absolutely no coverage on it after yesterdays forum
nothing!
the president is acting like it don 't exist!

I

Congressman Conyers is doing such a great job investigating the Downing Street Minutes. It's a shame that the Democrats were forced to hold the hearing the the BASEMENT because the Republicans that run the place are doing every thing they can to cover up Bush's lies. There were plenty of empty meeting rooms in the House office buildings. There was no excuse for sending Mr. Conyers to the basement.

The investigation has just begun. 122 House members have signed a letter to the president. Mr. Conyers delivered a petition to the White House signed by more than 500,000 Americans. Sen. Kerry has a letter of his own that he is passing around the Senate and Sen. Reid has promised to look into pre-war intelligence.

Finally, House Democrats are preparing a resolution of inquery. If adopted, it would allow for REAL hearings by the Congress with subpoena power. If it is shown that the president lied to the Congress, they can proceed with impeachment.

After Downing Street (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org)

Rep. John Conyers (http://www.johnconyers.com)

thank you !!!!!
haannity.com banned me a number of times undre different e-mal addresses because i argued and spoke of this topic!
until the media grows some nuts and talks about this topic we are only allowing our contry to be run by right wing religious nutjobs
not one word today about it
not one!!!!!
speak up dems liberal or not, don't let them taked away your rights!

Actually the Washington Post covered the hearings. Of course all they did was make fun of them. Even making fun of the fact that they had to be held in the basement because the reichwingers are throwing temper tantrums on the floor. The Post is owned by Moon, a self declared messiah wacko that congress entertains because he gives them money.

Found this in the (british) times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1660300_2,00.html

not only was the war illegal but the only legal protection that Bush/Blair have a chance of using (UN1441) wasn't even enacted until six months after they illegally started bombing Iraq.

Of course 1441 can't even justify taking hospitals, detaining press and intentionally killing civilians. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2005/June/opinion_June35.xml&section=opinion&col=

DSM and the Press Coverup From the Beltway Herd
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_18593.shtml

Whats really fucked up is that all the same "news" outlets taht did nothing but trumpet bullshit weapons claims of WMD for months and months without doing any investigating NOW says that oh, this is old news. If they cliam that this is old news now then they are admitting that they intentionally lied to the Ameican people in the name of War.

I love Editor and Publisher:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000963759

"Another memo, to Foreign Secretary Straw, frankly stated that the case against Saddam was weak because the Iraqi leader was not accelerating his weapons programs, and there was scant proof of links to Al Qaeda. Other countries such as Iran appeared closer to getting nuclear weapons; and arguing for regime change in Iraq alone “does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”

"He tried to kill my daddy," says the chimp.

Combine the "libural" medias intentional ignoring of the DSM with the silence on any investigations into vote fraud 2004, secret whitehouse propaganda and the attempt to destroy PBS and you get a pretty good picture about what side the press is on and how Bush Co. feels about US citizens.

edit - here you go, lots of stories now
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/18/131144/051

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
The Post is owned by Moon, a self declared messiah wacko that congress entertains because he gives them money.

The Washington Times is owned by Moon. The Post is legit (or at least most people think so).

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Combine the "libural" medias intentional ignoring of the DSM

It's on the front page of my Sunday paper. Above the fold even.

It's on the front page of my Sunday paper. Above the fold even. 7 weeks after the fact...

Post/times whoops.... which means that the Post is then considered a "libural" paper...

DSM is being covered by every mainstream media on the planet.

Other than FOX of course -- they're not media -- just entertainment.

The point is that they didn't cover it for over a month. And then only reluctantly have given it any time. Today the AP released 5 stories on it.

Mainstream Media Cover-up: In Six Weeks Following its Disclosure, Downing Street Memo Drew Little Attention, Says Media Matters for America
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48979

Point taken 500 but they've had to fight off some big ones too ... ya know like Jacko and blonds in Aruba.

Team bush is showing the frustration and desperation ... witness how they are once again trying to tie Iraq to 9/11

http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/06/19/d506191308106.htm

95% of americans think Bush cooked the books on the war -- his integrity is gone -- look for the 'I' word soon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey

The DSM does raise some interesting questions that must be answered.

If there is proof that Bush lied (in the past there was no proof at all) then of course it needs investigation. I doubt proof will be easily obtained afterall these DSM files are Bush -> Condi -> British Official -> Bliar. There is a lot of words based on discussions. To take the issue further there would have to be some documents with Bush's name on them.

The outcome of this will be 95% determined by the media.

Originally posted by DrewM
Bliar.

Freudian slip?

I wonder how much longer Bush can avoid answering any questions about this?

that these memos are legitimate.

More than being memos, they are official minutes of meetings with Blair in attendance and so far, no one, on either side of the pond has questioned their validity -- and they have been vetted by one of our networks (NBC?). To call them false, would be to call Blair and the UK government LIARS ... something I doubt Team Bush is willing to do ... that would really open the barn door.

In fact, the mainstream media here is saying "so what -- we all know he lied" which is as good as admitting the minutes are authentic and Bush did indeed cook the books.

As long as Blair is still in power, more docs will surface ... it seems they have their own deep throat accross the pond.

The dems have a golden opportunity ... all they need to do is pose the question ...

"Does the republican party think it is OK for the president of the United States to take our country to war based on lies resulting in the killing of tens of thousands or people and troops?"

Then, based on the republican party answer, we'll let the people decide -- especially the loved ones of our fallen troops.

Originally posted by DrewM
The DSM does raise some interesting questions that must be answered.

If there is proof that Bush lied (in the past there was no proof at all) then of course it needs investigation. I doubt proof will be easily obtained afterall these DSM files are Bush -> Condi -> British Official -> Bliar. There is a lot of words based on discussions. To take the issue further there would have to be some documents with Bush's name on them.

The outcome of this will be 95% determined by the media. oh noooooo drew.......bush didnt lie !!!

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
"Does the Republican party think it is OK for the president of the United States to take our country to war based on lies resulting in the killing of tens of thousands or people and troops?"

One thing's for certain.

The *average* rightwing imbecile in this country DOES think it perfectly alright that Bush LIED [knowingly] to drag the unwitting sheep [IOW, the gullible American Public] into supporting the illegal and ill-advised "war" on Iraq.

Period.

Originally posted by korg
oh noooooo drew.......bush didnt lie !!! Unlike you - I base my comment on facts not fantasy. I have never once said he didn't lie and I have never once said he did lie.

remember
if we are on hannity.com we would be accused of hating bush, (which i flat out do), and we would be banned because we are stating facts.

meet the press w/ john mc cain today...
not one word!!!
i am sick of hearing about gitmo, and a missing blonde (as sad as that is) and i don't want to hear about jacko anymore
i want the media to cover this story
NOW!

remember
if we are on hannity.com we would be accused of hating bush, (which i flat out do), and we would be banned because we are stating facts.

meet the press w/ john mc cain today...
not one word!!!
i am sick of hearing about gitmo, and a missing blonde (as sad as that is) and i don't want to hear about jacko anymore
i want the media to cover this story
NOW!

Sounds like you're falling for the right wing spin on this one.

Their meme is that DSM is not being covered because it's old news -- we already know Bush lied. Now if they can get enough people like you repeating the it's not being covered part of the equation, they are half of the way there. The other part will fall in place automatically.

So by you repeating this over and over as you have on allforums ... I have to suspect you are doing it intentionally with the hopes it discourages people and they drop the DSM issue.

Does that sound about right?

Johnny Bush hugger??? Who the f listens to anything he says?

It is just starting to hit the news services that the reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo story typed the memo up himself. He got an original copy and for some reason typed it over and "burned" the original (didn't Dan Rather go with a story under similar circumstances?)

Even if he claims to have typed it word for word, Shamanfreeguerilladop and Echo would be having a field day if the Bush Administration did something like this. They would declare the entire story illegitimate.

Originally posted by DrewM
Unlike you - I base my comment on facts not fantasy. I have never once said he didn't lie and I have never once said he did lie. MY OPINION WAS THAT , BASED ON USING MY OWN JUDGEMENT OF WHAT I SAW FROM HIM, THAT HE LIED.....NOT FANTASY, YOU JERK ! AND IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT I WAS WRONG,......YOUR OPINION. you tried to label me some kind of jerk, but i wasnt and still am not the only one who felt that way.... but somehow, i was the idiot ! fuck you ! obviously, your FACTS may be wrong also.......so i guess that doesnt make them FACTS !!! you DID SAY THAT HE DIDNT LIE !!! ASKING ME WHERE THE PROOF OF HIS LIE WAS, IS SAY THAT YOU DONT BELIEVE HE DID ! PLAY YOUR WORDS ALL YOU WANT ! MORON

Originally posted by Brooks
It is just starting to hit the news services that the reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo story typed the memo up himself. He got an original copy and for some reason typed it over and "burned" the original (didn't Dan Rather go with a story under similar circumstances?)

Even if he claims to have typed it word for word, Shamanfreeguerilladop and Echo would be having a field day if the Bush Administration did something like this. They would declare the entire story illegitimate.

You're not even close with this statement brooks ... you seriously need to re-read what's out there and come back with a clear head.

The originals are just fine. They did not get destroyed.

Originally posted by korg
MY OPINION WAS THAT , BASED ON USING MY OWN JUDGEMENT OF WHAT I SAW FROM HIM, THAT HE LIED.....NOT FANTASY, YOU JERK ! AND IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT I WAS WRONG,......YOUR OPINION. you tried to label me some kind of jerk, but i wasnt and still am not the only one who felt that way.... but somehow, i was the idiot ! fuck you ! obviously, your FACTS may be wrong also.......so i guess that doesnt make them FACTS !!! you DID SAY THAT HE DIDNT LIE !!! ASKING ME WHERE THE PROOF OF HIS LIE WAS, IS SAY THAT YOU DONT BELIEVE HE DID ! PLAY YOUR WORDS ALL YOU WANT ! MORON

Get upset all you want. The plain truth is in the past I called you out on your habit of converting opinion into fact & you don't like it - getting your panties all bunched up every time. Opinion is fine - but touting an opinion as fact is nothing shy of pathetic.

My assessment (based on many facts) was that you turn fantasy into facts. Nothing has changed - in your post above you are still doing turning opinion into fact. The only facts I claim to have is the evidence of what you write.

And you are wrong about this point - I have never said he didn't lie - I have simply said there are no facts to support it as a certainty - the type of certainty you spout. There is a big difference between disagreement with your approach and disagreement on the issue of Bush lying - yet you seem to ignore that.

If facts change then there may well be evidence to support a position that he lied - but that still won't change the fact that you turn fantasy into fact. That will probably never change.

If reality for you is a 'play on words' then that just about figures....

Originally posted by DrewM
Get upset all you want. The plain truth is in the past I called you out on your habit of converting opinion into fact & you don't like it. Opinion is fine - but touting an opinion as fact is nothing shy of pathetic.

My opinion was that you turn fantasy into facts. It was not specifically my opinion that you were wrong. Nothing has changed - in your post above you are still doing turning opinion into fact. The only facts I claim to have is the evidence of what you write.

And you are wrong about this - I have never said he didn't lie - I have simply said there are no facts to support it as a certainty - the type of certainty you spout.

If facts change then there may well be evidence to support a position that he lied - but that still won't change the fact that you turn fantasy into fact. That will probably never change.

If reality for you is a 'play on words' then that just about figures.... that is what this forum is all about......opinion. if everything was based on FACTS there would be no discussion !!! and everyone here does that. but its mine you make an issue of......stfu

missing the point again.....

Discussing opinion is fine. You present your opinion as facts. Learn to distinguish between opinion and fact.

Originally posted by DrewM
missing the point again.....

Discussing opinion is fine. You present your opinion as facts. Learn to distinguish between opinion and fact. and as i said....everyone here does that, why does it get your panties in a bind when i do it ? you dont say this stupid shit to anyone else .......and you are missing the point, stfu !

If you go to the top of this page of posts - you will see where you re-opened that issue & then re-read your posts where you are clearly about to boil over.

If you don't like the heat get out of kitchen and as you like to say stfu.

The point is pretty clear.

Originally posted by DrewM
If you go to the top of this page of posts - you will see where you re-opened that issue & then re-read your posts where you are clearly about to boil over.

If you don't like the heat get out of kitchen and as you like to say stfu.

The point is pretty clear. i know exactly what i wrote. and it is your OPINION, that i am boiling over, because you dont know shit about me. and i dont mind stfu, as long as you do likewise

ok - you are not BOILING OVER .....funny.

Originally posted by DrewM
ok - you are not BOILING OVER .....funny. i never boil over.....i vent. there is a difference.....like opinion and fact

Drew

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that Bush lied to take us to war?

I've made this point before. "Bush lied" is a speculation that you present as fact, and then build other arguments on top of it. You may believe it, but that doesn't make it so.

Brooks

See my post directly above your last post (to Drew) ...

The question is open for you too (or anyone) -- if you feel like answering it.

Originally posted by Brooks
I've made this point before. "Bush lied" is a speculation that you present as fact, and then build other arguments on top of it. You may believe it, but that doesn't make it so. and i understand that mr brooks. but it doesnt make us stupid for believing that its true. just like you have people here, that believe and fight wholeheartedly about bush being totally honest with us. i truly believe that he lied. and im not the only one.

Thats ok that you believe he lied - I cannot and do not have a problem with that. It's when you assert that there is no question that he lied - that I am compelled to call you on it.

To answer Dop's question - I would need to see proof that he lied and see a credible reason for the motivation to lie. I am not saying he didn't lie - I don't know if he did or not. At the moment there is no credible proof that he actually lied (as opposed to made a bad decision - which is not lying) and it's hard to imagine any motivation to lie & get other world leaders in on the lie. The evidence is all against lying at the moment, although the DSM may change that. I certainly cannot think of any underhand reasons for such a lie. Do I think he could have lied? Yep sure - I wouldn't put lying beyond any politician, especially not the Bush crowd.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that Bush lied to take us to war?
A credible source (a document or multiple credible witnesses) stating that he actually KNEW something wasn't true at the time he said it.

The lied-about-WMD business is only accurate if he knew there were no WMD's. But the fact that a lot of other American leaders also believed it makes the "lie" a hard case to prove.

So in Oct 2002 Bush says he has no plans for attacking Iraq and then we find out later he executed the order to bomb Iraq in Sep that same year ... a full month before he stated he had no intentions.

that's not lieing? Please indulge me ... just WTF is it?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
that's not lieing? Please indulge me ... just WTF is it?
A change in plans.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
A change in plans.

That would be fine if the dates were reversed, but if he issued an order to go ahead with an attack in Sept. and stated in Oct. that he had no such plans, that would be a lie.

It's clear that the DSM raises a lot of questions to be answered. But keep in mind that these are memo's of somebody saying what his people said. All they will say in response is the DSM are wrong and a case of chinese whispers.

Regarding lying - I would be concerned with lying about WMD to create a case that didn't exist. This can be easily discounted because every nation on earth agreed Iraq was a threat on WMD. That's why resolution 1441 passed 15-0 - even Syria agreed Iraq was a threat on WMD. I'd be less concerned about hiding the true extent of their wish to invade - that's the type of thing that any government would do.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
That would be fine if the dates were reversed, but if he issued an order to go ahead with an attack in Sept. and stated in Oct. that he had no such plans, that would be a lie.
Very true - slight oversight...oops.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's clear that the DSM raises a lot of questions to be answered. But keep in mind that these are memo's of somebody saying what his people said. All they will say in response is the DSM are wrong and a case of chinese whispers.

Regarding lying - I would be concerned with lying about WMD to create a case that didn't exist. This can be easily discounted because every nation on earth agreed Iraq was a threat on WMD. That's why resolution 1441 passed 15-0 - even Syria agreed Iraq was a threat on WMD. I'd be less concerned about hiding the true extent of their wish to invade - that's the type of thing that any government would do.
This is really the core of the issue, is it not?

Yes exactly.

The evidence is weighted heavily against the fact that he lied.

But, of course he may well have lied.

Bush lied plain and simple. It IS a fact. When they use phrases like "no doubt" it is a bald faced lie. There was a huge amount of doubt.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George Bush March 18, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.
Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003

have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003
++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

No the real issue as I have stated before was that the Bush Co. started this War before they ever even went to congress. It is both Illegal and Immoral. When taken into account with the deliberate lies this guy is just downright unAmerican.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/06/con05204.html

unAmerican means that the person has betrayed the values of the country. Those values are freedom and democracy of which Bush has undermined both.

BTW it says he "fixed the fact around the policy." I don't know what you think "fixed means but to mean it means lie.

I guess "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." right?...
:@@:

Oh yeah heres another good lie:

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

"We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/19/204749/532

Edit -
Wow theres just an endless supply of these things:

'The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.’
- Ari Fleischer, Bush spokesman, December 5, 2002

There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’
- Defense Intelligence Agency report, September 2002 (summary obtained by Bloomberg News)

more... http://www.notinourname.net/war/wmd_text.htm

He changed his plan. In GOP words he "flip flopped".
He was mistaken. Though he did say he can't recall making any mistakes.
The dog ate his copy of talking points. That doesn't fly for second graders and it wont fly for a president.

We have substantial proof of motive. We also have a dozen or so other people whose dog ate their talking points or they must have also been mistaken.

Originally posted by Echo2
He changed his plan. In GOP words he "flip flopped".

LMAO!

Originally posted by Echo2
He was mistaken. Though he did say he can't recall making any mistakes.


LMAO again!

‘For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.’
- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, July 2003

IOW, Wolfowitz is saying ---- "We had to choose the main issue we would use in order to deceive the masses. We chose "weapons of mass destruction" as the lie that would best serve that purpose"

The wingers are actually claiming fixed means something different in the UK than it does here in the US. ROTFLMAO

Originally posted by DrewM
Thats ok that you believe he lied - I cannot and do not have a problem with that. It's when you assert that there is no question that he lied - that I am compelled to call you on it.

i have a right to believe it without you calling me some kind of moron for doing so. and thats pretty much what you ended up doing in our first conversation. just like you have the right to believe it takes more evidence to call it absolute. you insulted my intelligence. you called me names. that doesnt sound like just calling me on it . but there are people in this thread right now, calling him a liar, saying that he lied. but i dont see you handling them the way you call yourself handling me. that makes you a hypocrite. these guys are saying the same exact thing that i said. so call someone else ON IT !

Originally posted by Echo2
[BHe was mistaken. [/B]

isn't that what all of you liberals use to explain all of Kerry's lies?

Decka - "ummm shit I have no meaningful responses...ummmm, what should I do....Ummmm....Hey look theres a democrat!!!!!"

Originally posted by Decka
isn't that what all of you liberals use to explain all of Kerry's lies?

Kerry never stood up in front of the people of this country and stated for the record "I don't recall having made any mistakes".

Decka, you can throw all the silly little insults at liberal's that you want. It will not change the fact that your beloved bush is a liar, a cheater and a scoundral of the worst kind. And the truth will come out. He may be able to stave off the cavalry untill he is out of office, but it will eventually catch up to him.

My guess is that he will keep the truth at bay untill after he leaves office and then make some book deal for a gazillion dollars and have some ghost writer tell all. Once again duping the public.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Decka - "ummm shit I have no meaningful responses...ummmm, what should I do....Ummmm....Hey look theres a democrat!!!!!"


well sheesh.... for all the crap you throw at our side.... and you get pissed that someone fires back?

come on.... take what you give

Bush lied -- troops died

Everyone in the world knows it ...

End of discussion.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush lied -- troops died

Everyone in the world knows it ...

End of discussion. drew, where are you ? :hitout:

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush lied -- troops died

Everyone in the world knows it ...

End of discussion.

What world are you speaking of?

the libby underground world? yea they probably THINK they know.... but noone really does for sure.... its just your THEORY.....

you have no smoking gun proof.... just a bunch of assumptions.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush lied -- troops died

Everyone in the world knows it ...

End of discussion.
I don't buy that. What incentive would he have to lie? I think he probably just said things like "Saddam has WMDs" out of his ass with faulty intelligence. Now, that intelligence could be faulty because of some inept moron (or a bunch) bungling things up, or because of someone with an agenda intentionally messing with the intelligence. Or, hey, who knows -- maybe Iraq has magic invisible WMDs that we can't find. Either way, I don't think Bush had any malevolent intent.

WHAT ?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I don't buy that. What incentive would he have to lie? WHAT ? YOU ARE KIDDING ME , RIGHT ?

Originally posted by Decka
What world are you speaking of?

the libby underground world? yea they probably THINK they know.... but noone really does for sure.... its just your THEORY.....

you have no smoking gun proof.... just a bunch of assumptions. THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS WE USE WHEN VOTING. you will never get the full truth from any polititian. you have to fill in the blanks. but most countries believe that bush lied......havent you been keeping up ?

Originally posted by korg
WHAT ? YOU ARE KIDDING ME , RIGHT ?
Whatever happened to calmly explaining one's point of view?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I don't buy that. What incentive would he have to lie? I think he probably just said things like "Saddam has WMDs" out of his ass with faulty intelligence. Now, that intelligence could be faulty because of some inept moron (or a bunch) bungling things up, or because of someone with an agenda intentionally messing with the intelligence. Or, hey, who knows -- maybe Iraq has magic invisible WMDs that we can't find. Either way, I don't think Bush had any malevolent intent.

OK, I change my comment to ...

Everyone in the world except Borg knows :D

if he was going to lie about it why not just plant some WMD's? I can not believe that the administration would half lie about it. If they knew there was not going to be anything there they would have made sure there was something to be found, if that makes any sense. They didn't feel they needed to plant anything because they actually believed they would find something. no liar would leave himself exposed like that. if they were going to lie about WMD's they would have went all out and made sure we found some. The truth is, we thought they were there, so did everyone else, including Sadaam generals. I have yet to hear a logical explanation as to why bush didn't just plant some WMD's and get it over with. the only argument I have heard is that they couldn't get away with it, not with all the satellites, whatever that means. OR , that we couldn't plant enough to justify the war because we would have to plant tons and tons worth. Really, all we would have to plant would be a little bit and say the rest must be scattered around the desert like the ones we found. I am always amazed at how little imagination the conspiracy theorists really have. beyond regurgitating what they read on the internet they cant really think of much themselves.

Originally posted by Travh20
if he was going to lie about it why not just plant some WMD's?.........no liar would leave himself exposed like that. That's a great point. I've read on these threads that our government can bring down the Twin Towers, manufactured the Red Scare and stole two elections.

Planting some WMD's is child's play.

Welcome back trav. I missed Sparring with you!

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I don't buy that. What incentive would he have to lie?

No good incentive. But if he really did have it in for Saddam, then that might have been incentive enough.

Originally posted by Travh20
if he was going to lie about it why not just plant some WMD's?
I've said the same thing on many occasions. Nuclear materials can, from my understanding, be easily traced, but chemical components, on the other hand, could've easily been planted.

Reasons for lieing.

He wanted the oil and the contracts for himself and his cronies.
He needed to justify invading Iraq to the american people.
He united the people behind his cause by useing fear of nuclear attack. (Fear is an old and proven tactic).

so why not just seal the deal and plant the WMD's so he stays the boy who could do no wrong instead of becoming the worlds most hated man?

Originally posted by Travh20
so why not just seal the deal and plant the WMD's so he stays the boy who could do no wrong instead of becoming the worlds most hated man?
Exactly.

He isn't that smart. This is the same guy that took us to war unprepaired, without enough troops, enough amunition, enough equipment and no exit strategy. He couldn't wait to bloody his hands.

He isn't that smart. This is the same guy that took us to war unprepaired, without enough troops, enough amunition, enough equipment and no exit strategy. He couldn't wait to bloody his hands.
So he's smart enough to drag along a the vast majority of the country into a war, but not smart enough to plant WMD? And according to Dop he's even smart enough to plan a nationwide catastrophe and blame it on Bin Laden, but not smart enough to plant WMD? You people make no sense!

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I've said the same thing on many occasions. Nuclear materials can, from my understanding, be easily traced, but chemical components, on the other hand, could've easily been planted.

You're correct to a point prae but a couple of things ... first they claimed enormous amounts like hundreds of thousands of pounds or gallons (or whatever) which would be kinda hard for logistical reasons.

Second -- chemical compounds have a fingerprint ... the planted ones would have to be a very close facscimile of what was claimed, what was available at the claim time, age, etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Echo2
He isn't that smart. This is the same guy that took us to war unprepaired, without enough troops, enough amunition, enough equipment and no exit strategy. He couldn't wait to bloody his hands.
Now seriously, Echo - do you think you're smarter than he is? Remember the media shit-storm that ensued after Dan Quayle misspelled "potato"? I'm sure you chimed right in with labeling him an idiot, and yet we're privy to a host of your grammatical errors/misconceptions on a daily basis. "Useing" and "Gizmo" are prime examples.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You're correct to a point prae but a couple of things ... first they claimed enormous amounts like hundreds of thousands of pounds or gallons (or whatever) which would be kinda hard for logistical reasons.

Second -- chemical compounds have a fingerprint ... the planted ones would have to be a very close facscimile of what was claimed, what was available at the claim time, age, etc etc etc.
Fair enough, but don't you think we could have easily planted the chemical precursors, or constitutents, if you will? We could have done something, I'm sure...

Ah yes, it's been almost a week since you've commented on my spelling. You’re getting lazy. It used to be 3 to 4 times a week. Is being the spelling monitor getting boring? I try really hard to keep you busy but you just keep missing more and more spelling errors. Take it up a step prae, you're falling behind.

Originally posted by Echo2
Ah yes, it's been almost a week since you've commented on my spelling. You’re getting lazy. It used to be 3 to 4 times a week. Is being the spelling monitor getting boring? I try really hard to keep you busy but you just keep missing more and more spelling errors. Take it up a step prae, you're falling behind.
Way to address the question/point.

people like dop and echo are so obviously nothing but political hacks. they say whatever it is at that moment that helps their paper thin arguments. Examples:

one day, Bush is making the world more dangerous for us all, there are 500 times more terrorists then there were last year. The next day, there is no threat, its all a big exageration by the adminstation so they can take away our rights and use as a distraction and used to push policy.

another example: Bush lied to bring us into war, he decieved the entire world and masterminded the entire thing to make more money for his corperations and to avenge daddy. He is the most dangerous man in the world. The next day, he is such an idiot he couldnt eve think to bury a few dozen barrels of mustard gas in the sand outside of Tikrit for us to "find" and take the heat off of himself.

like Bliblob said, you people make no sense. find a story and stick to it, stop taking you cues from the John Kerry school of flip flopping.


and Dop, yet again I havve to be the conspiacy theorist here: your argument has always been that hussein got his chemical weapons from us, so even if the trace did lead back to us, why would it matter? we gave them to him so obviously they would lead back to us, right? sometimes I get tired of keeping the conspiracy going for you guys

Prae - I will not address your issues about my spelling. If you bring them into a discussion they will be ignored. Try wording your questions without insulting me and I might bother to answer you.

Trav, when you exagerate to make a point you make yourself look silly.

You guys know by now that I am no Bush fan.
But, just for a moment say there really was a conspiracy and Bush was the scape goat.
Fed false information by the powers that are not elected, but always present.

Originally posted by Echo2
Trav, when you exagerate to make a point you make yourself look silly.

it is no exageration, you have used each of those arguments at some point, each one contradicts the next, it is your MO

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
You guys know by now that I am no Bush fan.
But, just for a moment say there really was a conspiracy and Bush was the scape goat.
Fed false information by the powers that are not elected, but always present.

That is a scarry thought.

trav - I must take up a lot of space in your head. You think you know what I think, what I feel, and what I will say. So far you have scored a big zero on all of the.

However, if it makes you feel better to make up things about me then go ahead. But quit trying to pass them off as true or real.

well, if you dont mean those things you say you really have said nothing at all since you have been here, or are really crappy at saying what you mean. Either way, you have mental problems

Bush, was speaking at a nuclear power plant in Cleveland today when he told the crowd we are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate ever -- like ever in history.

that is a blatant lie -- not a misquote, not a mistake -- it's an outright and intentional LIE

No link but MSNBC had it on their scroller for 5 minutes ... obviously they were also stunned by this blatant misreprsentation of the facts.

This issue of whether Bush is a liar is now officially closed as there is little doubt left -- he simply cannot make a statement without telling a lie.

dop, i wont say he didnt say it, but knowing you, you left out a key part of it that puts it into the proper context.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

This issue of whether Bush is a liar is now officially closed as there is little doubt left --

That particular issue was closed the day the MFer made his first campaign speech.

In fact Bush lies SO much, and in such blatant ways (a perfect example being today's whopper of the "lowest unemployment rate EVER") that, it seems to me, it has to be pathological.

______________________________

In the long and harrowing three-year national nightmare we presently find ourselves trapped in, a filthy brand of governance has emerged, entrenching itself deep into our society with its claws of violence and destruction. It is a government devoid of honor or integrity, living, breathing and spewing lies and deceits, exploiting fear and insecurity to achieve its goals and manipulating an entire nation suffering through its post 9/11 insecurity and slumber into blindly following its evil dictates.------Manuel Valenzuela

Turn on the TV trav and tune in MSNBC -- they are quoting bush and using it as a sub-title.

"BUSH: LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF 'ALL TIME'"

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Turn on the TV trav and tune in MSNBC -- they are quoting bush and using it as a sub-title.

"BUSH: LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF 'ALL TIME'"
:rant:

He's done WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!? Okay, that's it - it's over...IMPEACH THE LYING SOB! Hell, lock his ass up indefinitely - he doesn't deserve his freedom.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush, was speaking at a nuclear power plant in Cleveland today when he told the crowd we are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate ever -- like ever in history.


The only story I found about his speech talked about the nuclear power issue and didn't mention his unemployment comment. That's not to imply he didn't say it, as I suspect he did, just that the article didn't mention it.

The reason I suspect he did is because that's what this administration has a pattern of doing. They look at the intelligence, poll numbers, and statistics in general, and use them in a misleading way. I can't say that they "lied" about WMD's in Iraq, but I can say that they misled me to a great degree, and while there may be a clear legal distinction between lying and misleading someone, the moral distinction is less certain.

The fact is they knew they didn't have solid intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs, and they also knew that the American people would not want to go to war on a "maybe". The next thing we knew Rumsfeld was claiming he knew exactly where these imaginary WMD's were, and Powell was showing us pictures of them at the UN.

If you believe that Bush himself believed the bad intelligence then that places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those individuals responsible for providing such information to the President. Why was George Tenet not fired? He was given the Medal of Freedom instead, for telling the President that it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq possessed WMD's.

One thing is certain, this administration did a piss-poor job of intelligence gathering, or they willfully misrepresented the intelligence they had. Either way, this administration stinks.

There were a great deal of republicans that believed Nixon all the way through the watergate hearings and his pending impeachment. And they continued to believe him after he left office and for years afterwards. Some people just can't manage to see the forest through the trees. They will continue to blindlly believe and spout the lies they are told no matter what evidence confronts them.

Don't confuse them with facts, they've already made up their minds. They are certain that bush never lied to the american public, that he has no interest in the oil in Iraq, that he really truly believed that their were WMD in Iraq and that he is a moral man.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The only story I found about his speech talked about the nuclear power issue and didn't mention his unemployment comment. That's not to imply he didn't say it, as I suspect he did, just that the article didn't mention it.



I doubt they will put it in print ... it's such a blatant lie it crosses the boundaries of insanity ... as usual, the MSM will protect Bush from any bad press.

I'm sure the leftie forums and bloggers have a screenshot of when MSNBC used the quote.

According to this article on Bush's new Social Security plan ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8319625

There is a $145 billion surplus.

WTF? Not another lie ... they've been telling us for 5 years that SS is broke, there is no surplus, it's going bankrupt ...

Just more lies -- that's all we get.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The reason I suspect he did is because that's what this administration has a pattern of doing. They look at the intelligence, poll numbers, and statistics in general, and use them in a misleading way.

I think they only listen to evidence that bolters their pre-conceived notions and ignore the rest.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
If you believe that Bush himself believed the bad intelligence then that places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those individuals responsible for providing such information to the President. Why was George Tenet not fired? He was given the Medal of Freedom instead, for telling the President that it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq possessed WMD's.

That's what really bugs me. Where's the accountability? Our "CEO" president surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots, for which he's entirely responsible.

Decka - I don't give a damn about kerry. He was in it with bush (via skull and bones) and the liberals in here are to brainwashed to comprehend such things (besides the fact that his entire platform was a pourly watered down version of the republican platform). My point was "Stick to the goddamn issue". Do you seriously think that just beccause kerry was a shithead that excuses bush for being a shithead? No it doesn't. Kerry has aabsolutly nothing to do with this shit. So why not stick to what we are actually talking about instead of bringing up useless partisan crap. This is the problem I have always had with political discussion boards - Asshats who are cheering for a team instead of upholding their ideals.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Bush lied plain and simple. It IS a fact. When they use phrases like "no doubt" it is a bald faced lie. There was a huge amount of doubt.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George Bush March 18, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.
Ari Fleischer, Mar. 21, 2003

have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
- Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003
++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

No the real issue as I have stated before was that the Bush Co. started this War before they ever even went to congress. It is both Illegal and Immoral. When taken into account with the deliberate lies this guy is just downright unAmerican.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/06/con05204.html

unAmerican means that the person has betrayed the values of the country. Those values are freedom and democracy of which Bush has undermined both.

There isn't a single lie in the list above. You guys need to look up lie in the dictionary. The "we know he lied" crowd don't know anything of the sort. You pull together a bunch of half assed motivations like 'he lied for oil' or 'he lied to make money for his cronies' - the reality is - it hard to imagine any feasible motivation to lie & to get other world leaders in on the lie.

As mentioned - if he wanted to lie - WMD would have been found. The reasonable explanation is some of the intelligence (intelligence that every nation on earth agreed with) was flawed. Beyond that - how do we know the WMD are not in Syria right now? But that is speculation of course.

As to the media clippings - there is a huge difference between some media statements that turned out wrong & a bold faced lie to take the US into Iraq knowing fine well that there was no case and lying about it. Also - increasing troops ready for an invasion is not an indication that a decision had already been made. Clinton massed troops on Iraq's border twice with no invasion.

And speaking of Clinton - here is a bold faced lie "I never had sexual relations with that woman.."

wow drew, I thought you had sold out completly, I guess I was wrong.