Tuesday, June 20, 2006

BUSH LIED Damnit! and we'll hold our breath and stomp our feet until you believe it!

Sorry, I was trying out a new moonbat channeling device.

Let's examine the three assumptions critics of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy make:

Bush lied about Saddam being a threat. Both the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the independent Silberman-Robb Commission found not one case in which Bush officials, quoting the Senate committee, "attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Recall that both the French and German intelligence agencies also believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Just two months before the war, the Los Angeles Times reported that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix "disclosed troubling new details about Iraq's weapons programs and expressed frustration with what he described as Baghdad's refusal to resolve long-standing questions about efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, as well as long-range missiles." Mr. Blix later told reporters that in his gut he felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "These guys had played cat-and-mouse during the whole of the '90s, so I was suspicious of that," he told NBC's Tim Russert earlier this month. He later changed his mind when his officials uncovered no evidence of a weapons program. But the question remains: If President Bush lied about Saddam having WMD why did so many others also say the same thing at the time?

Some Democrats still believe Saddam was a threat, WMD or not. Former Nebraska senator and presidential candidate Bob Kerrey, now president of New York's New School, noted earlier this year that newly declassified documents from Saddam Hussein's office concerning a meeting between an Iraq official and Osama bin Laden show that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." One document is a handwritten account of a Feb. 19, 1995, meeting between an official representative of Iraq and bin Laden, where bin Laden broached the idea of "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document reports that after Saddam was informed of the meeting he agreed to broadcast sermons of a radical imam, Suleiman al Ouda, requested by bin Laden. Several months later al Qaeda terrorists attacked the headquarters of the Saudi National Guard. The document specifically said the question of future cooperation "between the two parties [is] to be left according to what's open" in the future.

"I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating [with] Osama bin Laden on the Sept. 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," Mr. Kerrey told the New York Sun. "This presents facts that should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on Sept. 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

Read the rest here if you like. In case you've forgotten or the drive by media has successfully filtered it out, here is what President Bush actually said.

It has been amazing to watch the "media" test the capabilities of their manipulative editors and publishers, then try to further convice us with their own polls. Then to watch the easily misled cast the accusations at the independent researchers who don't follow the duplicitous dems and their lap dog "media".
"BUSH LIED Damnit!"

Finally RW, you Understand!

Now I'll go read the article, had to get that in since it was too easy to pass up.
"BUSH LIED Damnit!"

Finally RW, you Understand!

Now I'll go read the article, had to get that in since it was too easy to pass up.

Now now, our press is perfect in every way. Well except for the Washington Times and even though they run the very same stories they are just pure evil.


That really excited you didn't it?


That really excited you didn't it?
For comedic purposes let's leave the double post there, but just wanted to put it on the record that it was unintentional.

Off the record:

I agree with- "No progress is being made in Iraq" is a dumb point, because progress is being made there, and it's specially dumb when people yell it the day Zarqawi is killed or the next day. Come on open a newspaper or log on to CNN.com before you talk (plug for my favorite station), yes I'm talking to you Murtha.

I do not agree with-
"Bush lied about Saddam being a threat" Everyone knew he was a 'threat' but so are every other country in the middle east, China, North Korea, Pakistan/India, Cuba, Venezuela, half of Africa and even Haiti. What Pres Bush used to get this war started was his connection between Saddam and 9-11; Like:

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade..... We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.....Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. [So could N Korea or China or Iran] Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints....Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror....

And those last two sentences is where he lost my support since if we are over at Saddams House, OBL is home alone parting it up, otherwise known as still alive and watching TV...thus detracting from the war on terror---OBL---9/11---NY---Pentagon---the reason the country was letting Pres Bush write blank checks on anything and everything----the revenge, we americans were hungry for.

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" Are we still arguing over this? Its like Democrats and Al gore in 2000, Just accept the thruth and move on. They are not under the sand in the desert, there just weren't any. Even the U.S. Joint Forces Command's Joint Center for Operational Analysis made a report stating that Saddam had idea of what he did or did not have military wise and if he spoke and postured like he had WMD it was because his people were lying to him out of fear of saying the wrong thing, like "we have two muskets and a butter knife as WMD" and then getting beheaded. Murtha is hallucinating about pulling out of Iraq now and Rep are hallucinating about the WMD issue, I say we trade you Murtha for a box of wine and we call it even.

On the record: 1 out of 3, plus control of the whole gov't is not that bad if you think about it.
Man that was a long post...ok I need a nap now
David U,

You look like you have a terrible headache.

But you looked that way before RW's terrific nap-inducing post, so maybe a couple of aspirin are also in order.
I like to think he is sitting in a cave in Afghanistan thinking; damn, why didn't Bush come to find me like I wanted him to. I could’ve kicked America's ass in these mountains.

But my favorite part of the imaginary scenario is that UBL doesn't get to relive his glory days of battle, but rather has to listen to the monotonous and repetitive noise of his dialysis machine. Was it ever verified or reputed that the sissy rich boy was on dialysis?

Was that payback for the extremely long excerpt I posted?

Buy Danish,

Why do terrific and nap inducing not seem to go together?


That's always struck me as one of those myths that the left uses to make of Republicans that can't find OBL. He probably isn't burdened by these things when a Democrat is looking for him.

What am I even saying???? When we have a Democrat in office he won't even take Bin Laden when he's offered up on a silver platter.
RW, I can uderstand how time consuming it can be to try to tax 15 percent of all 401k's, institute the "know your client" policy, redistribute income, cut pentagon budgets and float an already over inflated economy till the next Prsident takes over. But truth be told, I find wisdom in Condi's words, we were not on a war footing back then.
"Was that payback for the extremely long excerpt I posted?"

Ha!..Bet you won't be doing that again! (sarc.)

I believe Condi's words in that regard and would be perfectly willing to accept that from Clinton. Instead we have him saying he never worked harder on anything in his life... blah blah blah...and that he warned President Bush...yadda yadda yadda...

Maybe because I love to take naps?

You're right though - it didn't make much sense. I had posted some headache curing biofeedback noise for David U, with a lot of OMMMMSSS and HUMMZZ and BUSHHHH DIDDDNNN'TTT LIEEEEE....but it kept getting cut off which gave ME a headache.

I read somewhere that you were using the internet even before Algore invented it.
Buy Danish,

Wow..that really will give you a headache. Maybe I can read it backwards now.
BD- as the official 'picture' pusher of Blogger: I think it's time for you to get a picture -------->^
"I read somewhere that you were using the internet even before Algore invented it."

RW- You know that movie "Back to the Future Part III" It was based loosely on me :)

Please be careful, you're starting to sound like Al. Love Story was based on me..ah..me and err ah Tipper

EIL TON DID HSUB? Harry Harry Krishna Krishna Harry. Ohm.

David U,

Who's the picture pusher - you or me??
BD which for some reason stands for miracle worker,

That did it!! I'm headache free.
I'm a pixel pusher. Does that count for anything?

DavidU: love the new icon. Hey, can I rip off "(sarc.)"?

Pretty please??

Why don't you bring any of your dozens of avatars over here. DavidU will be bitching at you soon.
Nicole- rip away, though that new green one you have is pretty cool.

Since Nicole is the quintessential drive by poster I'll interject. I think she is ripping off the sarc tag, not the pic.
RW- Thats cool with me too.
Actually I think I may have taken the 'sarc' from either RW or Seneca...weren't you the guys that used that 'html sarc'???
I'm pretty sure any form of "sarc" is public domain, but I'm the first I ever saw use HTMLSARC & /HTMLSARC. If royalties are in order please forward them to a reputable charity.
RW- I'll honor your wishes and will forward all royalties to the "Feed DavidU Fund"
I could have sworn I said "reputable", but I guess the first four letters must not have gotten into cyberspace.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?