems with certain items around the entire WTC incident. I believe that the administration was criminally incompetent - and possibly culpable - in the attack against this country. But that is gut opinion. And to those who think I'm partisan, I think that Clinton was only out to make himself popular and thus sold out our children's future through NAFTA and other such agreements.)

Well, now let's see, we get the U.S. in a foreign entanglement (The real GW warned against this) with a country that even the British weren't successful with. The US character is not truly imperialistic. It is religious. A belief that our way of doing things is the way that everyone should do things. This can cause folks who should know better not to think straight around anything that looks like proselytizing our American religion.

There are those who believe this is the best thing to do. I don't agree. I am an isolationist, of sorts. We have opened our country up too much. This is part of the reason that foreign terror has taken root here. (Terrorism has always been, and I am very tired of hearing people say it is new, or that everything changed on 9/11. Sorry, but that is just bull hockey.)

Now, to those who defend Bush - or even Clinton- they are POLITICIANS for crying out loud. They do not tell you the truth, they tell you the easy lie because the last politician that told you a hard truth - Carter - was destroyed politically.

Remember, POLITICIANS LIE. It is the only constant in government. No matter the party. The issue with Bush is what he may have selected to lie about. Clinton lied by saying he was for the everyman. So did Bush. Bush may have lied about intelligence. (This could have been Rove in reality, but we won't know until historians get into their files.)

Bush is not a good American in my mind. He believes in secrecy and such which is anathema to what our founding fathers believed. They were for open government and actually fought the control the East India Tea Company had over the colonies. They were no fans of corporatism. But the Corporations have their main man in power. (I can't remember the last president who was not a company man.)

Why on earth are people arguing over whether a politician lied?

Pax.

You can scream Bush lied all you want, but the FACT remains he NEVER said Iraq had nukes, and again the FACT remains that Iraq DID have a nuclear weapons program.

IF IRAQ HAD A NUKE PROGRAM, THEN BUSH WAS CORRECT TO GO INTO IRAQ!

There for, as far as the Iraqi war is concerned, he was COMPLETELY RIGHT!

Originally posted by American Mad Man
IF IRAQ HAD A NUKE PROGRAM, THEN BUSH WAS CORRECT TO GO INTO IRAQ!
There for, as far as the Iraqi war is concerned, he was COMPLETELY RIGHT!

Was he?
Last time I looked the U.S. also has a nuclear programe, in fact has had one since WWII, in fact was the first country to have one, in fact was the first and ONLY country to use not one but two nuclear weopons on innocent civilians.
And pls don't bother arguing it was nesecary cause that is just more BS.

So using your justification would you support the invasion of the U.S. to stop their nuclear program?

Maybe if the U.S. concentrated more on protecting it's own, here at home, we wouldn't have to worry whether another country has a nuclear program or not.
France has a nuclear program, you want to go invade them too?
Let's not stop there eh? Let's invade every country with a nuc program so we can have the monoply on power and control!

Iraq was only a threat cause the west made it one. War is never about what you think it is. History proves that.

Originally posted by ANOK


Was he?

Yes, he was.

Last time I looked the U.S. also has a nuclear programe, in fact has had one since WWII, in fact was the first country to have one, in fact was the first and ONLY country to use not one but two nuclear weopons on innocent civilians.

Last time I checked, the US never signed a peace treaty forbidding it to have a nuclear weapons program.

Secondly, the US was NOT the first nation to have a nuclear weapons program.

And pls don't bother arguing it was nesecary cause that is just more BS.

Absolutely - if the US was willing to take over 1 million casualties, as well as inflict countless more millions, their use was not needed. If however you wanted the fewest casualties as possable, then using them was needed.

So using your justification would you support the invasion of the U.S. to stop their nuclear program?

No, because the US never signed a freaking peace treaty forbidding it to persue nuclear weapons

That is the point of peace treaties. You make them to have peace. If you don't abide by their terms you get war. Is that so hard to grasp?

Maybe if the U.S. concentrated more on protecting it's own, here at home, we wouldn't have to worry whether another country has a nuclear program or not.

What the heck does that mean? You speak of history, and yet act as if there has never been a war. A nations defence goes beyond it's own boarder.

France has a nuclear program, you want to go invade them too?
Let's not stop there eh? Let's invade every country with a nuc program so we can have the monoply on power and control!

If France or any other country signed a peace treaty and then did not follow the terms, I would support war against them.

Iraq was only a threat cause the west made it one. War is never about what you think it is. History proves that.

Iraq was a threat because of it's leader. HISTORY ALREADY PROVED THAT!

[edit on 28-10-2005 by American Mad Man]