| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
This is a very good read. It really does well to explain just how
gullible or blinded the republicans are in this country: Like you even needed more proof. Like you even need to read about the incredible and ever-increasing list of lies and misinfo and deeply, colon-clenchingly humiliating wrongness shot forth from the mouth of the GOP machine, a truly jaw-dropping assortment of falsehoods and fabrications about war, and war, and war. Oh, and the economy. And the environment. And war. Look. There is no doubt left. Zero. None. Even many high-ranking Republicans are deeply worried over the increasingly embittered national timbre regarding BushCo's lies, as reflected in his ever-slipping ratings and declining reelectability quotient and his smug little smirky emptiness. Do you need to be reminded? Do you need to see it again? Very good, then. Let us recap: No WMDs. Biggest joke on the American public in the past 50 years. Saddam doesn't have 'em, and probably never did. Over 1,400 of BushCo's own investigators and specialists and scientists -- affectionately known as the Iraq Survey Group -- canvassing postwar Iraq for six months, not to mention the teams of original U.N. investigators, and finding not a trace of anything resembling huge stockpiles of massive scary weaponry. Which is to say, no nukes. No biotoxins. No big cannons full of scary Korans and rusty bullets and old gum. Nothing at all resembling what Condi Rice and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfowitz, et al., said were absolutely positively no question going to be found any day now because after all that's why we went to war. Except that it wasn't. And they knew it. To paraphrase The Washington Post: Among the judgments of the above-mentioned Iraq Survey Group, as overseen by David Kay, who reports directly to CIA Director George Tenet, are these: Iraq's nuclear-weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after 1991. Also, all those facilities with suspicious new construction (remember Colin "Emasculated" Powell's bogus satellite photos?) proved benign, and of no military use whatsoever. This is not speculation. This is not liberal wishful thinking. These are facts. And BushCo knew them. And more. Translation: Bush's urgent call back in March to bomb the living crap out of ****ant Iraq because Saddam had irrefutably cranked up his nuke arsenal and might possibly bomb weak depressed New York at any minute and wipe out all the Starbucks and ruin Monday Night Football was not only completely bogus and impossible, it was shockingly dangerous, and unprecedented, and even borderline treasonous. Remember how Saddam ostensibly loved al Qaeda? Remember how Uncle Dick helped drill that terrorism connection into the cultural consciousness, repeatedly, across all media for months on end just before the war, thus inducing upward of 50 percent of the disturbingly gullible U.S. population to believe that Saddam actually had a hand in 9/11? When he didn't? When there was no connection whatsoever? Remember that? Ah, yes. It turns out that all intelligence and every piece of evidence points exactly the opposite way. As BushCo was well informed, Saddam might only make contact with al Qaeda -- his sworn enemies -- if his back was against the wall, and probably not even then. More? Sure. How about Afghanistan? Remember that? Osama at large. Never captured. Taliban resurfacing. No aid for the country and no rebuilding (except for a shiny new oil pipeline) and complete devastation and neglect. And even Rummy, in his private and damning memo, said as much, just last week, writing that there is absolutely no way to tell whether we are making any progress in the war on terror, and that "victory" would be "a long, hard slog," and that it was impossible to say whether we are killing known terrorists any faster than the increasingly furious and inspired madrassas, or Islamic fundamentalist schools, can manufacture them. "This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." -- President Bush, Oct. 14, 2002 "Yes, there is a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 26, 2002 "There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002 Isn't that cute? Not a single one of those statements was true. And not a single one of those people is being accused of treason or malfeasance or of being a soulless anti-American warmongering drone, despite how their words were dripping with lies when they exited their mouths. Look. Bush told Americans we were going to enter into this savage and bloody war no one really wanted because Iraq posed an immediate and imminent threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. He gutted the economy for it. He destroyed long-standing relationships with countless international allies for it. He made America into this rogue superpower brat, disrespected and untrustable and appalling, for it. And it was never true. How about this? More soldiers have died since BushCo declared the war essentially over six months ago than during the war itself. And guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces have more than doubled over recent months to more than 25 per day, with fresh American causalities coming in nonstop. No matter, says the GOP. All part of the clumsy "rebuilding" process, they say. By the way, that $87 billion BushCo just begged for to keep the Iraq war machine clunking along? That's more than the fiscal debt of all the gutted U.S. states combined. Iraq is, by every account, a devastating U.S. money pit. Might it be worth mentioning here that comprehensive new nonpartisan investigation that reveals how at least 15,000 Iraqis, including a minimum of 4,000 civilians, were slaughtered by U.S. forces in the first days of the invasion? Or that some estimates of total Iraqi civilian deaths go as high as nearly 10,000? Do those people matter? All those women and children and poor families? Nah. Screw 'em. And you know why they don't matter, according to the GOP? Because we got rid of a pesky evil pip-squeak tyrant, that's why. One who was zero threat to the U.S., and not much of a threat to neighboring countries, and had no 9/11 connection, but who we know killed lots of his own people 20 years ago, with America's full and complicit assistance, including the biotoxins we sold to him. And how he's gone. Yay! Mission accomplished! Except, of course, he's not. Still alive, apparently. But he's hiding somewhere! And he's probably really furious that he had to shave his mustache, too! Ha! That oughta show him! That's $300 billion and hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers well spent, baby! God bless America. This needs to be said. This needs to be repeated, over and over again, because apparently it is still not clear and apparently Republican apologists love to trot it out as some sort of justification, some sort of hollow and childish accusation, signifying nothing. Yes, Bill Clinton lied, too. He lied about stupid adulterous sex. And the GOP savaged him like rabid feral swine attacking a rutabaga. Had him impeached over it. Loathe him still, and his wife, too, with unprecedented level of hatred and bile and vicious litigious action never before seen in this nation. No such fate for BushCo. Shockingly, the GOP isn't the slightest bit upset about this pro-corporate, oil-drunk administration's deadly string of lies. Shall we wonder why? Or is it just too poisonous and sad to consider for very long, lest the intellect curdle and the soul recoil? OK, I'll spell it out: George W. Bush and his entire senior administration lied, and continue to lie, flagrantly, openly, knowingly, with full intent, about the need to drive this nation into a brutal and unwinnable and fiscally debilitating war, one that protects no one and inhibits no terrorism and defends nothing but BushCo's own petrochemical cronies and political stratagems. This much is obvious. This much is painfully, crushingly sad. And this much we must purge like so much clotted gunk from the collective social artery one year from now. Otherwise, we should just turn in our stained and bloody Superpower badge, and resign ourselves to our fate. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
|
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!
It's a good thing Saddam is gone. But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will become a rogue nation. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... It's a good thing Saddam is gone. Is he gone? October 31, 2003 U.S. Officials See Hussein's Hand in Attacks on Americans in Iraq By DOUGLAS JEHL WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Saddam Hussein may be playing a significant role in coordinating and directing attacks by his loyalists against American forces in Iraq, senior American officials said Thursday. The officials cited recent intelligence reports indicating that Mr. Hussein is acting as a catalyst or even a leader in the armed opposition, probably from a base of operations near Tikrit, his hometown and stronghold. A leadership role by Mr. Hussein would go far beyond anything previously acknowledged by the Bush administration, which has sought in its public remarks to portray the former Iraqi leader as being on the run and irrelevant. Officials acknowledged that the reports of a significant role by Mr. Hussein could not be corroborated, and one senior official cautioned that recent intelligence reports contained conflicting assessments. Nonetheless, three senior officials described reports of a larger role by Mr. Hussein as credible, and a Defense Department official said the information had given a fresh sense of urgency to the American-led manhunt for the former Iraqi leader. "There are some accounts that say he is somehow instigating or fomenting some of the resistance," a second American official said of the intelligence reports. Baghdad, meanwhile, was unnerved Thursday by more explosions and a terrorist threat against schoolchildren. Mr. Hussein is believed to have met with Izzat Ibrahim, an Iraqi general who was officially the second highest ranking member of the Iraqi government at the time of the invasion, and who is described by American officials as playing a significant role in the insurgency. General Ibrahim, who is No. 6 on the American most-wanted list, has been described by some Defense Department officials as having recently been in contact with members of Ansar al-Islam, a militant group that had been based in northern Iraq before the American-led invasion and which is linked to Al Qaeda. Such contacts would be the clearest evidence to date of coordination between forces loyal to Mr. Hussein and members of the extremist group in the campaign against American forces in Iraq. But one senior American official said Thursday that while General Ibrahim was clearly playing a role in coordinating attacks by those loyal to Mr. Hussein, it was much less clear whether he had been in contact with Ansar al-Islam. For more than six months, Bush administration officials have been saying they believe Mr. Hussein is spending nearly all of his time trying to evade detection by the American-led forces. During his time in hiding, Mr. Hussein has issued at least five audio recordings that have served as calls to arms. But American officials have sought to discount the idea that he is playing anything more than a symbolic role in inspiring opposition to the American occupation. But over the last month or two, the senior American officials said, there have been increasing signs that his role may well be more significant. Two officials said there were indications that, in addition to meeting with subordinates to discuss the armed opposition, Mr. Hussein may be playing a role in bringing together different factions of loyalists involved in the attacks. Some of the meetings may have been conducted in moving cars to avoid detection by United States forces, one American official said. "Everyone has always recognized that it's important to get Saddam," the Defense Department official said. "But with these continued reports that Saddam may be behind some of the attacks, or coordinating them or leading them, there's now a military reason as well." Sunni Muslim Iraqis loyal to Mr. Hussein are thought to make up the overwhelming majority of the forces arrayed against the American occupation. In recent weeks the insurgents have attacked United States forces two dozen or more times times a day. More American soldiers have been killed in attacks in Iraq since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat, than during the six weeks of fighting that followed the invasion. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, asked Thursday night on "The Charlie Rose Show" whether Mr. Hussein was coordinating attacks in Iraq, said, "It's a little hard to tell. Once in a while there are rumors that he is somehow involved in coordinating attacks." Ms. Rice said she wondered how much of a role Mr. Hussein could play, given that he was "saving his own skin." A senior Congressional official said that the growing Iraqi resentment against the American occupation may be becoming a more important factor than any role played by Mr. Hussein, because "people are not fighting for Saddam; they are fighting against the Americans, and against the occupation." Several hundred American commandos and intelligence officers have been involved in the search for Mr. Hussein and his confederates, mostly focusing on the region near Tikrit. Mr. Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were tracked down and killed this summer in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. From a list of 55 Iraqis most wanted by the United States in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, Mr. Hussein and 11 others remain at large. It was not until June, more than two months after Mr. Hussein was toppled, that Bush administration officials began to acknowledge that he had almost certainly survived the invasion and two American attempts to kill him during that conflict. In early summer, the Central Intelligence Agency confirmed that an audiotape broadcast on Arabic-language television stations almost certainly included the voice of Mr. Hussein, and since then American officials have acknowledged that he is still alive and in Iraq. On July 2, Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Hussein was "no longer a threat to the United States, because we removed him." In more recent remarks, including those at a fund-raising event on Oct. 8, Mr. Bush has been proclaiming that Mr. Hussein is "no more," because he is no longer in power. In Baghdad on Oct. 8, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, said of Mr. Hussein "that he's hiding and running away constantly from the relentless hunt that we are on to find him, capture him, kill him." But in comments little-noticed at the time, General Sanchez went on to say: "Could he be a part of the attacks? He could." |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Is he gone?
My theory? He's in storage, along with OBL. I'm sure we know where he is, within a 3 meter radius, at all times. It would be silly to eliminate either one of them at this point. There's an election coming up next year. If GWB isn't doing very well about mid-October next year, watch for one of these guys to be taken out. If that doesn't do the trick, the other could follow close behind. Remember how Bush's approval rating shot up to 80-some percent just after we invaded Iraq? About 35 or 40 points higher than current ratings. We can be sure the Bush Ad hasn't forgotten, either. If Bush seems to maintain a comfortable lead in the polls, SH and OBL may be safe for a while. They serve a purpose by living: "The threat is still out there! We can't start all over with a new administration!" Sorry if that sounds cynical. It is. I don't put any sort of skullduggery or dirty tricks past politicians in general. Anybody who lived through the 60's knows that politicians can be willing and able to accept American military casualties as part of the price of politics. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... Anybody who lived through the 60's knows that politicians can be willing and able to accept American military casualties as part of the price of politics. Sometimes, they even accept non-military casualties. I don't recall Nixon saying much of anything in the way of comforting words for the families of those kids at Kent State. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
|
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Gould 0738 wrote:
Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people! It's a good thing Saddam is gone. But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will become a rogue nation. Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (& little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks. I can't believe you would want to risk another 911??? Bali?? & maybe countries will now react differently when you express concerns, they surely won't just thumb their noses at you Saddam style after this. "If" they really are not a threat to our citizens then they'll have no objections to allowing confirmation. UN or other who cares just so long as there's no risk or perceived risk to us. Truth is you just want a change of Govt, that's good stuff & fair enough, but don't loose sight of the realities that the dems would have done probably the exact same thing; as they should to protect you against danger. K |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:40:28 +1100, K Smith wrote: Gould 0738 wrote: Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people! It's a good thing Saddam is gone. But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will become a rogue nation. Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (& little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks. Naw. The reason we "went in" was to prop up a failing president and his failing presidency. If it was just to prop up the Presidency, we would of just fired a bunch of Cruise missiles at some tents and a factory or two. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:40:28 +1100, K Smith wrote: Gould 0738 wrote: Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people! It's a good thing Saddam is gone. But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will become a rogue nation. Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (& little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks. Naw. The reason we "went in" was to prop up a failing president and his failing presidency. If it was just to prop up the Presidency, we would of just fired a bunch of Cruise missiles at some tents and a factory or two. Sorry, Bill, but the bloom of post-9/11 was fading off your boy, and he needed something big to distract Americans from his domestic and foreign policy failures, so...The BIG invasion of another little country. Bush's puppetmasters thought that would do it for their boy. So far, it hasn't. How many body bags do you think will be coming home by elections next year, Bill? |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
K Smith wrote:
Gould 0738 wrote: Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people! It's a good thing Saddam is gone. But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will become a rogue nation. Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (& little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks. Unlikely. After all, you're still running free and loose in Australia, Karen Elizabeth Smith. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 08:36:40 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: How many body bags do you think will be coming home by elections next year, Bill? It's very unfortunate for those serving right now, but the locals know more body bags equals trouble for Bush. It's hard to imagine every leader in the region, other than Isreal, doesn't want to see Bush fail. Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. I'm sure they are doing their best to funnel support to the opposition and will increase that effort as the election approaches. It looks like were up to about two body bags a day now. Next summer should be a rough time to be hanging around Iraq. bb |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
bb wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 08:36:40 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: How many body bags do you think will be coming home by elections next year, Bill? It's very unfortunate for those serving right now, but the locals know more body bags equals trouble for Bush. It's hard to imagine every leader in the region, other than Isreal, doesn't want to see Bush fail. Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. I'm sure they are doing their best to funnel support to the opposition and will increase that effort as the election approaches. It looks like were up to about two body bags a day now. Next summer should be a rough time to be hanging around Iraq. bb Sadly, I don't believe that a handful of U.S. soldier deaths each day has much of an impact on Boobus Americanus. The Iraqi opposition forces know this, too, and since they have far better intelligence in the area than we do, I would be saddened but not surprised to hear the daily death toll rising as larger targets are selected. I just love the way the idiot in the White House plays the game of newspeak, don't you? "We're succeeding because the Iraqis are trying harder." Reminds me of what our military and political leaders were saying during the war against the Vietnamese. It was crap then and it is crap now. We have the weaponry to flatten military forces, but we don't have the wherewithal to compete against superiority in intel. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
|
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Have you taken your prozac today?
basskisser wrote: This is a very good read. It really does well to explain just how gullible or blinded the republicans are in this country: Like you even needed more proof. Like you even need to read about the incredible and ever-increasing list of lies and misinfo and deeply, colon-clenchingly humiliating wrongness shot forth from the mouth of the GOP machine, a truly jaw-dropping assortment of falsehoods and fabrications about war, and war, and war. Oh, and the economy. And the environment. And war. Look. There is no doubt left. Zero. None. Even many high-ranking Republicans are deeply worried over the increasingly embittered national timbre regarding BushCo's lies, as reflected in his ever-slipping ratings and declining reelectability quotient and his smug little smirky emptiness. Do you need to be reminded? Do you need to see it again? Very good, then. Let us recap: No WMDs. Biggest joke on the American public in the past 50 years. Saddam doesn't have 'em, and probably never did. Over 1,400 of BushCo's own investigators and specialists and scientists -- affectionately known as the Iraq Survey Group -- canvassing postwar Iraq for six months, not to mention the teams of original U.N. investigators, and finding not a trace of anything resembling huge stockpiles of massive scary weaponry. Which is to say, no nukes. No biotoxins. No big cannons full of scary Korans and rusty bullets and old gum. Nothing at all resembling what Condi Rice and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfowitz, et al., said were absolutely positively no question going to be found any day now because after all that's why we went to war. Except that it wasn't. And they knew it. To paraphrase The Washington Post: Among the judgments of the above-mentioned Iraq Survey Group, as overseen by David Kay, who reports directly to CIA Director George Tenet, are these: Iraq's nuclear-weapons scientists did no significant arms-related work after 1991. Also, all those facilities with suspicious new construction (remember Colin "Emasculated" Powell's bogus satellite photos?) proved benign, and of no military use whatsoever. This is not speculation. This is not liberal wishful thinking. These are facts. And BushCo knew them. And more. Translation: Bush's urgent call back in March to bomb the living crap out of ****ant Iraq because Saddam had irrefutably cranked up his nuke arsenal and might possibly bomb weak depressed New York at any minute and wipe out all the Starbucks and ruin Monday Night Football was not only completely bogus and impossible, it was shockingly dangerous, and unprecedented, and even borderline treasonous. Remember how Saddam ostensibly loved al Qaeda? Remember how Uncle Dick helped drill that terrorism connection into the cultural consciousness, repeatedly, across all media for months on end just before the war, thus inducing upward of 50 percent of the disturbingly gullible U.S. population to believe that Saddam actually had a hand in 9/11? When he didn't? When there was no connection whatsoever? Remember that? Ah, yes. It turns out that all intelligence and every piece of evidence points exactly the opposite way. As BushCo was well informed, Saddam might only make contact with al Qaeda -- his sworn enemies -- if his back was against the wall, and probably not even then. More? Sure. How about Afghanistan? Remember that? Osama at large. Never captured. Taliban resurfacing. No aid for the country and no rebuilding (except for a shiny new oil pipeline) and complete devastation and neglect. And even Rummy, in his private and damning memo, said as much, just last week, writing that there is absolutely no way to tell whether we are making any progress in the war on terror, and that "victory" would be "a long, hard slog," and that it was impossible to say whether we are killing known terrorists any faster than the increasingly furious and inspired madrassas, or Islamic fundamentalist schools, can manufacture them. "This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." -- President Bush, Oct. 14, 2002 "Yes, there is a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 26, 2002 "There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002 Isn't that cute? Not a single one of those statements was true. And not a single one of those people is being accused of treason or malfeasance or of being a soulless anti-American warmongering drone, despite how their words were dripping with lies when they exited their mouths. Look. Bush told Americans we were going to enter into this savage and bloody war no one really wanted because Iraq posed an immediate and imminent threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. He gutted the economy for it. He destroyed long-standing relationships with countless international allies for it. He made America into this rogue superpower brat, disrespected and untrustable and appalling, for it. And it was never true. How about this? More soldiers have died since BushCo declared the war essentially over six months ago than during the war itself. And guerrilla attacks on U.S. forces have more than doubled over recent months to more than 25 per day, with fresh American causalities coming in nonstop. No matter, says the GOP. All part of the clumsy "rebuilding" process, they say. By the way, that $87 billion BushCo just begged for to keep the Iraq war machine clunking along? That's more than the fiscal debt of all the gutted U.S. states combined. Iraq is, by every account, a devastating U.S. money pit. Might it be worth mentioning here that comprehensive new nonpartisan investigation that reveals how at least 15,000 Iraqis, including a minimum of 4,000 civilians, were slaughtered by U.S. forces in the first days of the invasion? Or that some estimates of total Iraqi civilian deaths go as high as nearly 10,000? Do those people matter? All those women and children and poor families? Nah. Screw 'em. And you know why they don't matter, according to the GOP? Because we got rid of a pesky evil pip-squeak tyrant, that's why. One who was zero threat to the U.S., and not much of a threat to neighboring countries, and had no 9/11 connection, but who we know killed lots of his own people 20 years ago, with America's full and complicit assistance, including the biotoxins we sold to him. And how he's gone. Yay! Mission accomplished! Except, of course, he's not. Still alive, apparently. But he's hiding somewhere! And he's probably really furious that he had to shave his mustache, too! Ha! That oughta show him! That's $300 billion and hundreds of dead U.S. soldiers well spent, baby! God bless America. This needs to be said. This needs to be repeated, over and over again, because apparently it is still not clear and apparently Republican apologists love to trot it out as some sort of justification, some sort of hollow and childish accusation, signifying nothing. Yes, Bill Clinton lied, too. He lied about stupid adulterous sex. And the GOP savaged him like rabid feral swine attacking a rutabaga. Had him impeached over it. Loathe him still, and his wife, too, with unprecedented level of hatred and bile and vicious litigious action never before seen in this nation. No such fate for BushCo. Shockingly, the GOP isn't the slightest bit upset about this pro-corporate, oil-drunk administration's deadly string of lies. Shall we wonder why? Or is it just too poisonous and sad to consider for very long, lest the intellect curdle and the soul recoil? OK, I'll spell it out: George W. Bush and his entire senior administration lied, and continue to lie, flagrantly, openly, knowingly, with full intent, about the need to drive this nation into a brutal and unwinnable and fiscally debilitating war, one that protects no one and inhibits no terrorism and defends nothing but BushCo's own petrochemical cronies and political stratagems. This much is obvious. This much is painfully, crushingly sad. And this much we must purge like so much clotted gunk from the collective social artery one year from now. Otherwise, we should just turn in our stained and bloody Superpower badge, and resign ourselves to our fate. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out
of office in the worst way. S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet? http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Harry Krause wrote in message ...
I just love the way the idiot in the White House plays the game of newspeak, don't you? "We're succeeding because the Iraqis are trying harder." Reminds me of what our military and political leaders were saying during the war against the Vietnamese. It does have an eerie ring to it. It was crap then and it is crap now. We have the weaponry to flatten military forces, but we don't have the wherewithal to compete against superiority in intel. Remember, it was not Viet Minh guerrillas who rolled into Saigon in '75. It was regular army North Vietnamese troops supported by tanks. The Viet Minh had been effectively finished off by the infamous "Phoenix Program". http://www.danford.net/phoenix.htm Something on that order is what needs to get started, right now. You may have noticed I did not use the term "Viet Cong". That is because it was just another one the many made up "lies" by the US Govt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Minh If you're going to lie about, or worse yet don't even know, who it is you're really fighting, is it any wonder you do not succeed? -- SJM |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Scott McFadden" wrote in message
... (Gould 0738) wrote in message ... I figured they (GB11) would have had the CIA plant some WMD's to be "found" by now. If for no other reason than to make the chief LW puppeteers dream up another "song & dance" for their legions of mindless marionettes to endlessly "share" with us here on rec.boats. This plausible scenario courtesy of a person casting himself as above the fray. It'll have to be something a little more realistic to get us dancing. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"bb" wrote in message
... On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet? http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to support Bush's agenda. bb OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really taking off. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote:
"bb" wrote in message .. . On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet? http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to support Bush's agenda. bb OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really taking off. Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:09:20 -0500, JohnH
wrote: OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really taking off. Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off? I don't know about it being in the catagory of "fondish wish", but I could endure another year of this economy if it means getting rid of George. Heck, after three years in the gutter, one more doesn't hurt much more. I honestly can't think of one single thing positive this president has done. I guess, keeping to the intent of the thread, fondest wish would be to get rid of him now, have the economy recover to where it was when he started, and put about four million more people to work, and somehow reverse the Iraq quagmire. Hey, one can dream, can't they? bb |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:40:28 +1100, K Smith wrote: Gould 0738 wrote: Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people! It's a good thing Saddam is gone. But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable means, we will become a rogue nation. Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (& little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks. Naw. The reason we "went in" was to prop up a failing president and his failing presidency. If it was just to prop up the Presidency, we would of just fired a bunch of Cruise missiles at some tents and a factory or two. Sorry, Bill, but the bloom of post-9/11 was fading off your boy, and he needed something big to distract Americans from his domestic and foreign policy failures, so...The BIG invasion of another little country. Bush's puppetmasters thought that would do it for their boy. So far, it hasn't. How many body bags do you think will be coming home by elections next year, Bill? If he just wanted to prop up his numbers, just had to charge HK under the Patriot act. You boy showed the way in Wag The Dog. How many people still engage in Bosnia? |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote: "bb" wrote in message .. . On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet? http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to support Bush's agenda. bb OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really taking off. Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Jim-- wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote: "bb" wrote in message .. . On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet? http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to support Bush's agenda. bb OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really taking off. Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. Be sure and let us know when Bush's "economic policies" add back three million decent jobs, the number we've lost since he was appointed POTUS. At that point, we'll be even with where we were, job-wise, when Clinton left office. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Jim-- wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote: "bb" wrote in message .. . On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out of office in the worst way. S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet? http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to support Bush's agenda. bb OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really taking off. Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. Be sure and let us know when Bush's "economic policies" add back three million decent jobs, the number we've lost since he was appointed POTUS. At that point, we'll be even with where we were, job-wise, when Clinton left office. Actually thanks to Bush's economic policies the economy is rebounding at a remarkable rate. The jobs will come, as they have started to do already. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Jim--" wrote in message
... Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. And your party spent three years trying to dismantle a President's term based lying about a blow job. The dems have nothing on the Republicans when it comes to wasting the country's resources. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net... If he just wanted to prop up his numbers, just had to charge HK under the Patriot act. You boy showed the way in Wag The Dog. How many people still engage in Bosnia? How many were killed in Bosnia and how much did it cost. Stupid comparison for you to bring up. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. You need to change that to "some libs". The economy has been screwed up for far too long. We need a bit of breathing room before the economic anthrax of deficit spending accelerated by irresponsible tax cuts starts coming home to roost. If the people of the US want to reelect a man who does not read, cannot speak, and stages elaborate lies with no fear of reprisal, they deserve what they get. I know the elaborate lie charge is pretty mean, so here's the elaborate lie I'm referring to......it's been well documented. An entire aircraft carrier filled with servicemen and women was diverted from its course back to its home Naval Base in Everett, Washington, and ordered to steam in circles off the California coast. Local residents reported that the circling carrier could easily be seen from the shore. Bush scurries across the country, tosses his civilian garb into a closet, and changes into a military looking flight jacket. He's going to visit the carrier. Normal protocol for the POTUS when visiting an aircraft carrier would be to land on the deck in Marine One (the presidential helicopter). Bush arrived on the carrier in a fighter plane. Some simple dupes around the country have been allowed to believe that he acutally landed the aircraft. Here's the big lie: Why was Bush arriving by fighter plane? "Because the carrier is so far out to sea it exceeds the range of the helicopter" Yeah right. If our helicopters don't have more range than the several miles the AC carrier was circling off the coast of Californina, we better get the heck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of our colonies ASAP. Instead of being concerned that their president was lying to the entire world, and telling such an obvious, cheap, and rickety lie to boot.....the right wing clapped, cheered, hooted, and hollered for Boy George. Oh boy, George. :-( |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:16:56 -0800, "jps" wrote:
"Jim--" wrote in message ... Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. And your party spent three years trying to dismantle a President's term based lying about a blow job. The dems have nothing on the Republicans when it comes to wasting the country's resources. You, jps, have just stumbled on the one thing the 'dems' do to perfection. What has Byrd bought for West Virginia lately? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 18:11:08 -0500, JohnH
wrote: What has Byrd bought for West Virginia lately? Start your own thread, dude, this one's about Bush. bb |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:16:56 -0800, "jps" wrote: "Jim--" wrote in message ... Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. And your party spent three years trying to dismantle a President's term based lying about a blow job. The dems have nothing on the Republicans when it comes to wasting the country's resources. You, jps, have just stumbled on the one thing the 'dems' do to perfection. What has Byrd bought for West Virginia lately? Over the past decade your party has taken the lead in wasting money and done it in style. Those kids you're teaching right now will have to foot the bill. Too bad there won't be any money available to rebuild our ailing schools before they're adults. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
jps wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:16:56 -0800, "jps" wrote: "Jim--" wrote in message ... Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. Working to defeat Bush is demonstrating you have the country's best interests at heart. Those kids you're teaching right now will have to foot the bill. Too bad there won't be any money available to rebuild our ailing schools before they're adults. My recollection is that JohnH is a substitute teacher who fills in for a day or two for a teacher who is ill. If that is the case, one wonders whether he actually is teaching classes or simply babysitting. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:44:50 -0500, Jim-- wrote:
They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. LOL, I would say defeating GWB *is* in the interest of the country. I also hope the economy is turning around, now. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:59:25 -0500, Jim-- wrote:
Actually thanks to Bush's economic policies the economy is rebounding at a remarkable rate. The jobs will come, as they have started to do already. He's still on track to be the first President since Hoover, to produce a net job loss. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 16:59:25 -0500, Jim-- wrote: Actually thanks to Bush's economic policies the economy is rebounding at a remarkable rate. The jobs will come, as they have started to do already. He's still on track to be the first President since Hoover, to produce a net job loss. What kinds of jobs would a Bush product? 7-11 jobs? Part-time jobs? Low-paying jobs with no bennies? Well, of course:such jobs are the Republican stock in trade...for the rest of us. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"jps" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... If he just wanted to prop up his numbers, just had to charge HK under the Patriot act. You boy showed the way in Wag The Dog. How many people still engage in Bosnia? How many were killed in Bosnia and how much did it cost. Stupid comparison for you to bring up. Lots of those civilians you seem to worry about in Iraq. What was the danger to the USA from Bosnia? How much has Bosnia cost us? |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net... "jps" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message k.net... If he just wanted to prop up his numbers, just had to charge HK under the Patriot act. You boy showed the way in Wag The Dog. How many people still engage in Bosnia? How many were killed in Bosnia and how much did it cost. Stupid comparison for you to bring up. Lots of those civilians you seem to worry about in Iraq. What was the danger to the USA from Bosnia? How much has Bosnia cost us? We didn't lie our way into that war. We went there to stop further ethnic cleansing. Casualties were extremely low in comparison to Iraq, cost was infintesimal in comparison to Iraq. Orders of magnitude difference in all respects: intent, losses, cost. |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 19:21:29 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: jps wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:16:56 -0800, "jps" wrote: "Jim--" wrote in message ... Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. Working to defeat Bush is demonstrating you have the country's best interests at heart. Those kids you're teaching right now will have to foot the bill. Too bad there won't be any money available to rebuild our ailing schools before they're adults. My recollection is that JohnH is a substitute teacher who fills in for a day or two for a teacher who is ill. If that is the case, one wonders whether he actually is teaching classes or simply babysitting. Depends on the subject, Harry. If the subject is math, then I teach whatever is on tap for that day. If the subject is art, then I mostly babysit. But, I'm a hell of a good babysitter! John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT The Incredible Lying BushCO!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat GWB. You need to change that to "some libs". The economy has been screwed up for far too long. We need a bit of breathing room before the economic anthrax of deficit spending accelerated by irresponsible tax cuts starts coming home to roost. "the irresponsible tax cuts?" You seem to forget that the states are slowly increasing their taxes to make up for the reduced federal grab of your hard earned income. This is a good thing because it will put those responsible for taking your money closer to you where you can have a bigger effect on their ability to take your money. The closer your elected officials are to you the more pressure you can bring to bear on their votes. And, the biggest bonus is that if you live in a state that is not taxing you enough you can move to a state that taxes you to the level you want. If the people of the US want to reelect a man who does not read, cannot speak, and stages elaborate lies with no fear of reprisal, they deserve what they get. The bonus is that when GWB is reelected it will cause you pain and anguish for another four years. Pay back is a bitch. I know the elaborate lie charge is pretty mean, so here's the elaborate lie I'm referring to......it's been well documented. An entire aircraft carrier filled with servicemen and women was diverted from its course back to its home Naval Base in Everett, Washington, and ordered to steam in circles off the California coast. And, your point is? Local residents reported that the circling carrier could easily be seen from the shore. Bull crap, you of all people should know that you can see more than 15 miles over the horizon. Bush scurries across the country, tosses his civilian garb into a closet, and changes into a military looking flight jacket. He's going to visit the carrier. And this is differnet from the previous presidents in what way? Normal protocol for the POTUS when visiting an aircraft carrier would be to land on the deck in Marine One (the presidential helicopter). Bush arrived on the carrier in a fighter plane. Some simple dupes around the country have been allowed to believe that he acutally landed the aircraft. Aint it great to be the President? Here's the big lie: Why was Bush arriving by fighter plane? "Because the carrier is so far out to sea it exceeds the range of the helicopter" Yeah right. If our helicopters don't have more range than the several miles the AC carrier was circling off the coast of Californina, we better get the heck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of our colonies ASAP. Instead of being concerned that their president was lying to the entire world, and telling such an obvious, cheap, and rickety lie to boot.....the right wing clapped, cheered, hooted, and hollered for Boy George. Oh boy, George. :-( And we will be cheering more after the next election too. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com