| Author | Message | ||
     tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3923 Registered: 3-2004  |
All those posters (Southerner, Straw, cjc, many now vanished) who supported Bush and Cheney's claim that Hussein and Iraq were partly behind the WTC disaster, turn out to be disastrously wrong. What do they say now that the Senate says it proves to be untrue? Do you think the Senate Armed Services Committee is wrong? All those military deaths,and all those billions...for a lie. | ||
| westside Citizen Username: Westside Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2006 |
I wouldn't worry about them, they get excited from 9 hours a day of invective from Hannity, Limbo, and Levin. If they don't hear it there, it's like putting bad input into a computer- doesn't compute. Meanwhile real lives, American and Iraqi are being sacrificed everyday for the glorification of Dear Leader and his allies. It reminds me of a Sting song in the 80's that went "I hope the Russians love their children too". They did, and Iraqis do, and Americans do, and they don't want them to die so that Dear Leader can one up his less evil father. | ||
| Straw Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7879 Registered: 10-2001 |
holy stupidity. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1815 Registered: 9-2004 |
Tulip, they dont believe no stinkin Senate report. | ||
| Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 195 Registered: 5-2006  |
Should I assume that you also agree with the Senate report that stated that Saddam did seek to obtain uranium in Niger and the president was correct in stating this in his State of the Union speech? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1042 Registered: 1-2006 |
Of course she believes. jd | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2451 Registered: 8-2003  |
Iraq made overtures to Nigerian officials in 1999 that were quickly rebuffed. But three and a half years later, the president said:
Three and a half years is not "recently," not to mention the fact that the inquiry went nowhere. The president's statement was clearly meant to mislead Americans into thinking Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Even if one accepts that the overture to Niger actually occurred, the president was clearly being intentionally misleading. (which by the way, is the definition of "lying") | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1817 Registered: 9-2004 |
The Dr has the cure.................. LOL. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3824 Registered: 5-2001  |
Straw has named his affliction. Pity the man. I heard about the newly "uncovered" report in the car, and nearly swerved I laughed so hard. How did the most secretive administration in the history of the country ever let that report come to light? I'd have thought that thing would have been stashed way under Yucca Mountain. Bush's speechwriters sure have their work cut out for them! Wait... scratch that, W will just say the same 5 or 6 things he always says. I wonder if he even has speechwriters? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5881 Registered: 8-2003 |
Good Morning, tulip I haven't vanished, and I haven't made the assertion that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the Twin Towers, nor has Bush or Cheney. Have a great day. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2057 Registered: 10-2005  |
tulip- I am with the great straw on this one....but let me say holy fing stupidity. Someone is actually still singing the "Bush lied" tune? Well this is SOMA, so why am I shocked? tulip-I challenge you to answer this question. WHY did Bush Administration lie to go into Iraq? If you can honestly answer this question and back it up, I will vote Dimocratic across the board in November. -SLK westside, welcome and you should be in good company with the rest of the loony SOMA left... | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3926 Registered: 3-2004 |
Cheney is on record,and on tape, on Meet the Press, maintaining that there was a meeting in Prague between individuals of Hussein's government and Al Qaida. He's also on record later maintaining that he never said that. What a guy. It's been played over and over on TV, if you've watched. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3927 Registered: 3-2004 |
slk" Only Bush knows for sure why he lied, but obviously he was chosen by the Republicans as an easy mark to sell this war so that the military contractors, Halliburton for example, could make money, as could arms manufacturers, merchants, and the entire military industry. Remember Eisenhower? Remember the "military-industrial complex?" They were behind the Bush Administration's push for war. The oil industry thought they would profit, as well. Slk, I don't have to give you the history of the past seven years. Get with it. Also, perhaps you remember Bush telling everyone that Hussein "tried to kill my Daddy..." | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5820 Registered: 10-1999  |
That's a good question. Let's refine it a little, and ask: Why did the Bush Administration exaggerate the evidence to go into Iraq?Because, if you read the bipartisan Senate report, there was flimsy support for the notion that Hussein was working with Al Qaeda, and questionable sources for the assumptions about the WMD program. Despite this, the President ordered the invasion with the claim that it was part of the pursuit of the terrorists who carried out the 9-11 attack. Just within the last few weeks, the President has still been claiming that the invasion was needed to prevent the prospect of Saddam Hussein giving nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda. "Imagine a world," he said on August 21, "in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi." Yet, in the Senate report, it is absolutely clear that U.S. intelligence knew for a fact that the Saddam Hussein regime not only did not have "relations with Zarqawi", but wanted to hunt him down, and was hostile to Al Qaeda. Why would the President claim otherwise, as we approach the anniversary of the 9-11 attack? Maybe the question should not be, "Why did the Administration lie?" Instead, maybe the question should be, "In light of all we have learned about what the Administration knew, can it be shown that they did not mislead us?" | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2059 Registered: 10-2005 |
tulip said: "Only Bush knows for sure why he lied" Great answer tulip. Only Bush knows why he lied and tulip know's he lied too but she has no idea why but is sure he did (lie). (SLK performs standing ovation) and then you follow it up with a harebrained Halliburton conspiracy theory? Nohero- You did not answer the question: WHY WHY WHY WHY (Not WHAT, WHERE, WHO HOW) but WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY did BUSH lie? However you play semantics and "refine" the question it still goes back to WHY. why–adverb 1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly? –conjunction 2. for what cause or reason: I don't know why he is leaving. 3. for which; on account of which (usually after reason to introduce a relative clause): the reason why he refused to go. 4. the reason for which: That is why he returned. –noun 5. a question concerning the cause or reason for which something is done, achieved, etc.: a child's unending hows and whys. 6. the cause or reason: the whys and wherefores of a troublesome situation. –interjection 7. (used as an expression of surprise, hesitation, etc., or sometimes a mere expletive): Why, it's all gone! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE hwî, hwȳ, instr. case of hw¿t what; c. ON hvî] -SLK | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5824 Registered: 10-1999 |
Since we'll get nowhere with "Why did Bush lie", I just thought I'd suggest a (possibly) more useful and topical question. The fact that the President is still making unsupported claims about the relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda is a legitimate subject of inquiry. I take it your answer to my question is, "I don't know why the President exaggerated the evidence." | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2062 Registered: 10-2005 |
NOhero- I asked tulip to answer a question and you pose a questions that only slightly differs from my question that doesn't answer my question. I asked first, now stick to the game. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2452 Registered: 8-2003 |
is anyone dense enough that they can't figure out WHY Bush exaggerated the Iraqi threat? The reason is that the vast majority of Americans would not have supported the invasion if the stated reason was "spreading democracy to Iraq." The only reason that most Americans would have supported was the notion that Saddam was going to give WMD to al Qaeda or another extremist group to attack the U.S. So Bush told the story that would sell the war. and where's the proof? surveys that show most Americans now saying the war wasn't worth it are pretty good proof. once people became aware there were no WMD, support for the war plunged. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5825 Registered: 10-1999 |
The "game" of asking that question, and then saying "A HA! You can't prove that Bush lied!" is pointless. The question of why the exaggerations, is not pointless. The good Dr. O'B pointed to the answer that seems evident, albeit unflattering to the President. If there is an alternative explanation, we haven't heard it yet. Now, if you'll excuse me, it's Saturday morning and there's a sh*tload of recycling that must be attended to. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1112 Registered: 2-2002 |
 Ahh, the good old days when Rummy felt that Hussein was the best way to keep Iran busy in a part of the world with such shifting sands of power. Those were certainly different times. I even remember once when Israel was helping us secretly sell missiles to Iran so that some folks could send money to "freedom fighters" in Central America even though that was illegal. (breaking the law can be "patriotic"). But V.P. George H said he didn't know anything about that and now Ollie North works on TV all smiles and friendly showing us how guns work and stuff. And didn't Iran once hold a bunch of Americans prisoner for like a year? -And now their little head-guy sez Israel must be destroyed? -It's oil so weird. Anyway, but then Saddam decided that he wanted some waterfront property. So Pres George H called oil his pals and Powell and pushed that "mother-of-oil" back to Baghdad, then wisely split. "Yeeh!" -we all cheered. No more Vietnam messes! We know how to kickass again! "Made-in-China" stars-'n-stripes ribbon stickers on the trunks of our cars! And those Stealth fighters are SO cool. Then little George came along. According to the British (George likes to quote some British intelligence) George had plans to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11. What could oil that be about? Should be easy they thought. -"Slam dunk" they thought. Does anyone believe that the American people would have supported invading Iraq if not for 9/11? -Yet , no connection. Gosh, oil this mess and for what? PS: Now George wants to interrupt the planned broadcast of the controversial ABC "Path of 9/11" to address the nation, (maybe he plans to sing "God Bless America"). Does anyone believe that he will NOT mention Iraq in his speech? The present 3-house majority may be in it's "last throes" though I would not expect happy ending. Especially since there is no ending. The pieces and money just get moved around while some families bury their dead. At least here at home for the republicans they will have some democrats in POWER to blame. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1113 Registered: 2-2002 |
 Oh, -the good news! -The opium poppy crop for heroin in Afghanistan is up 60% this year as reported by Fox News! -A new record! -And the american taxpayer-paid roads that we have built there should make it much easier to bring the product to market. -Boy I bet THAT is a stick in the eye to old Osama! (Osama is SO anti-drug). Osama is so upset that he will be celebrating his fifth anniversary of 9/11 in the new safe-haven-harbor provided by our staunch ally in terrorism -Pakistan within its' own northern border. Good thing that we came to agreement helping that country with THEIR nuclear program. -that has really paid off since Osama has promised Pakistan that he will live a peaceful life quietly making videos. "Look I don't know where he is, frankly I don't spend that much time thinking about him". -George W Bush. (I wonder if George will repeat that revelation of policy during his 9/11 speech on Monday night.) | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 2065 Registered: 10-2005 |
Sorry folks, the Dr. did not answer the question. Again, why did Bush lie/exaggerate in order for the US to goto war with Iraq? And spare me the "no war for oil" BS... -SLK | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2453 Registered: 8-2003 |
I absolutely did answer your silly and disingenuous question. You may not agree with the answer, but it was an answer. Or are you trying to ask "why did Bush go to war?" That's a different question, and I don't know if anyone besides Bush knows the real answer to that one. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3049 Registered: 6-2002 |
Dr.O absolutely answered the question. Whether they lied, exaggerated or whatever, the answer is because they believed that the country could not handle the truth. Why can't you accept this, SLK? I thought you believed that going into Iraq was justified because we had an obligation to bring democracy to Iraq, and because it was necessary to stabilize the middle-east. Here are my questions for you: If you had known absolutely that Saddam had no WMD and no links to Al Oaeda would you still have supported the invasion? Do you think the majority in this country would have supported it? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1503 Registered: 2-2004 |
For you libs, I love this. You are still so bitterly pissed that Bush completely out hussled you and your lazy as hell elective representatives. We went into Iraq because the President wanted to. You guys should have gotten off your lazy backsides and elected Gore and then things would have gone your way. I really hope this is an election season where the Dems finally take it seriously. I know, the polls, the polls. Well let's see you guys finally put it together in the 4th quarter. Right now, myself and many other neo-cons are simply laughing at all of you who beleive you are going to take back any part of Congress. It won't happen and I am astounded that those of you who have gotten whipped for about 10 straight years continue to believe. You can post all the threads you want about a housewife or two in Macon not liking Bush. This only shows me you can't see the big picture. Us neo-cons are ready to make the final push. This docudrama and all the rhetoric this week are just the beginning. I hope your boy Dean is up to the challenge otherwise it's going to be a sad winter on MOL. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3052 Registered: 6-2002 |
Why did Bush invade Iraq? Finally a prominent MOL Bush supporter has answered: "Come on, pay attention. I've never said Iraq was a national security issue. I'm glad we did it, and I'm glad Bush took advantage of his position to do it. I'll let all of you argue the minutae everyday for 6plus years as to the "reasons" we went to Iraq. To me it's fairly simple - the President wanted too! And it's his call which you libs can't stand. I'm just glad I have a Pres who does want those of us who voted for him wanted him to do. You guys are just jealous that your boy Clinton didn't do this." "We went into Iraq because the President wanted to. You guys should have gotten off your lazy backsides and elected Gore and then things would have gone your way. " Now all of you, Left and Right are probably going to attack Southerner. But IMHO his answer is closer to the truth than anything anyone else has said. So my Southern friend, If Hillary or JEB, or McCain or Edwards or Joe Doe is elected President next time and invades Iran or Indonesia or Belgium, would that be OK with you because he/she is President and just "wanted to"? | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5827 Registered: 10-1999 |
SLK - I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me. It's pretty clear that the Bush Administration exaggerated the evidence, in order to invade Iraq. The question of "Why did they do that?" is for you to answer now. Alternatively, you can explain why, despite the evidence (including the newly-released Senate report) anyone could assume that the Administration did not exaggerate. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1819 Registered: 9-2004 |
Video from Frontline http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJYezckT6g Cheney makes the case, Iraq connected to 9-11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRQM4tjOVc0 Greg Palast Video, about 7:30 in, Palast gets to how Judicial Watch found the PROOF - its about the oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0mqsYMMtps Cheney, Bush, Rummy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AofhyXjttJA | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 390 Registered: 1-2006 |
I think that Kevin Phillips has given a plausible explanation for the Iraq war in a recent article. Here are two pertinent quotes: Few lies have wound up injuring Americans more—in everything from automobile gas tanks and winter heating bills to diminished U.S. global standing—than a rarely revisited three-year-old fib-fest involving George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Tony Blair. Since World War I, history is clear: the British and Americans have been pre-occupied with only one thing in Iraq—oil. Yet in 2003, as their troops again disembarked, the pretense was all about good and evil, democracy and freedom. The disastrous outcome of the unacknowledged Middle Eastern mission, the struggle for petroleum, has rarely been discussed.............. As for the supposed weapons of mass destruction, these had already played a crucial role. The United Nations sanctions imposed in the early 1990s included provisions that Saddam could not sign over development of the big Iraqi oilfields to foreign companies. On one hand, this gave the French, Russians, and Chinese an incentive to get Iraq out from under the sanctions. But on another, the key allegations that enabled the U.S. and Britain to keep sanctions in place were—what else?—Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Without WMD, the sanctions would have fallen away, and the rivals of the U.S. and Britain would have gotten the “biggie” oilfields. In short, the weapons of mass destruction drumbeat was substantially tied to oil and had already done its essential job by the time the invasion took place. Accept this logic and it makes mincemeat out of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Blair pretense. The cynic will say, yes, but why could Bush and Rumsfeld not talk a little bit about oil just as the first Bush had prior to the Gulf War? Strategically, there were major differences. In 2003, there was no Kuwait to liberate as a justification for tangling with Saddam. This time it was a flat-out invasion to topple Saddam and take control. Admitting that oil was a principal motivation would have lost the public-relations battle not just in the Middle East but around most of the world. The administration had to have some larger, more noble rationale, and the war on terror offered a broad umbrella. At every opportunity, officials of the Bush administration, not least the president himself, tried to tie Saddam Hussein to terrorism and, indirectly, even to 9/11. http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1504 Registered: 2-2004 |
anon, Yes. That is the way our political system works. Heck, that is the way any 3 man committee in any organization works. If a person is elected and then this person and his supporters want to do something, and there is no illegality then they should proceed. Can't we all agree, no matter what decision is made by any elected official there is going to be opposition. Should our government never act because a minority (which will always exist) doesn't want to? So anon, if the Dems win the White House and decide to invade Belgium, then they should no matter what the minority screams. Why so many posters think this is new is ridiculous. Don't you libs want a Democratic President and Democratic Congress do what you believe is right, or should they listen to us neo-cons after we get roundly defeated? The honest and simple answer is, the liberal Democrats got whipped in multiple elections and the Repubs elected a guy we like to do what we wanted done. And he did, and you are surprised. As for the reasons for going to war, I don't care. My guy won, set a course, and has been following that course. If you disagree with him, then vote for the other side and let's see who wins. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3826 Registered: 5-2001 |
"As for the reasons for going to war, I don't care." That's really pitiful. Really, completely, sickeningly pitiful. Tens of thousands have died. Probably people from your own neighborhood have died or have friends and/or relatives that died. And the reasons for that are of no concern to you. I sure do wish I had some way of making that known to your neighbors. Get a life. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3060 Registered: 6-2002 |
Southerner: So if our guy wins and decides to nuke all the "red states" you're cool with that? | ||
| westside Citizen Username: Westside Post Number: 16 Registered: 7-2006 |
Seems to me I remember cons saying "no war for Monica" and "I can support the troops without supporting the president" last time we had a Democratic president. Some of us have long memories. I support dissent of our leaders, Democrat or Republican, because the country I live in is not a dictatorship or monarchy. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2122 Registered: 10-2004  |
Nohero inadvertently has the only answer that SLK might accept
Bush is against homosexuality and he though Saddam had relations with Zarqawi. Its a perfectly reasonable response.  | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1506 Registered: 2-2004 |
I have no problem with dissent, but it doesn't mean the party in power has to agree. Anon, Yes, I'm cool with that. If that is the will of the people then so be it. However, I'm guessing, unlike your lacky liberal politicians, the cons in Congress won't give the authority for this. Let's face it anon, you and the other libs on this board are really mad with your own party. Bush has always been Bush, you just can't believe your own guys gave him the power. Can't you at least admit this? Notey, Just another example of a monday morning quarterback. The fact is whether I or you agree, our President took us to war. Yes, I don't care because there isn't a darn thing we can do about it now. If your so called liberal representatives had stood up to Bush then maybe we wouldn't have gone to war. But, keep beating that same drum from 2002 and I'll continue to see my guys win elections. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3065 Registered: 6-2002 |
Southerner: You make no sense. If the President wants to kill half the people in America it's OK with you if Congress gives him the authority. What if he does it without their authority? How about this: First the President orders all the "cons" in Congress locked up. Then he orders all red states to be nuked. OK with you? Is the only remedy to wait four years and elect someone else? How can you do that if all of you are dead? The "libs" voted to give Bush the authority because they were told Saddam had WMD. You seen to agree with the libs who say Bush lied, but unlike the libs or the cons you think it was a good thing that he lied and "conned" the libs into voting his way. The fact is whether I or you agree, our President took us to war. Yes, I don't care because there isn't a darn thing we can do about it now. If your so called liberal representatives had stood up to Bush then maybe we wouldn't have gone to war. We do not have an "elected dictatorship". If I don't like the President's policies there is lots I can do about it. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1507 Registered: 2-2004 |
anon, Based on your last sentence, please tell me what you did and are doing about it? The only truthful answer is nothing. As for Bush lieing, I don't think he did, but I absolutely love that it was the liberals in Congress who gave him the mandate to go to war. And now that they want to play politics they don't have the cajones to simply say they made a mistake. They have to build the "we were lied to" case to get them off the hook. You libs act like your elected reps are 4 years old and don't have a mind of their own. These are accomplished career politicians who should know how the game is played. Why can't they just admit they got played by us neo-cons. As for your scenario, I believe elected politicians have the right to govern via their philosophy since they won. Sometimes I wonder if you libs really like our democracy. Or do you only like it when you are in power? Believe me, if Hillary wins, I won't be shocked if she governs from the left. And lastly, I love that all you libs have is a message board to express yourself. You won't win back either chamber but you'll still believe you'll win in 2008. Priceless. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3928 Registered: 3-2004 |
Liberals gave Bush the mandate for war? Listen, Southerner, it was the likes of you and all the righties who think war is than answer who gave Bush the mandate for war. If you hadn't wanted a victim after 9/11, any victim, just so long as we could hit them hard and blame them for the whole thing, Bush would have let the WMD searchers do their work in Iraq without hauling them out and heading for this disaster. It's the likes of you that lead and push our leaders and our countries into war, not the liberals, mister. | ||
| ae35unit Citizen Username: Ae35unit Post Number: 213 Registered: 2-2006  |
"As for Bush lieing, I don't think he did" Southerner, is it some specific thing you think he didn't lie about? I could spend all day listing conflations, broken promises and lies by Bush or his proxies. Surely you're not saying that you don't think Bush has lied in general, about just about anything and everything. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1508 Registered: 2-2004 |
tulip, I can feel your frustration through "the tubes". If winning an election is what you mean by mandate then by gosh you are correct. We neo-cons did that. However, when our boy Bush went to Congress your liberal Reps folded like a cheap suit, and now they want to blame everyone else for their folding to Bush except themselves. Why can't you face the simple fact that it is you liberal voters who continue to be conned by your own politicians. As for us neo-cons wanting to go to war, hey, we will. Iran is down the road. If you libs don't like it then you better vote us out, but then again, your own supposed liberal politicians may do the same thing so you better be careful. AE, Of course Bush has lied. He's a politician and his lips have moved. Please don't tell me you are living in fantasyland where politicians are to be believed and are above board. If you are only ever going to vote for an honest politician then you've probably never voted. Sure I like Bush because he espouses my philosophy just like your boy Bill did for you. Both are subject to tempt the truth but that doesn't keep Bill from being a rock star and it doesn't keep me from liking Bush. Just get your guys elected and you won't have to worry about my neo-con guys lieing to you. |
