BUSH LIED! THOUSANDS DIED!

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
YES, RLY! Hillary Clinton had the same misinformation, disinformation and outright lies the Bushwhackos spoon fed other members of Congress. I agree with Obama and those in Congress others who had the better sense to oppose it, but if you want to assign fault, start with the liars who pimped their war and issued the marching orders before thinking about going after those they suckered into following their lead into their trap.

Obama wasnt against the war because he somehow knew there was false information. He was against the war because hes a anti-war liberal, who is against all wars. Don't kid yourself.

Which is why he supported and currently supports the war in Afghanistan, right?

Which is why a liberal President led us into WWII, when the conservatives and Republicans at the time were chanting for pacifist isolationism?

Don't kid yourself that people here can't easily see through your transparent lies. At the very least stop using sweeping generalizations, as those are easily exposed.

The war in afghanistan is not widely unpopular, unlike the Iraq war.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Corbett
But I'm 100% serious, if you have a party for the conviction of Bush or Cheney, I will be there.....

But only if you play "Who's Watch Who's Watching Over You" on repeat during the entire party.

Damn, that is worse than being sent to Gitmo.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
YES, RLY! Hillary Clinton had the same misinformation, disinformation and outright lies the Bushwhackos spoon fed other members of Congress. I agree with Obama and those in Congress others who had the better sense to oppose it, but if you want to assign fault, start with the liars who pimped their war and issued the marching orders before thinking about going after those they suckered into following their lead into their trap.

Obama wasnt against the war because he somehow knew there was false information. He was against the war because hes a anti-war liberal, who is against all wars. Don't kid yourself.

Which is why he supported and currently supports the war in Afghanistan, right?

Which is why a liberal President led us into WWII, when the conservatives and Republicans at the time were chanting for pacifist isolationism?

Don't kid yourself that people here can't easily see through your transparent lies. At the very least stop using sweeping generalizations, as those are easily exposed.

The war in afghanistan is not widely unpopular, unlike the Iraq war.

?!?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
YES, RLY! Hillary Clinton had the same misinformation, disinformation and outright lies the Bushwhackos spoon fed other members of Congress. I agree with Obama and those in Congress others who had the better sense to oppose it, but if you want to assign fault, start with the liars who pimped their war and issued the marching orders before thinking about going after those they suckered into following their lead into their trap.

Obama wasnt against the war because he somehow knew there was false information. He was against the war because hes a anti-war liberal, who is against all wars. Don't kid yourself.

Which is why he supported and currently supports the war in Afghanistan, right?

Which is why a liberal President led us into WWII, when the conservatives and Republicans at the time were chanting for pacifist isolationism?

Don't kid yourself that people here can't easily see through your transparent lies. At the very least stop using sweeping generalizations, as those are easily exposed.

The war in afghanistan is not widely unpopular, unlike the Iraq war.

?!?

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

LOL! Always love a good Montey Python quote.

But I'm 100% serious, if you have a party for the conviction of Bush or Cheney, I will be there.....

But only if you play "Who's Watch Who's Watching Over You" on repeat during the entire party.

And I'm serious. You're invited, but only if you're there to celebrate the resurrection of our Constitution with us.

Meanwhile, I edited your kind mention of my song so you can click it and listen to it as many times as you want while we're waiting. :music:

If more people had taken the lyrics to heart, earlier, maybe we wouldn't have as many dead and wounded American troops as a result of the Bushwhackos' lies.

If more people had taken the lyrics to heart, earlier, maybe we'd still have the some of the trillions of dollars they squandered on their war, we could all afford a hell of a party and we'd have had a lot more reason to celebrate, a lot sooner.

 

[owensdj]

Corbett, good for Obama then. Even if Saddam really was hiding a secret WMD program from the weapons inspectors, he'd never use them against the US or its allies. The one thing Saddam wanted was to stay in power, and he knew he'd get removed and possibly killed if he ever used them in that way. Think about it like this. We *know* he had them during the first Gulf War but didn't use them. Why is that? He knew that would be the end of him.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey
YES, RLY! Hillary Clinton had the same misinformation, disinformation and outright lies the Bushwhackos spoon fed other members of Congress. I agree with Obama and those in Congress others who had the better sense to oppose it, but if you want to assign fault, start with the liars who pimped their war and issued the marching orders before thinking about going after those they suckered into following their lead into their trap.

Obama wasnt against the war because he somehow knew there was false information. He was against the war because hes a anti-war liberal, who is against all wars. Don't kid yourself.

Which is why he supported and currently supports the war in Afghanistan, right?

Which is why a liberal President led us into WWII, when the conservatives and Republicans at the time were chanting for pacifist isolationism?

Don't kid yourself that people here can't easily see through your transparent lies. At the very least stop using sweeping generalizations, as those are easily exposed.

The war in afghanistan is not widely unpopular, unlike the Iraq war.

?!?

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

No, it is already quite clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Obama wasnt against the war because he somehow knew there was false information. He was against the war because hes a anti-war liberal, who is against all wars. Don't kid yourself.

Which is why he supported and currently supports the war in Afghanistan, right?

Which is why a liberal President led us into WWII, when the conservatives and Republicans at the time were chanting for pacifist isolationism?

Don't kid yourself that people here can't easily see through your transparent lies. At the very least stop using sweeping generalizations, as those are easily exposed.

The war in afghanistan is not widely unpopular, unlike the Iraq war.

?!?

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

I would very much appreciate it if you did.

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Feith, wolfowitz, hadley, and perle need to be tried for something.

The same charges of murder, treason, torture and war crimes would do.

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
It looks like you left a few people off that list. Let me take care of that for you.

Al Gore
Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sen. Robert Byrd
Sen. John F. Kerry
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. John F. Kerry
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Tom Daschle
Sen. Carl Levin

Why do you think Bush is still in office? They have to keep the spotlight on someone.

Nice attempt to distract attention from those who lied to Congress about the "intelligence" they had that "proved" the Bushwhackos' case for war. Anyone who still puts out that same tired diversion is either dumber than a rock or one of the criminals or both.

Which are you? :roll:

That's funny. I remember these same people spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin. long before Bush was even in office. I guess its the "same tired diversion" only when it doesn't accommodate your point of view. That's pretty sad.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wait! Who's the Commander in Chief? Is it Hillary Clinton? Nope. Is it John Kerry? Nope. Is it anyone in Congress (most of who were lied to)? Nope. It's Bush. Who decided to go to war? It's Bush.

/thread

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

That's funny. I remember these same people spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin. long before Bush was even in office. I guess its the "same tired diversion" only when it doesn't accommodate your point of view. That's pretty sad.

Who was "spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin?"

Did Clinton start a full blown war in Iraq based on lies?

There's nothing "funny" about it... unless you're sick to laugh about the 4,092 American troops who have die and the tens of thousands more American troops who are wounded as a direct result of the monsterous crimes committed by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang. :|

 

[DrPizza]

I made this semi-serious; mostly joking suggestion in another thread: Highest bidder gets to try Bush in their country. We should get a least a few tankers of oil out of such a deal

 

[event8horizon]

everyone needs to check this out- Office of Special Plans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated." (Mackay, 2003)

According to The Guardian, Feith's office had an unconventional relationship with Israel's intelligence services:

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship with Michael Grogan and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party. [6]

They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."

from the guardian-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

who are these guys more loyal too....israel or the united states. this is where dual loyalty comes into play. do we really need dual loyalists in our gov?? remeber, pearle and feith were the heads of the bosnian defense fund.
from a wayne madsen article-
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=3655
In fact, Al Qaeda units were active in Bosnia during the civil war. And those units were partly supported by the Bosnia Defense Fund established by Perle and Feith.

 

[gentobu]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
everyone needs to check this out- Office of Special Plans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

The Office of Special Plans (OSP), which existed from September 2002 to June 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and headed by Feith, as charged by then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence (unvetted by intelligence analysts, see Stovepiping) pertaining to Iraq

In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated." (Mackay, 2003)

According to The Guardian, Feith's office had an unconventional relationship with Israel's intelligence services:

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship with Michael Grogan and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party. [6]

They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."

from the guardian-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

who are these guys more loyal too....israel or the united states. this is where dual loyalty comes into play. do we really need dual loyalists in our gov?? remeber, pearle and feith were the heads of the bosnian defense fund.
from a wayne madsen article-
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=3655
In fact, Al Qaeda units were active in Bosnia during the civil war. And those units were partly supported by the Bosnia Defense Fund established by Perle and Feith.

Everywhere I look I see a conspiracy.

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

That's funny. I remember these same people spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin. long before Bush was even in office. I guess its the "same tired diversion" only when it doesn't accommodate your point of view. That's pretty sad.

Who was "spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin?"

Did Clinton start a full blown war in Iraq based on lies?

There's nothing "funny" about it... unless you're sick to laugh about the 4,092 American troops who have die and the tens of thousands more American troops who are wounded as a direct result of the monsterous crimes committed by your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang. :|

The way you pin everything on one individual is very funny. That whole group in Washington is just as guilty as Bush, so don't continue fooling yourself. And as for your little comment, " your traitor in chief", just shows how mature you are. Please point me into the direction where I indicated my political preferences. You should grow up and not be blinded by your one sided political opinions.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: gentobu

Everywhere I look I see a conspiracy.

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean people aren't out to get you. The Bushwhackos are all the proof we need to know that, sometimes, our worst fears may be true.

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wait! Who's the Commander in Chief? Is it Hillary Clinton? Nope. Is it John Kerry? Nope. Is it anyone in Congress (most of who were lied to)? Nope. It's Bush. Who decided to go to war? It's Bush.

/thread

Why has he not been removed from his position and held accountable for war crimes?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Feith, wolfowitz, hadley, and perle need to be tried for something.

The same charges of murder, treason, torture and war crimes would do.

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
It looks like you left a few people off that list. Let me take care of that for you.

Al Gore
Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sen. Robert Byrd
Sen. John F. Kerry
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. John F. Kerry
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Tom Daschle
Sen. Carl Levin

Why do you think Bush is still in office? They have to keep the spotlight on someone.

Nice attempt to distract attention from those who lied to Congress about the "intelligence" they had that "proved" the Bushwhackos' case for war. Anyone who still puts out that same tired diversion is either dumber than a rock or one of the criminals or both.

Which are you? :roll:

That's funny. I remember these same people spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin. long before Bush was even in office. I guess its the "same tired diversion" only when it doesn't accommodate your point of view. That's pretty sad.

all of which doesn't matter when going back to the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings in the latest report which indicates that in some instances we were told lies by the Bush Administration, in the events leading up to the war in Iraq?

Do you understand that?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Wait! Who's the Commander in Chief? Is it Hillary Clinton? Nope. Is it John Kerry? Nope. Is it anyone in Congress (most of who were lied to)? Nope. It's Bush. Who decided to go to war? It's Bush.

/thread

Why has he not been removed from his position and held accountable for war crimes?

I don't know, I think it's appropriate, don't you?

 

[Hecubus2000]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Feith, wolfowitz, hadley, and perle need to be tried for something.

The same charges of murder, treason, torture and war crimes would do.

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
It looks like you left a few people off that list. Let me take care of that for you.

Al Gore
Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sen. Robert Byrd
Sen. John F. Kerry
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. John F. Kerry
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Tom Daschle
Sen. Carl Levin

Why do you think Bush is still in office? They have to keep the spotlight on someone.

Nice attempt to distract attention from those who lied to Congress about the "intelligence" they had that "proved" the Bushwhackos' case for war. Anyone who still puts out that same tired diversion is either dumber than a rock or one of the criminals or both.

Which are you? :roll:

That's funny. I remember these same people spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin. long before Bush was even in office. I guess its the "same tired diversion" only when it doesn't accommodate your point of view. That's pretty sad.

all of which doesn't matter when going back to the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings in the latest report which indicates that in some instances we were told lies by the Bush Administration, in the events leading up to the war in Iraq?

Do you understand that?

Doesn't matter? How can it not matter when it all occurred within a two year period?? If you are going after one liar, why not go after all of them? They all had a part in this.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Feith, wolfowitz, hadley, and perle need to be tried for something.

The same charges of murder, treason, torture and war crimes would do.

Originally posted by: Hecubus2000
It looks like you left a few people off that list. Let me take care of that for you.

Al Gore
Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sen. Robert Byrd
Sen. John F. Kerry
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Sen. Bob Graham
Sen. John F. Kerry
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Tom Daschle
Sen. Carl Levin

Why do you think Bush is still in office? They have to keep the spotlight on someone.

Nice attempt to distract attention from those who lied to Congress about the "intelligence" they had that "proved" the Bushwhackos' case for war. Anyone who still puts out that same tired diversion is either dumber than a rock or one of the criminals or both.

Which are you? :roll:

That's funny. I remember these same people spouting WMDs in Iraq all throughout the Clinton admin. long before Bush was even in office. I guess its the "same tired diversion" only when it doesn't accommodate your point of view. That's pretty sad.

all of which doesn't matter when going back to the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings in the latest report which indicates that in some instances we were told lies by the Bush Administration, in the events leading up to the war in Iraq?

Do you understand that?

Doesn't matter? How can it not matter when it all occurred within a two year period?? If you are going after one liar, why not go after all of them? They all had a part in this.

no it doesn't matter. The buck stops with the administration.

The buck stops with those in charge, this administration. Dont lay blame anywhere or anytime else..the Iraq war was sold on lies. People have been talking sh!t about Saddam and Iraq since probably before you were getting your arse wiped by your momma..but no one started a war on the ground in Iraq but GWB. NO ONE ELSE STARTED THIS WAR BUT THIS ADMINSTRATION. That is where the buck stops amigo.

The scope of the SIC was to look at the administrations workings up to the Iraq war.

and nothing done prior to this administration selling the war matters. Why should it? The SIC report seems to be pretty clear in that this administration lied in certain instances when selling the war.

do you understand that?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I for one won't be reelecting him in November.

you really are a sick man

too bad you weren't an Iraqi who was labeled as "Collateral Damage"

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Before this continues, let's get one thing straight. The senate did NOT Have access to the same intelligence the whitehouse people did. For a more full understanding I encourage reading Hubris and/or the 1 percent doctrine. A certain individual is hellbent on using words uttered by democrats. However, that they stated those things is irrelevant, the question is whether the bush admin manipulated information, including the information that went to the senators in question. A Th The answer is a resounding YES.
gain, some senators had access to MORE information but not the complete record. Rockafeller was one such senator so he's a dirty asshole (see his bending over on telecom immunity for further reference)

As for the report, it confirms what has been stated in numerous books and articles.

I don't know of anyone who has ever stated that the reason we invaded Iraq was because they attacked us during 9/11. The facts are that saddam was kicking out inspectors and breaking UN resolutions, this after 9/11. This was a leader who pre-emptively thought he could invade a sovreign neighbor and claim it as his own. Now, after almost 7 years of NO terrorist attacks on US soil, compared to a couple during Clinton's reign, the democrats are just trying to re-write history.

[/quote]

What are you replying to? What did you read? We are talking about Bushies who MANIPULATED INTELLIGENCE about iraq's threat. As for your first statement, do you remember cheney linking Iraq to AL Qaeda? Claiming some of the 9/11 hijackers trained in IRaq? DO you remember?

Do you? Just your first sentence is remarkably wrong.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Before this continues, let's get one thing straight. The senate did NOT Have access to the same intelligence the whitehouse people did. For a more full understanding I encourage reading Hubris and/or the 1 percent doctrine. A certain individual is hellbent on using words uttered by democrats. However, that they stated those things is irrelevant, the question is whether the bush admin manipulated information, including the information that went to the senators in question. A Th The answer is a resounding YES.
gain, some senators had access to MORE information but not the complete record. Rockafeller was one such senator so he's a dirty asshole (see his bending over on telecom immunity for further reference)

As for the report, it confirms what has been stated in numerous books and articles.

I don't know of anyone who has ever stated that the reason we invaded Iraq was because they attacked us during 9/11. The facts are that saddam was kicking out inspectors and breaking UN resolutions, this after 9/11. This was a leader who pre-emptively thought he could invade a sovreign neighbor and claim it as his own. Now, after almost 7 years of NO terrorist attacks on US soil, compared to a couple during Clinton's reign, the democrats are just trying to re-write history.

What are you replying to? What did you read? We are talking about Bushies who MANIPULATED INTELLIGENCE about iraq's threat. As for your first statement, do you remember cheney linking Iraq to AL Qaeda? Claiming some of the 9/11 hijackers trained in IRaq? DO you remember?

Do you? Just your first sentence is remarkably wrong.
[/quote]


The guy you are replying to... would undoubtedly have volunteered to put jews in concentration camps if he was a german citizen in WWII ... he is so brainwashed and gullible

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: loki8481
I for one won't be reelecting him in November.

you really are a sick man

too bad you weren't an Iraqi who was labeled as "Collateral Damage"

You call him a sick man, but then you say it's too bad that he wasn't killed in Iraq??