Bush lied??

[type2negative 0]

Eh?

Ignore him.

He enjoys labeling people with tags.

Verbal masturbation is something he likes to indulge for hours.

Conservative - No

Arsehole - Yes

Dude... Easy on drugs..

[incanada1234 0]

Ignore him.

He enjoys labeling people with tags.

Verbal masturbation is something he likes to indulge for hours.

Erekose is only happy when he's angry.

[ual777 0]

Ok ET-US2004, I have a little statistic for you.

This year, American forces have killed 59 Iraqi civilians. By contrast, terrorists in country have killed 8,171. That is a kill ratio of 139:1, which is impressive, and yet extremely appaling, by anyone's standard. Explain to me how this is the U.S.'s fault....

Further, how can you be SO sure that Bush "lied"? Wouldn't it make greater sense to say he was wrong? Expanding on that point, and this is just a CRAZY notion, what if Iraq moved its WMD to Syria before the U.S. invasion. More than one former Iraqi general has said they are in Syria, and what is your response to that?

The thing is, I consider myself a reasonable guy. I also think that while many politicians are of questionable character, why would one commit political suicide by actively LYING to the American public? Further, why aren't the news stations clamouring to interview these Iraqi generals (one of which speaks English) and trumpeting that on the airwaves? Why aren't they broadcasting the fact that 500 (while old) chemical warheads were found in Iraq? I find it hard to believe that you can 'misplace' 500 HUNDRED chemical shells. Can you explain these things?

You see, I don't really trust supposed 'reports' at face value, nor do I trust CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS, etc. because they all say the EXACT same thing all day, and that is what is pulled off of the Reuters/AP newswire. Do you ever get the feeling that the news lacks SUBSTANCE? For example, take oil prices. Two days ago I read a headline in Yahoo Financial that stated "Oil Back above $70 over Iran Concerns and BP pipeline." Upon opening the article, it repeated that yet stated, "BP stated that mantaince on the corroded pipeline would be completed ahead of schedule." Hmmmmm. So, because the pipeline will probably be re-opened early, and thus oil goes up?

These are the things that truly bother me. The news screeches huge headlines yet provides very vague statements in the articles and I find it very perturbing.

Back to the topic at hand, how can you be so sure that Bush is this evil, lying, warlord of a President? Does he have his own agenda? Of course.....all politicians do. Is his terribly evil? I'm guessing probably not. I think Bush is a merciless globalist, free-market trumpeter, and is out of touch with the middle class. However I also believe he is correct on fighting terror and Islamo facism.

What is even scarier, is that ALL the way through the 90s, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, etc. were all saying 'Saddam is a threat' 'Saddam is a threat'. Yet, when there are no WMD to be found suddenly Bush is the only one who said it and is left holding the bag? C'mon, it is a political maneuver and you know it.

I hate both parties. They are both whores in their own way, and I really don't know who to vote for because I'm afraid they will sell me down the river.

If I vote democrat, they try to institute social programs, cut military spending, and cause my taxes to be higher.

If I vote republican, they will NOT protect my job from globalism, will always side with business, and will ignore the middle class.

The two choices SUCK and it will not change because of the 'winner take all' system in the Electorial College.

Anyway, that's where I stand, and its 2:15a.m. and I need to sleep. I look forward to debating tomorrow.

[yogib37 3]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

there is PLENTY of evidence to show the world opinion of Iraq and WMDs before Bush even stepped into the White House.

Check it out....an oldie, but goody. And facts don't change

Well that is just a put together smear from the GOP's.

Bush lied many times not just about Iraq.

Lets not forget this.. Who was the the Vice Pres. when the US sold the WMD's to IRAQ? Hmmm I do remember it was Regan and Pappa BUSH..

But I dont remember anything.. The GOP Cover up They lied before Clition was in Office.

Who first Invaded and had a fail attemp in Iraq? Sr. Bush...

GWB just had his private agenda of raking oil and control of the Middle East. Just Read and search for PNAC.

THIS INVASION WAS PLANED SINCE 1997 by Many High ranking GOP's like cheny and others Rumsfeild also

Don't cloud the issue....the statements were made. As I said, facts don't change. Now while you're certainly free to selectively ignore them, that doesn't change the point that they were made. And there's also plenty of written, verifiable facts....such as some Democrat Congressmen (including Kerry) who sent a letter demanding that Clinton invade Iraq because they were a threat to the US. And how the foreign policy (under Clinton) towards Iraq changed to 'regime change'. Yet nothing was ever done.

You can't say this is GWB's war and then say it was planned by the GOP since 1997, all the while ignoring the facts that many a democrat supported an Iraq invasion long before Deubya was Prez....Way to straddle that fence Look at the whole pic, not what is popular opinion. REsearch for yourself. REsearch how many prominant Democrats commended Dubya in writing for the war on Iraq like a year after we invaded them. Look at other world leader's statements in the years before Bush. Look at how most people say Bush is a gormless idiot...yet capable of 'convincing the world of a lie' lol...one which would include him mastering time travel.

Then and only then can you be a truly independant thinker instead of regurgitating half truths all the while looking like a sheep who's bought into the Liberal Lie Machine....There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see

Ok First off, If you want to support a Retarded pres. Like bush you have your right. Second off, Kerry is not a CONGRESSMAN..

Third I can say that Bush and his bushlites did plan this war in 1997 to create a American Empiror.

Read this link

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

take care

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok ET-US2004, I have a little statistic for you.

This year, American forces have killed 59 Iraqi civilians. By contrast, terrorists in country have killed 8,171. That is a kill ratio of 139:1, which is impressive, and yet extremely appaling, by anyone's standard. Explain to me how this is the U.S.'s fault....

Even if your statsitics are right and even if we forget for a second that we've been in Iraq for more than three years now and even if we forget for a moment that operations such as "Shock and Awe" and many others over those years have cost many more civilian losses in Iraq, there's one little detail you conveniently blend out: Tell me how many Iraqi civilians were killed by these "terrorists" prior to our unlawful aggression against that country? As per your account above and as per intelligence available, most of these "terrorists" were not even in Iraq before we tore the place apart and failed to secure it. But then, as Rumsfeld would say: Stuff happens...

Further, how can you be SO sure that Bush "lied"? Wouldn't it make greater sense to say he was wrong?

It would if it was so. But it isn't. Go and read up on the Saddam / Al-Qaida link that Bush blatantly lied about (I posted above and provided the relevant links to original sources). Unless you want to presume that he trusts the Al-Qaida operative more than the DIA, he lied. In either case he should not hold that office.

However I also believe he is correct on fighting terror and Islamo facism.

Are we fighting terrorists? Or are we creating more of them? As it stands, it is the latter. His war on terror (stupid terminology to being with) is huge failure.

Edited September 3, 2006 by ET-US2004

[*Robert* 2]

Ignore him.

He enjoys labeling people with tags.

Verbal masturbation is something he likes to indulge for hours.

Erekose is only happy when he's angry.

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate, and type2azzhole finally found a supporter...

what a shock...

vj sheesh

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate...

Maybe it's her hubby.

[*Robert* 2]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate...

Maybe it's her hubby.

:lol:

either that or charlesandnessa has a new screen name!!

Edited September 3, 2006 by roi_aggie

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate...

Maybe it's her hubby.

:lol:

either that or charlesandnessa has a new screen name!!

a simple check (simple for most people) would reveal that's not the case. maybe it's too difficult for you to do so

Edited September 3, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate, and type2azzhole finally found a supporter...

what a shock...

vj sheesh

Peas in pod. Typical VJ. Perhaps day without bigot good idea - like day without pork or cigarette.

Where were we? Bush lied?

[*Robert* 2]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate, and type2azzhole finally found a supporter...

what a shock...

vj sheesh

Peas in pod. Typical VJ. Perhaps day without bigot good idea - like day without pork or cigarette.

Where were we? Bush lied?

We don't have to be very far away, since everytime he moves his lips he's lying!!!

[KarenCee 3]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate...

Maybe it's her hubby.

OOOOO....I hadn't thought of that! I know they sound an awful lot alike. That would explain a lot.

Edited September 3, 2006 by KarenCee

[Fischkoepfin 1]

How sweet... incanada has a new playmate...

Maybe it's her hubby.

Nah. Her hubby would at least know how to spell Canadian.

But he (or she) is certainly a new ally of the "insults-trump-arguments-any-time"-faction.

[ual777 0]

Ok ET-US2004, I have a little statistic for you.

This year, American forces have killed 59 Iraqi civilians. By contrast, terrorists in country have killed 8,171. That is a kill ratio of 139:1, which is impressive, and yet extremely appaling, by anyone's standard. Explain to me how this is the U.S.'s fault....

Even if your statsitics are right and even if we forget for a second that we've been in Iraq for more than three years now and even if we forget for a moment that operations such as "Shock and Awe" and many others over those years have cost many more civilian losses in Iraq, there's one little detail you conveniently blend out: Tell me how many Iraqi civilians were killed by these "terrorists" prior to our unlawful aggression against that country? As per your account above and as per intelligence available, most of these "terrorists" were not even in Iraq before we tore the place apart and failed to secure it. But then, as Rumsfeld would say: Stuff happens...

Further, how can you be SO sure that Bush "lied"? Wouldn't it make greater sense to say he was wrong?

It would if it was so. But it isn't. Go and read up on the Saddam / Al-Qaida link that Bush blatantly lied about (I posted above and provided the relevant links to original sources). Unless you want to presume that he trusts the Al-Qaida operative more than the DIA, he lied. In either case he should not hold that office.

However I also believe he is correct on fighting terror and Islamo facism.

Are we fighting terrorists? Or are we creating more of them? As it stands, it is the latter. His war on terror (stupid terminology to being with) is huge failure.

Ok, firstly, "shock and awe" did not cause anywhere CLOSE to the number of casualities the terrorists have caused. Secondly, your point of "how many did this before we were there?" is irrelevent.

See, you talk as if the people over there lack free will. The invasion of Iraq may be a PROXIMATE cause of the violence, but is in no way, shape or form, the primary cause. The cause is the scumbags who make the decision to do it, just as some choose to join the Iraqi National Guard.

Blaming the U.S. for terrorists blowing people up in Iraq, is like blaming Colt, Glock, H&K, Ruger, etc. for gang violence.

Secondly, the war on terror is NOT a huge failure. You can ask any Marine who has been to Afghanistan what it is like now, and the country is actually relatively safe. We kicked the Taliban/Al Qaeda's ### up and down those mountains over and over.

In Iraq, they have uncovered insurgent computers with memos trying to find a way to get Iran involved because the US is suffocating the terrorists.

You see, as a military man I understand what type of war it is. It is the long, frustrating one that takes years because you do not know who the enemy is. If Iraq or Iran was in our shoes, they would take a page from the Waffen-SS and liquidate entire towns to solve the problem.

You are wrong when you say the war is a failure. The war is successful, you just lack the foresight and open mind to see it, because you are too busy loathing the President.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Secondly, the war on terror is NOT a huge failure. You can ask any Marine who has been to Afghanistan what it is like now, and the country is actually relatively safe. We kicked the Taliban/Al Qaeda's ### up and down those mountains over and over.

Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5310310.stm

Although Nato hasn't been dragged into a counter-terrorism role, it is engaged in fighting a counter-insurgency.

As Nato troops, including the British, have expanded southwards, they've found the Taleban that's both regrouped and strengthened. In some ways, Nato hasn't been surprised by that.

You see, as a military man I understand what type of war it is. It is the long, frustrating one that takes years because you do not know who the enemy is. If Iraq or Iran was in our shoes, they would take a page from the Waffen-SS and liquidate entire towns to solve the problem.

But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11....? If we know who the "enemy" is - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, why are we in Iraq creating new ones from a country that had little to do with it. Do I need to say again - that if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait, we would likely still be bankrolling him against neighbouring Iran (a country that we tried and failed mierably to 'regime change' for our benefit, not that of the Iranians).

Again - what sequence of events provided the groundwork for religious extremists to gain control of the country?

You are wrong when you say the war is a failure. The war is successful, you just lack the foresight and open mind to see it, because you are too busy loathing the President.

Loathing the president is an inevitable result of loathing the policy. I'm not going to apologise for it. Call a spade a spade - a worthless incompetant is just that

I see Type2negative is reading. Lets see if he can post something without using the word "liberal". If he can, perhaps I can refrain from using the phrase "worthless $hithead".

Edited September 3, 2006 by erekose