BUSH LIED! THOUSANDS DIED!

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, you're conveniently glossing over the fact that Congress merely gave Bush the option to take our country to war, while it was Bush who actually did so. An important point, in my opinion.

umm yea....

"When I told my son he could drink and drive I didn't really think he would do it..."

Here's a hint. Congress doesn't vote to give Bush permission and he most likely doesn't take the country to war.

Funny, considering they were ready to fall back on an argument that they were merely continuing the 91 gulf war.

If you multiplied the number of times you were wrong in one day by 365.25 days, you would most likely do the math incorrectly because you're wrong all the time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Here's a hint. Congress doesn't vote to give Bush permission and he most likely doesn't take the country to war.

Here's a hint. The Senate Intelligence Committed says you're still pimping the same lies you've been spreading for years.

The same committee that "found that intelligence supported most of the administration's statements about Iraq before the war."

That one?

BTW we all know that everyone in the Senate should be committed... 😉

 

[Stoneburner]

How did you guys fuck this up so badly?

According to Rockefeller, the problem was the Bush administration concealed information that would have undermined the case for war. "We might have avoided this catastrophe," he said.

Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino, said the problem was flawed intelligence heading into the war. "We had the intelligence that we had, fully vetted, but it was wrong. And we certainly regret that," she said.

The Senate report, however, found that intelligence supported most of the administration's statements about Iraq before the war. But officials often did not mention the level of dissension or uncertainty in the intelligence agencies about the information they were presenting.

The sentence profjohn and fern are citing was actually put in there to rebut perino's claims.

If left wingers were this bad they'd still be claiming Bill Clinton did not have sex with that women.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jman19

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

Ok, what does that have to do with him not liking Bush?

so Bush lied to get us in the war... it doesn't change the current situation, and Americans already had their chance to show whether or not they cared -- and they reelected him. so what can you really do at this point to show your righteous fury? the democrats in congress sure as hell aren't going to do anything about it.

That's a false way of looking at the situation. The American people did not know/realize that he lied by the time 2004 came around. Besides, it takes time for things to come to a head.

I was for this war until I realized I'd been lied to. I don't like being lied to.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Here's a hint. Congress doesn't vote to give Bush permission and he most likely doesn't take the country to war.

Here's a hint. The Senate Intelligence Committed says you're still pimping the same lies you've been spreading for years.

I find it interesting that the only thing that you are capable of is throwing out insults, why don't you address Fern's post and herm0016's post? They both make a lot of sense and I'd like to see how exactly you are going to spin it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Fern

We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.

It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.

Think for a moment of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 46 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat.

Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why.

To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces

In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental costs ? the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations ? would be between $9 billion to $13 billion a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate.

This is no way to embark on war..

Before we rush into war....

Reading his speech I say now with more conviction (and proof) that any member of Congress voting for the resolution cannot now say "it wasn't a vote to go to war" (as the revisionist dogma now goes) unless lying.

Byrd laid it all out before the vote and described it as a preemptive war. He made it exceedingly clear.

A damn good speech IMO.

He's certainly in a strong "I told you so" position. He nailed it, his prediciton/warning was about 100% accurate.

Fern

Very good point.

 

[sportage]

BUSH LIED! THOUSANDS DIED!

While the congress and media fiddled.

I love how the press is trying to cover their ass as to questions
WHY they never questioned things back then with GW's admin.

Guess it was all Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton...

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: sportage

BUSH LIED! THOUSANDS DIED!

While the congress and media fiddled.

I love how the press is trying to cover their ass as to questions
WHY they never questioned things back then with GW's admin.

Guess it was all Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton, Paris Hilton...

it's true the press and Congress did not do their job. they were negligent.

However, how does that excuse intentional misconduct on the part of the bush administration? Since when did negligence become a supervening cause for intentional misconduct? This is backasswards thinking.

"Why didn't congress protect us from this asshole president!"

Blame the media, blame congress, but DO NOT absolve bush of his responsibility.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, you're conveniently glossing over the fact that Congress merely gave Bush the option to take our country to war, while it was Bush who actually did so. An important point, in my opinion.

Sorry, but I think this (revisionist) version of the vote is another example of after-the-fact efforts by Congress to exculpate themselves.

I'll change my opinion, particularly about certain members, if anyone can find Congress expressing outrage after learning that GWB launched the attack. If they did not intend it (their vote) to used in that manner, I would surely expect that some would speak out about it immediately.

If, however, they were supportive intially, and only changed their tune after the war became politically unpopular - I'll continue to say it's revisionist BS.

I think you'll find that of those who voted for the war, none came out any time soon after to say that their vote was misused by GWB.

Fern

Again, it wasn't a "vote for war" it was a vote to authorize Bush to go to war should he have no other option. Congress, in effect, delegated their authority to Bush, who then decided to take our country to war. It's an important distinction that you're continuing to gloss over.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, you're conveniently glossing over the fact that Congress merely gave Bush the option to take our country to war, while it was Bush who actually did so. An important point, in my opinion.

Sorry, but I think this (revisionist) version of the vote is another example of after-the-fact efforts by Congress to exculpate themselves.

I'll change my opinion, particularly about certain members, if anyone can find Congress expressing outrage after learning that GWB launched the attack. If they did not intend it (their vote) to used in that manner, I would surely expect that some would speak out about it immediately.

If, however, they were supportive intially, and only changed their tune after the war became politically unpopular - I'll continue to say it's revisionist BS.

I think you'll find that of those who voted for the war, none came out any time soon after to say that their vote was misused by GWB.

Fern

Again, it wasn't a "vote for war" it was a vote to authorize Bush to go to war should he have no other option. Congress, in effect, delegated their authority to Bush, who then decided to take our country to war. It's an important distinction that you're continuing to gloss over.

Why don't you address the point that he made instead of sticking to your talking point?

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
*yawn.

Let me know when the indictment comes down.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Blame the media, blame congress, but DO NOT absolve bush of his responsibility.

QFT! And for those of you pissant neocon idiots who keep trying to spread the FUD but don't have the attention span to read previous pages, here's what I said about this, earlier.

Which of them actually created and spread the lies, not only to Congress, but to the American people, the United Nations, and the whole world?

Who actually was stupid enough to pull the trigger on a war that has killed thousands of Americans, wounded tens of thousands more, not to mention laying to waste hundreds of thousands of other innocent lives?

We can deal with those who betrayed us because they should have known better, later. Right now, the first order of business is to deal with the worst criminal cabal ever to hold the executive branch of our government.

They didn't just hold the offices of President and Vice President. They grabbed it and used it against the citizens of the United States of America as a blunt instrument to instill ungrounded fear amongst us, to usurp our Constitutional rights with unwarranted searches and monitoring of our private communications, to commit crimes against humanity, including illegal kidnapping and multiple forms of torture of innocent people.

Their crimes are sufficient that they will be remembered in history with the worst of the world's villains, but if you want to know why WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA must be the ones to hold them to account, its because...
.
.
.
.
They did it in our name. They told the world they were committing their crimes on behalf of you and me. In so doing, they have placed gross, blood stained, possibly fatal wounds to the integrity, the credibility and the honor of the United States of America in the eyes of our own citizens and of the world.

🙁

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JD50
Why don't you address the point that he made instead of sticking to your talking point?

Let me address the point by making an analogy: Let's say that I owned a nice rifle and I handed it to you and said "Hey, take this rifle and shoot anyone that comes on our property or threatens us." And then you go and shoot some random homeless guy walking by who's no threat to anyone. Are you going to hold me responsible?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JD50
Why don't you address the point that he made instead of sticking to your talking point?

Let me address the point by making an analogy: Let's say that I owned a nice rifle and I handed it to you and said "Hey, take this rifle and shoot anyone that comes on our property or threatens us." And then you go and shoot some random homeless guy walking by who's no threat to anyone. Are you going to hold me responsible?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are damn right I will hold you responsible so do not try to give me cop out crapola.

Lets face the damn facts, the congressional resolution that gave GWB&co authority to take this country to war regarding Iraq was and remains as an only as a last resort authorization. And given the willingness of Saddam to again allow weapon inspectors back in with full access, that totally removed that last resort metric.

But at the time of that congressional resolution, no one really had a clue on the megalomania of GWB. And once GWB&co had that congressional resolution in hand, the entire world found out that we were dealing with warmongers and international war criminals always intent with brewing up this optional Iraq war.

And unlike previous world conquers like Napoleon, Hitler, and Togo, who initially could brag about an unbroken series of early successes, the GWB&co set of total bunglers cannot point to a single initial success as they flopped first pop out of the box in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And they continue to flop as they hope thing won't turn to total shit before they can slink out of town

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JD50
Why don't you address the point that he made instead of sticking to your talking point?

Let me address the point by making an analogy: Let's say that I owned a nice rifle and I handed it to you and said "Hey, take this rifle and shoot anyone that comes on our property or threatens us." And then you go and shoot some random homeless guy walking by who's no threat to anyone. Are you going to hold me responsible?

Well, I'd be pretty pissed off that you went and killed some random homeless guy, and I'd immediately tell everyone that would listen how my intention was for you to defend our property, not go kill some random homeless guy. I wouldn't wait a few years once popular opinion changed and then denounce your actions, I'd do it right after you went against my intentions.

Now can you show us which members of congress did this? You guys have had a few hours since Fern asked this question, I'm sure you've come up with something by now.

Edit - How exactly would you react in your "analogy"? Would you denounce my actions immediately, or would you go along with it while the general public agreed with my actions, and wait to denounce my actions until the public opinion turned against me?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JD50
Why don't you address the point that he made instead of sticking to your talking point?

Let me address the point by making an analogy: Let's say that I owned a nice rifle and I handed it to you and said "Hey, take this rifle and shoot anyone that comes on our property or threatens us." And then you go and shoot some random homeless guy walking by who's no threat to anyone. Are you going to hold me responsible?

You're either horrible at analogies or just dont' care about the truth. Here's what you should have said:

Let's say that I owned a nice rifle and I handed it to you and said "Hey, take this rifle and shoot anyone that comes on our property or threatens us." And then, you go out and shoot this guy named Saddam. Saddam has caused trouble in his part of the neighbor hood. He invaded and literally took over other people's homes. He tortured and killed anyone who opposed him and his family literally lived in fear of him. The whole neighborhood collected intelligence on him that said he was developing or had developed a weapon that could obliterate millions of people with one shot. So now you've killed Saddam, are you going to hold me responsible?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Duwelon

Excellent inclusion of the "fear and loathing" modifiers to the analogy. Remedies for fear and loathing always get a good response.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Harveybot is on the rampage again I see.

BoberTroll can't dispute the facts about his Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers so he's attacking the messenger again, I see. :roll:

:lips: my (_!_)

Hey idiot, I never voted for him. I criticize the Republican party fairly frequently and I certainly don't support the Bush administration.

Yet I still think you're a tool for your bot-like posts.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Here's a hint. Congress doesn't vote to give Bush permission and he most likely doesn't take the country to war.

Here's a hint. The Senate Intelligence Committed says you're still pimping the same lies you've been spreading for years.

I find it interesting that the only thing that you are capable of is throwing out insults, why don't you address Fern's post and herm0016's post? They both make a lot of sense and I'd like to see how exactly you are going to spin it.

he (they) usually do not respond to logical arguments. big surprise right?

 

[DealMonkey]

While I don't hold Congress completely blameless, I put the onus of responsibility on Bush and his Administration, who were the ones who:

A.) Made a relentless case for war.

B.) Hoarded intel, manipulated it and spouted items out of context and without the caveats and doubts of the intel community to further build their case for war. Repeated claims about Iraq that had already been debunked by the intel orgs.

C.) Rushed to war without fully utilizing all of the diplomatic options available and not allowing inspectors to finish their jobs.

D.) Actually made the decision to order inspectors out and launched a pre-emptive war.

Let me additionally state that:

A.) The vote for authorizing force, was conducted only about a year following the 9/11 attacks and the political climate was quite a bit different than it is now.

B.) Congress at large was not privy to the same intel as the White House. Even the Senate Intel Committee members claimed to not have seen the same intel that the administration was privy to.

C.) Not every member of Congress voted for authorization of force, even in the climate of fear mongering and FUD being spread by the administration. The majority of House Democrats in fact, voted AGAINST the Joint Resolution, and nearly half of the Democratic Senators voted against it.

I think in retrospect, Congress made a poor decision in trusting that Bush would truly exhaust every option before going to war, trust that he was giving them all of the information necessary to make a decision to authorize force, and you can damn well bet that Congress will never again write a blank check to a President without fully vetting the situation and the intel involved.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, you're conveniently glossing over the fact that Congress merely gave Bush the option to take our country to war, while it was Bush who actually did so. An important point, in my opinion.

Sorry, but I think this (revisionist) version of the vote is another example of after-the-fact efforts by Congress to exculpate themselves.

I'll change my opinion, particularly about certain members, if anyone can find Congress expressing outrage after learning that GWB launched the attack. If they did not intend it (their vote) to used in that manner, I would surely expect that some would speak out about it immediately.

If, however, they were supportive intially, and only changed their tune after the war became politically unpopular - I'll continue to say it's revisionist BS.

I think you'll find that of those who voted for the war, none came out any time soon after to say that their vote was misused by GWB.

Fern

Again, it wasn't a "vote for war" it was a vote to authorize Bush to go to war should he have no other option. Congress, in effect, delegated their authority to Bush, who then decided to take our country to war. It's an important distinction that you're continuing to gloss over.

Why don't you address the point that he made instead of sticking to your talking point?

I don't think it's a valid point, because it took some time for the truth about the case for war to come out. And still there was a significant percentage of Congress that never voted for the joint resolution in the first place. I think their votes speak volumes.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jman19

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

Ok, what does that have to do with him not liking Bush?

so Bush lied to get us in the war... it doesn't change the current situation, and Americans already had their chance to show whether or not they cared -- and they reelected him. so what can you really do at this point to show your righteous fury? the democrats in congress sure as hell aren't going to do anything about it.

That's a false way of looking at the situation. The American people did not know/realize that he lied by the time 2004 came around. Besides, it takes time for things to come to a head.

I was for this war until I realized I'd been lied to. I don't like being lied to.

We tried to tell you. 😉 When you first started posting again, it was extremely difficult not to give you an 'I told you so'.

BTW - has the converse ever happened? IOW - has anyone been against the war at first & then decided that it was a good thing to go in for the reasons stated?

BTW2 - Somebody in this thread basically said "Bush lied. So what?". That should piss everyone off ... whether you're an (R) or a (D).

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Hey idiot, I never voted for him. I criticize the Republican party fairly frequently and I certainly don't support the Bush administration.

Wow! You got three out of four there, but I promise you, I'm not an idiot, and I reserve such names for those who insist on lying, distorting and diverting attention from the truth.

Yet I still think you're a tool for your bot-like posts.

I know many of my posts are long. They get that way when I try to include enough supporting facts and links to make a point.

The problem is, I and others have been posting the same facts and truths for years. During that time, the list of the Bushwhackos' crimes and the amount of evidence proving them haven't changed, they've only grown larger.

I write every one of my posts, individually, and I try to keep them on point with respect to the post to which I'm replying, but it would take a lot more time to re-word and rewrite that much formatted and tagged text when text from my previous posts make the point.

When I'm designing products, I get $75 - $100 per hour. LMK when you want to pay me that much to alter my text and hand enter all those links and formatting tags to say exactly the same thing, and I'll be glad to oblige.

Until then, be glad I'm at least posting the truth. :beer: 😎

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Interesting how the anti-war folks go around wishing death on people.

No kidding.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
Bush lied to get us into the war.

ok. so what?

Obviously dahunan thinks that everyone that voted for Bush is an accomplice to murder and therefore should be murdered themselves. This is the face of the typical anti-war liberal.