Bush lied??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush is a man of resolve...and he doesn't let the facts get in the way once he makes up his mind. That's good 'ol American born, cowboy style "get me a rope!" justice.

More John Wayne than "High Plains Drifter"

[type2negative 0]

Bush is a man of resolve...and he doesn't let the facts get in the way once he makes up his mind. That's good 'ol American born, cowboy style "get me a rope!" justice.

My God... Does that make him...........................

.......................................................................

..............................................LIBERAL???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush is a man of resolve...and he doesn't let the facts get in the way once he makes up his mind. That's good 'ol American born, cowboy style "get me a rope!" justice.

My God... Does that make him...........................

.......................................................................

..............................................LIBERAL???

Here's a hint. It makes him a fcuking arsehole

[type2negative 0]

Bush is a man of resolve...and he doesn't let the facts get in the way once he makes up his mind. That's good 'ol American born, cowboy style "get me a rope!" justice.

My God... Does that make him...........................

.......................................................................

..............................................LIBERAL???

Here's a hint. It makes him a fcuking arsehole

Well I meant that when I said liberal. Just decided not to use words... People complain

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bush is a man of resolve...and he doesn't let the facts get in the way once he makes up his mind. That's good 'ol American born, cowboy style "get me a rope!" justice.

My God... Does that make him...........................

.......................................................................

..............................................LIBERAL???

Here's a hint. It makes him a fcuking arsehole

Well I meant that when I said liberal. Just decided not to use words... People complain

People complain about the flag on your avatar - doesn't seem to stop you

[type2negative 0]

People complain about the flag on your avatar - doesn't seem to stop you

If I find complain reasonable I correct myself and apologize.

Flag whining - racism and bigotry..

[dalegg 143]

Have you all read the article?

No offense, but it is bloody long. Perhaps you could highlight what point you are trying to make. Incidentally,

the author is a known member of the PNAC, so he's not just some journalist making a commentary.

The point is he didn't lie about the reasons for the war in Iraq.

The point is, he actually did.

Now, I'm not putting this documentation back together tonight - I had it posted here more than once before. Bottom line of the case was that the Al-Qaida - Saddam link that has been presented by the administration was built on testimony of an Al-Qaida operative that had been refuted by the DIA months before. The administration used that discredited testimony all the same to beef up their case right before having Congress authorize the use of force as a last resort. That connection and the claim that we have established it was a blantant lie. The evidence of that is out there and it is not being refuted. You just refuse to take notice.

From an article in Jan 2003:

"

The key piece of evidence for the Hussein/Al Qaeda connection is a meeting that allegedly took place in Prague in April 2001 between hijacker Mohammed Atta and Ahmed al-Ani, an official with the Iraqi embassy who was later expelled on suspicion of espionage. Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman and President Vaclav Havel have both asserted that the meeting took place. However, the CIA, the FBI, and the chief of Czech foreign intelligence have all cast doubt on the story. U.S. intelligence officials—despite an exhaustive investigation and evident pressure from the administration to say otherwise—have said they can't establish that Atta was in Prague in April 2001. At a press conference last April, Columnist Robert Novak asked Rumsfeld point-blank whether Atta met with Al-Ani; Rumsfeld: "I don't know whether he did or didn't."

Clearly, if Rumsfeld doesn't know whether the meeting happened, it can't serve as a justification for war. Neither can Rumsfeld's repeated—and unsubstantiated—charges that Hussein is "harboring" Al Qaeda operatives. "

[Artegal 1]

You know the real issue should not be why we are in Iraq or not. But when the ###### are getting out of Iraq? And when are we going to get Bin Ladden and stop North Korea and Iran?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know the real issue should not be why we are in Iraq or not. But when the ###### are getting out of Iraq?

Not anytime soon by the looks of things - we broke it, we bought it.

And if we weren't prepared to leave the country in a decent state post-war, should we have gone in to begin with?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know the real issue should not be why we are in Iraq or not. But when the ###### are getting out of Iraq?

Not anytime soon by the looks of things - we broke it, we bought it.

And if we weren't prepared to leave the country in a decent state post-war, should we have gone in to begin with?

And interestingly, the Iraqi's want a timetable for withdrawal and have requested such from the Bush Administration.... (oh, it just gets better and better...)

Another Lie: Will Withdraw if Asked

President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

The Fact Jack

The Bush administration has ignored repeated requests to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

June 2005: Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). “We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,” read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.

November 2005: Leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish majority and Sunni minority call for the withdrawal of foreign troops "according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks

June 2006: When George Bush visited Baghdad on June 13, Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq. The following day, President Jalal Talabani released a statement expressing his support for the vice-president’s request. Then in an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 20, Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, called for a significant reduction in US troops this year, with most leaving next year. “We envisage the US troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007,” wrote Dr. Al-Rubbaie. Al-Rubaie said that Iraqis now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators, and that their removal will strengthen the fledgling government by legitimizing it in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

Asked about the article by the Financial Times, the State Department official reaffirmed the US position that withdrawal would be based on conditions, not timelines. The Bush administration’s refusal to set a timeline for withdrawal puts it on a collision course with the Iraqi government, which is increasing trying to “gain its independence from the United States,” as Dr. Al-Rubbaie said in his op-ed.

[*Robert* 2]

You know the real issue should not be why we are in Iraq or not. But when the ###### are getting out of Iraq?

Not anytime soon by the looks of things - we broke it, we bought it.

And if we weren't prepared to leave the country in a decent state post-war, should we have gone in to begin with?

After all, we left Japan and Germany in excellent economic shape after fighting with them, so it's only fair we do the same for Iraq and prop up their economy as well!

People complain about the flag on your avatar - doesn't seem to stop you

If I find complain reasonable I correct myself and apologize.

Flag whining - racism and bigotry..

I've heard it all now... obviously this guy is a few fries short of a happy meal!

Sheesh!!!

[Risto 0]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

What a president to lie?

[ual777 0]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. While you are at it, do you care to tell the audience how many times I have said I DONT support Bush?

If you had paid attention in class I said that 500 chemical warheads, 300 fueled, were found in Iraq which is TRUE per a DoD press release a few months ago that NONE of the networks carried.

Further, most of my points have been on the good that the soldiers are doing, and the benefits of fighting a war on terror. Stack the bodies over there so they don't stack ours over here.

But, I forgot, ET-US2004 thinks that WE are responsible for this extremism. So I guess 3,000 people died on September 11th, because it was our own damn fault then? I guess Bush did that in his first 18 months in office right?

No, I don't believe THAT #######, which you relish. It is really quite sad that people think the way that you do. I bet if the islamo facists cut your throat, your last thought would be "damn, what did I do to piss these guys off? if only I was more tolerant". Thats where you and me are different. Instead of trying to understand and forgive people who hate me, are bloodthirsty, and would like to saw off my head with a steak knife, I fight back, and turn their base of operations into a smoking crater.

Burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me.

Further, Stephen_and_Jinky, stop posting that "torture" bullcrap. Just because our troops did not let some guys sleep at night, let some dogs bark at them, stacked them in a naked pyramid, and pretended to drown them, does not constitute torture.

Torture is drilling holes in a person. Torture is attaching electrodes to testicles and nipples. Torture is executing someone's family in front of them in order to get information. Torture, is mutilating someone's body so badly that it has to be identified through DNA testing.

The funny part is, either Saddam or the terrorist scum over there did or currenty practice these methods with stunning regularity.

To add the cherry to this little pie, captured terrorists in Iraq are NOT subject to Geneva convention protections because THEY ARE NOT IN UNIFORM, AND THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAWS OF WAR. I say, juice them for information, and if they did something: firing squad.

These guys are NOT going to tell you anything unless you make them a little uncomfortable.

And SO WHAT if a few Japenese guys were executed for supposidly dunking some heads? I would like to see a reliable source on that one, and even if it did happen, it was an anamoly and not the norm.

I find it really laughable that so many people on here speak so loudly about the military and what they do and don't do well, and the only thing you know is what you see on CNN. Go talk to a Marine or a Soldier and ask him how it really is.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

[mawilson 2,133]

He had to lie - thanks to the "international laws" which have made it illegal to go to war

with another country in pursuit of national self-interest. Apparently, securing economic

advantages and benefits isn't considered worth sending sons and daughters to die for -

if they are going to lose their lives, it has to be for some "higher purpose".

[PsychoKat 0]

Are you sure?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

Yes, I am. No other than Bush and his blood thirsty administration have hindered the US weapons inspectors in completing their assignment. He called the UN and told them to pull their guys out before we are going in. What did the UN inspectors not do at the time? They didn't find the weapons that weren't there.

Saddam and 9/11 link, anyone? Among others, VJ's own ual777 still believes this fairy tale that has been quite professionally planted into the heads of many Americans.

Oh don't get me stated on this lying sack of #######...

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. While you are at it, do you care to tell the audience how many times I have said I DONT support Bush?

If you had paid attention in class I said that 500 chemical warheads, 300 fueled, were found in Iraq which is TRUE per a DoD press release a few months ago that NONE of the networks carried.

Further, most of my points have been on the good that the soldiers are doing, and the benefits of fighting a war on terror. Stack the bodies over there so they don't stack ours over here.

But, I forgot, ET-US2004 thinks that WE are responsible for this extremism. So I guess 3,000 people died on September 11th, because it was our own damn fault then? I guess Bush did that in his first 18 months in office right?

No, I don't believe THAT #######, which you relish. It is really quite sad that people think the way that you do. I bet if the islamo facists cut your throat, your last thought would be "damn, what did I do to piss these guys off? if only I was more tolerant". Thats where you and me are different. Instead of trying to understand and forgive people who hate me, are bloodthirsty, and would like to saw off my head with a steak knife, I fight back, and turn their base of operations into a smoking crater.

Burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me.

Further, Stephen_and_Jinky, stop posting that "torture" bullcrap. Just because our troops did not let some guys sleep at night, let some dogs bark at them, stacked them in a naked pyramid, and pretended to drown them, does not constitute torture.

Torture is drilling holes in a person. Torture is attaching electrodes to testicles and nipples. Torture is executing someone's family in front of them in order to get information. Torture, is mutilating someone's body so badly that it has to be identified through DNA testing.

The funny part is, either Saddam or the terrorist scum over there did or currenty practice these methods with stunning regularity.

To add the cherry to this little pie, captured terrorists in Iraq are NOT subject to Geneva convention protections because THEY ARE NOT IN UNIFORM, AND THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAWS OF WAR. I say, juice them for information, and if they did something: firing squad.

These guys are NOT going to tell you anything unless you make them a little uncomfortable.

And SO WHAT if a few Japenese guys were executed for supposidly dunking some heads? I would like to see a reliable source on that one, and even if it did happen, it was an anamoly and not the norm.

I find it really laughable that so many people on here speak so loudly about the military and what they do and don't do well, and the only thing you know is what you see on CNN. Go talk to a Marine or a Soldier and ask him how it really is.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

The DoD did release a report about this, note though they were left overs from the 80's badly corroded and could not be used as originally intended

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

By Samantha L. Quigley

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.

Source