rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,148
QuoteIt is amazing how one can pick out the little things, like spelling, which you fully know I don't do well, from reading other posts I have made, to pick something apart.
Not suprising though, considering.
Anyway, if the poll is not relative to my comments, what HAS changed in the last week to swing the numbers? (since you must be better educated and researched than I)
You answered it yourself in the thread title: Bush's lies are starting to work.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
its clear from most of your posts that you are intelligent, articulate, and well informed. why must you ruin your credibility by continuing to say that bush lied? you know as well as i do that if there were the slightest shred of evidence that bush or cheney manipulated intelligence, the cries for impeachment would be deafening coming from both the left and the right. you are letting your pure hatred of bush get the better of you. 99% of the time i disagree with you, but i like reading your posts to get a different perspective of things. you make me think. hanging on to the tired old "bush lied" line diminishes my desire to listen to anything that the left has to say.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
So if Bush and Blair didn't lie where are all the WMD that they said Iraq possessed and was also supposed to be in the process of developing?
Nothing has been found since we invaded, so it is not even a case that our respective governments exaggerated real capabilities.
Having said that I don't think Bush's ratings are going down because he has been caught out about he said before the war, rather that Americans are getting fed up with endless casualty list amongst the armed forces. Bush has only just started to address the issue of withdrawal but until that becomes a concrete plan and if casualties continue to mount I think his rating with continue to drop.
Nothing has been found since we invaded, so it is not even a case that our respective governments exaggerated real capabilities.
Having said that I don't think Bush's ratings are going down because he has been caught out about he said before the war, rather that Americans are getting fed up with endless casualty list amongst the armed forces. Bush has only just started to address the issue of withdrawal but until that becomes a concrete plan and if casualties continue to mount I think his rating with continue to drop.
bush, blair, and putin didn't sit in a secret cave somewhere and say "ok, here's the bullshit we are going to feed the world". the intelligence agencies of all three countries told the leader the same thing. bush fully believed that wmds existed, therefore he didn't lie. given this intelligence from three different sources, plus saddam wouldn't let inspectors in, plus saddam had used wmds in the past, any reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion. it is true that americans are getting fed up with the body count, but the shitty thing about war is that people die. when we become afraid to put lives on the line, our country will fall. as far as pulling out, as soon bush puts out a timeline for withdrawal, the terrorists will then just sit back and lay low until we go. we can't go until the job is done or all the lives lost will be for nothing. remember that even though you can train a security force in a relatively short period of time, is takes a while to for a strong officer corps. his rating really don't mean shit, he needs to do what he believes is right for the country and not what is popular.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
kallend 2,148
Quoteits clear from most of your posts that you are intelligent, articulate, and well informed. why must you ruin your credibility by continuing to say that bush lied? you know as well as i do that if there were the slightest shred of evidence that bush or cheney manipulated intelligence, the cries for impeachment would be deafening coming from both the left and the right. you are letting your pure hatred of bush get the better of you. 99% of the time i disagree with you, but i like reading your posts to get a different perspective of things. you make me think. hanging on to the tired old "bush lied" line diminishes my desire to listen to anything that the left has to say.
It's not JUST the WMDs.
There's also:
Mohammad Atta (9/11) and Iraq (read Cheney's flip-flop on that, then his denial that he said what he did). *** see at the bottom, to save you time looking it up.
Medicare prescription benefits where they lied to Congress about the cost.
Rice's denial of what Rumsfeld said about WMDs
McLellan's denial of his own statements.
False statements about the size of the deficit he intended to run ("small and short term").
Social Security as his "Number One Priority" (he said that over and over, in 2000 and 2004). Where's the beef?
Denial that any campaign staff were involved with the Swift Boat Veterans, followed by resignations of campaign staffers when it was revealed that they were involved after all.
This has to be the most dishonest, untrustworthy administration in recent times.
*** On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."
On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Oct 5, 2004, VP debate: Early in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
That he could lie about having said things that he said on live TV shows his contempt for the intelligence of the voters.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quick...somebody post what the Dems said. 
rushmc 23
Old, tired and most of the quotes posted are out of context
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,148
QuoteOld, tired and most of the quotes posted are out of context
How about a point by point rebuttal instead of a lame whine.
What did George really mean when he said the deficit would be "small and short term"? What context turns "small" into "record breakingly huge" and "short" into "extending beyond the limits of the forecasts"?
Why did the administration threaten to fire anyone who gave the true estimates of the cost of Medicare drug benefits to Congress in place of the low-ball estimates the White House had provided? Tell us the context of that.
What did George actually do about his "Number One Priority" between Fall 2000 and now?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteOld, tired and most of the quotes posted are out of context
How about a point by point rebuttal instead of a lame whine.
What did George really mean when he said the deficit would be "small and short term"? What context turns "small" into "record breakingly huge" and "short" into "extending beyond the limits of the forecasts"?
Why did the administration threaten to fire anyone who gave the true estimates of the cost of Medicare drug benefits to Congress in place of the low-ball estimates the White House had provided? Tell us the context of that.
What did George actually do about his "Number One Priority" between Fall 2000 and now?
I think YOU, can answer every one of those questions. But, I don't think you answer any of them honestly.
Look, you and I can disagree and more than likely we will most of the time. But let me tell you something about me.
1) If any, and I mean any "evidence" comes out that Bush manipulated inteligence to go to war, I will lead the call for empeachment.
2) SS was a high priority but, the security of the American people is the #1 responcibility of any president. So with the media hype and focus and 9/11, his priorities had to change. And if they didn't, you would be the first one calling for his head.
3) I have not seen the story you reference about the medicare program.(my bad maybe) but, I have not agreed with the program from the beginning. I think that program was nothing more than a political ploy on his part and a complete waste of money and effort. So, he does not have my suport on that topic in any way.
So, I have responded to your points. Where do we go from here?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Post invasion there now seems to be plenty of dissent about what and was not going on in Iraq regarding intelligence. David Kelly was one scientist who having investigated Iraq at first hand definitely had doubts about the intelligence being presented to various governments as well as the spin being applied to it. Hans Blix who led of the search for WMD in Iraq also came to the same conclusion.
Given the huge gulf between pre invasion 'evidence' and post invasion proof of WMD, as well as the lack or apology/acknowledgement of intelligence 'short comings' as shown by the complete white washing and lack of blame in recent Government enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic I have got to come to the conclusion that the evidence was created to support a pre declared action. Bush and the neo cons wanted to invade Iraq and therefore created the climate to lead their people into supporting the war.
If our leaders are not liars then the alternative conclusion given that the evidence has been shown to be a complete crock of bull is that our intelligence agencies are a bunch of complete incompetents who are a waste of money. Why do we fund our intelligence agencies so much money when they come up with conclusions which have no basis in fact? Why did they use a thesis written by a uni student in the mid 90's as evidence of WMD?
Given the huge gulf between pre invasion 'evidence' and post invasion proof of WMD, as well as the lack or apology/acknowledgement of intelligence 'short comings' as shown by the complete white washing and lack of blame in recent Government enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic I have got to come to the conclusion that the evidence was created to support a pre declared action. Bush and the neo cons wanted to invade Iraq and therefore created the climate to lead their people into supporting the war.
If our leaders are not liars then the alternative conclusion given that the evidence has been shown to be a complete crock of bull is that our intelligence agencies are a bunch of complete incompetents who are a waste of money. Why do we fund our intelligence agencies so much money when they come up with conclusions which have no basis in fact? Why did they use a thesis written by a uni student in the mid 90's as evidence of WMD?
kallend 2,148
Quote
You have not presented a shred of evidence to rebut a single statement I made.
Here's some more. Kindly tell us how "context" turns the following into the truth:
On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used."
Given the following statements by the Bush administration, ON THE RECORD.
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02)
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)
"There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02)
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)
"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)
In January 2003, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, when asked “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests”; he replied “Well, of course he is.”
In February 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said “this is about an imminent threat.”
In May 2003, Ari Fleisher was asked “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD’s were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S?” He responded, “Absolutely.”...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteI have not seen the story you reference about the medicare program.(my bad maybe) but, I have not agreed with the program from the beginning. I think that program was nothing more than a political ploy on his part and a complete waste of money and effort. So, he does not have my suport on that topic in any way.
Beginning with his January 2003 State of the Union address, Bush pledged to keep the total cost of the drug benefit to $400 billion over 10 years. An estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was close to Bush's figure.
But shortly after Bush signed the program into law in December 2003, the White House revised its projection to $534 billion, but it never offered a detailed breakdown of that estimate.
Last March, Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary for nearly a decade, said administration officials threatened to fire him if he disclosed his belief in 2003 that the drug package would cost $500 billion to $600 billion. Lawmakers in both parties accused the administration of concealing important information that could have derailed passage of the bill.
Washington Post, 2/9/2005
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
As to the medicare program you enforce my position.
The program is bogus and I do not think any one can show a government proposed program that has come in under or equal to the "political estimates". So, as for the program you and I agree to the cost, but not that it makes this president a liar.
The program is bogus and I do not think any one can show a government proposed program that has come in under or equal to the "political estimates". So, as for the program you and I agree to the cost, but not that it makes this president a liar.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
As for the "immiment" threat argument.
I believe, and nothing has come to light to change my mind that, SH was such a threat! He was continuing to rebuild his WMD program and he would have continued to do so. If the US had not gone in it was a matter of when, not if, WMD would have been used by him. He had used them before, I still believe he has/had them before the US when in and, in the end, I think that will be proven.
I also belive that, regardless if I am correct about WMD's, GWB, most countries intelligence agencies, the Dems, and GWB, BELIEVED that SH had WMD's they could and would find once in country and there is much evidence to support this assurtion.
I believe the "evidence" is on the side of the president. You don't. So, here we are with one difference. I repect a differing opinion. My impression of your opinion is that you have no respect of those that don't agree with you.
So.....what next?
I believe, and nothing has come to light to change my mind that, SH was such a threat! He was continuing to rebuild his WMD program and he would have continued to do so. If the US had not gone in it was a matter of when, not if, WMD would have been used by him. He had used them before, I still believe he has/had them before the US when in and, in the end, I think that will be proven.
I also belive that, regardless if I am correct about WMD's, GWB, most countries intelligence agencies, the Dems, and GWB, BELIEVED that SH had WMD's they could and would find once in country and there is much evidence to support this assurtion.
I believe the "evidence" is on the side of the president. You don't. So, here we are with one difference. I repect a differing opinion. My impression of your opinion is that you have no respect of those that don't agree with you.
So.....what next?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,148
QuoteAs for the "immiment" threat argument.
I believe, and nothing has come to light to change my mind that, SH was such a threat! He was continuing to rebuild his WMD program and he would have continued to do so. If the US had not gone in it was a matter of when, not if, WMD would have been used by him. He had used them before, I still believe he has/had them before the US when in and, in the end, I think that will be proven.
I also belive that, regardless if I am correct about WMD's, GWB, most countries intelligence agencies, the Dems, and GWB, BELIEVED that SH had WMD's they could and would find once in country and there is much evidence to support this assurtion.
I believe the "evidence" is on the side of the president. You don't. So, here we are with one difference. I repect a differing opinion. My impression of your opinion is that you have no respect of those that don't agree with you.
So.....what next?
The point you ignore (and ignored previously) is the lie told by the White House Press Secretary about the use of the description "imminent threat".
How about Cheney's denial of his previous statements about Atta in Prague?
And then, earlier this fall federal auditors said the Bush administration had violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of its education polices.
By Robert Pear
The New York Times
Saturday 01 October 2005
Washington - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
But the US got right back into the fake news business, paying to plant propaganda in the Iraqi press. They outsourced this disinformation campaign to something called the Lincoln Group. Then Scott McClellan kept a straight face when he called the U.S. "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world." He added, "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of the press."
What a liar!
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteAs to the medicare program you enforce my position.
The program is bogus and I do not think any one can show a government proposed program that has come in under or equal to the "political estimates". So, as for the program you and I agree to the cost, but not that it makes this president a liar.
So deliberately lowballing Congress over the cost of the Bill, and threatening to fire the director if he gave Congress a true estimate of cost before their vote, does not, in your view, constitute deception? I sure hope I never have to do business with anyone that thinks that way.
Want more?
LIE: Bush told the VFW that “Veterans are a priority of this administration . . . and that priority is reflected in my budget.” (speech at W-R Army Medical Center)
FACT: In 2003, Bush killed an emergency funding request that included $275 million for Veterans’ medical care, while his 2004 budget requests fell $1.9 billion short of maintaining what the American Legion called “an inadequate status quo.” Bush’s FY2005 budget cut funding by $13.5 billion over 5 years.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
You can't say on topic. I feel there is no chance of a "logical" debate with you. I bring up points on one tiopic, you go to another. I would research and discuss anything with you, but I can't talk about "everything" with you.
One thing I know for sure. You hate Bush. You are blinded by that hatred.
so be it.....
One thing I know for sure. You hate Bush. You are blinded by that hatred.
so be it.....
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteOld, tired and most of the quotes posted are out of context
Ah, but that is his specialty, rushmc! He loves manipulating the facts to supoort his bias. As do many, if not most, libs.
I'm not in full support of our Prez's policies (as I thought I might be when we elected him), but a liar he isn't.
Also, "blinded by hatred" is an apt description.
Not suprising though, considering.
Anyway, if the poll is not relative to my comments, what HAS changed in the last week to swing the numbers? (since you must be better educated and researched than I)
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites