latest bushism

[billvon 3,111]

>Which video? Could you provide a link or at least a description of
>which video?

Go to www.whitehouse.gov and click on "president reaffirms strong position on liberia." The quote in question is near the end of the video.

[NeedToJump 0]

Quote

Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov and click on "president reaffirms strong position on liberia." The quote in question is near the end of the video

thanks

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[tbrown 26]

Bush is still puzzled as to why the UN wants him to send troops to the library...(ba-da-boom!).

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Just to update Wendy's list:

The War with Iraq was about
presence of WMD
terrorism
oil
not finishing them off in 1991
liberating the oppressed people of Iraq
Hussein would not allow UN inspectors into the country.

And here I thought we did it to save all those kittens...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[TheAnvil 0]

You'll have to help me out with Eisenhower - I'm not old enough to remember that era and am only passingly familiar with certain aspects of its history.

Nixon - arguably one of the most brilliant foreign policy minds to fill the White House in many respects (and the worst in others). He did a lot of things to deserve impeachment - and was impeached for something else entirely. He deserved it.

Bush I - read my lips.

Reagan....hmmm....Iran-Contra perhaps?

You've obviously got a few in mind - let's hear a few. I'd be interested. I haven't been a political junkie for all that long.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

That's why I want an investigation visible to the public. That's not something that should ever happen. One would HOPE that with folks as smart as Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld that if briefed on that bit of information they would remember it. One would also hope that the entire cabinet had seen the SOTY before it was actually given. I AM glad the White House didn't try and deny the claim and came forward fairly quickly once it was brought to light.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

During his presidential campaign for the 2004 election, Bush visits an elementary school for a photo-op. The children have been carefully coached on the questions they should ask. The president calls on little Bobby, but the kid ignores his coaching and asks him:

"So Mr. President, if you get less votes again will you win again? And how come we invaded Iraq if we can't find any of those WMD things? And didn't you tell a lie about those inspectors not being allowed in? My mother says I shouldn't tell lies."

Before the president can answer, the recess bell rings, and the kids leave the room. After they came back, Bush asks if there are any more questions. One kid stands up and asks:

"I just got two questions. Why'd the recess bell ring half an hour early? And where's Bobby?"

[billvon 3,111]

>I AM glad the White House didn't try and deny the claim and came
>forward fairly quickly once it was brought to light.

??? They denied it for four months even after the UN and US intelligence showed them the information was invalid.

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq
Washington Post
Tuesday, March 18, 2003

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.
. . .
In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities."

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.

[TheAnvil 0]

Odd I missed that. You are right. Now I'm more irked at this - from an intel management point of view and political point of view. They should have known faster than this. Perturbing, but still not grounds for the 'L' word.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You did post it somewhere, though I forgot where. You posted a link to some website that was really interesting reading.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Personally, I'd describe it as scary reading.

[gremlin 0]

it was my general statement about american politics and the role of president as chief-liar that started them getting into specifics.

It is interesting in the difference between the British who are hauling President Blair over the coals in a row about a document which the BBC alleges was "Sexed up" in order to sell the Gulf War and the way that President Bush seems to have ignored the lack of WMDs and has got away with it.

ADAM

I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine....

[PhillyKev 0]

Considering there's a movement for an investigation under way, I wouldn't say he's gotten away with it quite yet.

Not fair to compare British journalism to that in the US. You guys turned coal raking into an art form

[TheAnvil 0]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33558

Nice article from Boortz.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

>Nice article from Boortz.

The usual conservative namecalling. "Boy, those liberals must really be losers if they expect the president to tell the truth! They must be really desperate if they think people care about a president who started a war based partly on a lie." Substitute "Monica Lewinsky" for "African uranium" and you'd have a liberal rant from four years ago. Same story different day.

[TheAnvil 0]

Again - show me the lie. Quote it right from the speech.

Boortz does more than call names, though he certainly does that with fervor and venom. He brings to light some interesting points those on the left don't like to hear.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

>Again - show me the lie. Quote it right from the speech.

Which speech? The speech this thread is about?

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, eh, absolutely. We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore after our reasonable request we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

Or the SOTU address? If that's the one you're referring to, see my earlier comments on it.

When discussing Bush speeches, you have to specify which lie you're referring to.

[w4p2 0]

Combine this information with info/opinions on "good thing we invaded Iraq thread" and you see why few billion people are very concerned.

I cannot but repeat that Mr. Bush is the most unstable and dangerous individual ever to have seat in White House.

USA would deserve much better than this.

Kindly: JL

[TheAnvil 0]

I am chuckling at this. Do you REALLY want me to go through the incidents in which Iraq either kicked out weapons inspectors, didn't grant them access to desired sites, etc? You have absolutely no idea what GWB is referring to when he said that. Assuming that one statement summarizes his reasons for taking us to war (and I disagree with the Iraqi-centric tilt of his foreign policy) is lunacy. Construe it as a lie if you like.
Now if you want a lie and deception meant to mislead those who hear it for partisan purposes, take the DNC's newest commercial, where they take out the 'British Intelligence reports that...' section of the Bush 'lie' in the SOTY then lambast him for being a liar. Why did they leave out that first part?

Since lefties want to blame the Bushes for this Iraq situation in total, I'm going to help them. This whole Gulf conflict could have been avoided had the US Ambassador to Iraq back in '89/90 or sometime thereabouts not told Saddam Hussein that as far as the US was concerned, conflicts between Arab states were an Arab concern (or something to that effect). I believe that's what made him feel he had the go ahead to set in motion his plans to become the next Saladin. The rest is recent history. Bush was in office at the time (I'm not sure if he appointed the ambassador or not) so the lefties can draw a clear trail of blame back to him.

Dammit. I hate this new temporary job assignment. I do not like power systems.

Beers,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

>You have absolutely no idea what GWB is referring to when he said that.

Neither does anyone else. None of the reporters listening to him could figure it out either. The news stories used delicate wording like "the president apparently misspoke."

>Assuming that one statement summarizes his reasons for taking us
> to war (and I disagree with the Iraqi-centric tilt of his foreign policy)
> is lunacy.

Oh, no. He had several reasons. There was the mythical african uranium (which we knew was a myth) the invisible tens of thousands of liters biological weapons, the missing hundreds of tons of chemical weapons, and the mobile bio-warfare trailers that turned out to be for filling balloons. Then there were the strong Al Qaeda connections that seem to have evaporated, the proof that Hussein told his troops to use chemical weapons against a US invasion, and the nuclear program he didn't have. And the aluminum tubes that couldn't be used for gas centrifuges.

And after all that, the Iraqis had the nerve to claim that the missing weapons weren't there! And of course they wouldn't allow the inspectors in (while the inspectors were there, apparently.)

So he had a lot of reasons.

An interesting take on this from the Washington Post:
----------------------------------------------------------------
In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------


>This whole Gulf conflict could have been avoided had the US
>Ambassador to Iraq back in '89/90 or sometime . . . .

Very true. But that was her fault, not Bush I's. It's clear that she just miscommunicated the US's intentions to Hussein.