• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does it bother any of you conservatives Bush Told "half-truths"?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Does it bother you that Hussein has had 12 years to disarm and has not done so but has instead played a game of hide & seek with the U.N?
 
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Does it bother any of you conservatives Bush lied again?
Not anymore than Clinton lieing about sex or other things............Bush 1 about taxes among other things.........Reagan about all sorts of things.....(pre altheimers????LOL) .........................Carter......................Ford...................Nixon..................Johnson...............Kennedy............................and so on!😉


Hmm I was around when both Cater and Reagan was pres. They never lied near what these new guys do. Also they did'nt use confusing nice sounding terminology to make bad things seem unpleasant for us. Like Collateral Damage, like that's privaliged and all sorts of good PC speak to hide thier agenda and make us feel less bad about it.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Remember during the SotU when bush said he'd have a UN vote on a new resolution "to see where they stand" but now has reniged on the promise he made? This is'nt the first lie bush tells us. And it's not a serious lie but is honesty even cared about anymore by us rupbs/dems alike so long as it meets our politcal objectives? We seem very dismisive of holding politicians accountable for what they say.

Chiraq made it clear that he would veto ANY resolution. The purpose of the forcing a vote was to get members of the security council to show their cards.

The French have already showed theirs so what's the point.

President Bush has made this clear. You're just not listening.

So what's the point?? To see everyone elses cards!!
Bush doesn't want the embarrassment of the US/UK resolution only receiving 4 yes votes. This would point out the obvious that the world is against US policy.
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Does it bother any of you conservatives Bush lied again?
Not anymore than Clinton lieing about sex or other things............Bush 1 about taxes among other things.........Reagan about all sorts of things.....(pre altheimers????LOL) .........................Carter......................Ford...................Nixon..................Johnson...............Kennedy............................and so on!😉


Hmm I was around when both Cater and Reagan was pres. They never lied near what these new guys do. Also they did'nt use confusing nice sounding terminology to make bad things seem unpleasant for us. Like Collateral Damage, like that's privaliged and all sorts of good PC speak to hide thier agenda and make us feel less bad about it.

You're comparing Carter to Reagan? Hahahahahah.
 
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Remember during the SotU when bush said he'd have a UN vote on a new resolution "to see where they stand" but now has reniged on the promise he made? This is'nt the first lie bush tells us. And it's not a serious lie but is honesty even cared about anymore by us rupbs/dems alike so long as it meets our politcal objectives? We seem very dismisive of holding politicians accountable for what they say.

Chiraq made it clear that he would veto ANY resolution. The purpose of the forcing a vote was to get members of the security council to show their cards.

The French have already showed theirs so what's the point.

President Bush has made this clear. You're just not listening.

So what's the point?? To see everyone elses cards!!
Bush doesn't want the embarrassment of the US/UK resolution only receiving 4 yes votes. This would point out the obvious that the world is against US policy.

"A majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything to get rid of Hitler--except fight him," Cooke said last month on BBC. Europeans were eager to talk but not to act. "The French especially urged, after each Hitler invasion, `negotiation, negotiation.' They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied."

Time to be proactive, unlike the French in the 1930s. Look where their policy of negotiation get them then.

 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Does it bother any of you conservatives Bush lied again?
Not anymore than Clinton lieing about sex or other things............Bush 1 about taxes among other things.........Reagan about all sorts of things.....(pre altheimers????LOL) .........................Carter......................Ford...................Nixon..................Johnson...............Kennedy............................and so on!😉


Hmm I was around when both Cater and Reagan was pres. They never lied near what these new guys do. Also they did'nt use confusing nice sounding terminology to make bad things seem unpleasant for us. Like Collateral Damage, like that's privaliged and all sorts of good PC speak to hide thier agenda and make us feel less bad about it.

LOL I was old enough to see Kennedy die and all of Virtnam, be it I was young, I remember it and yes, they all do/did and perhaps one of the worst was...................(gasp) Kennedy.......................😉

 
Heh... I think GW is doing a fine job. I am prior service from the Gulf War Time and believe this needs to be done with or without the help from countries like France, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GERMANY).
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Remember during the SotU when bush said he'd have a UN vote on a new resolution "to see where they stand" but now has reniged on the promise he made? This is'nt the first lie bush tells us. And it's not a serious lie but is honesty even cared about anymore by us rupbs/dems alike so long as it meets our politcal objectives? We seem very dismisive of holding politicians accountable for what they say.

I think it is clear where everyone stands at this point, but yes i was expecting a vote at the UN.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Remember during the SotU when bush said he'd have a UN vote on a new resolution "to see where they stand" but now has reniged on the promise he made? This is'nt the first lie bush tells us. And it's not a serious lie but is honesty even cared about anymore by us rupbs/dems alike so long as it meets our politcal objectives? We seem very dismisive of holding politicians accountable for what they say.

Chiraq made it clear that he would veto ANY resolution. The purpose of the forcing a vote was to get members of the security council to show their cards.

The French have already showed theirs so what's the point.

President Bush has made this clear. You're just not listening.


Fair enough Riper, he also has little intrest in honor by subverting the will of the international community unless he sees a benefit in it.

Then how to you feel about These, These, and These
 
Originally posted by: Corn
The text of Bush's last state of the union address.

I do not see anywhere where he "promises" to seek another resolution.

Thus far the only "lie" I've witnessed is the premise of this thread. You anti-Bush parrots will make up anything won't you?

"The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. "

France and Germany sure steered the course for us, eh?
 
Originally posted by: Corn
The text of Bush's last state of the union address.

I do not see anywhere where he "promises" to seek another resolution.

Thus far the only "lie" I've witnessed is the premise of this thread. You anti-Bush parrots will make up anything won't you?

It wasn't the SOTU it was Bush's press conference on March 6.
link to transcript

BUSH: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he is in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says.

And it's hard to believe anybody saying he isn't in defiance of 1441 because 1441 said he must disarm.

And yes, we'll call for a vote.

QUESTION: No matter what?

BUSH: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council.
And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

Looks like a promise to me.
 
Doesn't it bother you that a country with extensive financial interests in Iraq, that are dependant on Saddam Hussein remaining in power due to agreements made directly with him and / or his sons, would threaten to veto ANY resolution effort attempting to establish a deadline for compliance to multiple previous resolutions?

The UN has transformed itself into a debating society. I'm no fan of Clinton, but if he hadn't ramrodded NATO into policing the conflict between the Serbs and Bosnians, the UN would still be debating that fiasco. As a matter of fact, the only UN authorised intervention in the past 50 years or so was the Korean War - and then, only because the Soviet ambassador wasn't present during the vote to case his customary veto . . .
 
there was no point when france said they would veto it no matter what.

Chirac said on national TV that France would Veto any resolution that considered the military confrontation of Iraq. End of story. So that made getting a vote from the security counsel a moot point. After reading some of your other comments, to the effect that Reagan and Carter or Nixon didnt lie, you sir are living in a fantasy world.

~wnied~
 
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Does it bother any of you conservatives Bush lied again?
Not anymore than Clinton lieing about sex or other things............Bush 1 about taxes among other things.........Reagan about all sorts of things.....(pre altheimers????LOL) .........................Carter......................Ford...................Nixon..................Johnson...............Kennedy............................and so on!😉


Hmm I was around when both Cater and Reagan was pres. They never lied near what these new guys do. Also they did'nt use confusing nice sounding terminology to make bad things seem unpleasant for us. Like Collateral Damage, like that's privaliged and all sorts of good PC speak to hide thier agenda and make us feel less bad about it.

LOL I was old enough to see Kennedy die and all of Virtnam, be it I was young, I remember it and yes, they all do/did and perhaps one of the worst was...................(gasp) Kennedy.......................😉


Look I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but If you'all feel I am I'll stop. I just wanted to know if it bothers any of you. I did'nt vote last time because both were serious liars and I feel they could'nt be trusted.
 
You guys hear Clinton could'nt even pass a "secret" backgroud check for federal employment and he was our freaken president? Wonder if Bush could with going AWOL cociane use and all when younger?
 
No need to be an ass.
Corn the questions by reporters are not there. He did say it when asked numerous times.

The President does not take questions by reporters during the State of the Union address. I may be an ass, but at least my facts are in order.

Looks like a promise to me.

A "promise" to whom? Changing course as a matter of strategy does not equal a broken "promise" made to no one. At that time I'm sure Bush had intended to call for another resolution, however upon the realization that it would all be for naught, decided "why bother?" I'm not going to blame him for not wanting to fight a losing battle when the outcome has already been decided.
 
Kennedy had to take 7 script drugs a day to get through the day................3 were narcotics, plus, he was a heavy drinker...........

FDR drank a fifth of whiskey a day while in office.........................

it's a nightmare.........................and just gets worse!😉
 
Originally posted by: Corn
No need to be an ass.
Corn the questions by reporters are not there. He did say it when asked numerous times.

The President does not take questions by reporters during the State of the Union address. I may be an ass, but at least my facts are in order.

Looks like a promise to me.

A "promise" to whom? Changing course as a matter of strategy does not equal a broken "promise" made to no one. At that time I'm sure Bush had intended to call for another resolution, however upon the realization that it would all be for naught, decided "why bother?" I'm not going to blame him for not wanting to fight a losing battle when the outcome has already been decided.

OK, so you say he never broke any promise. But he did lie when he said "no matter what the whip count, we're calling for a vote"
He didn't say "if France promises to veto, we will not call for a vote."
Bush told an outright lie.
 
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Kennedy had to take 7 script drugs a day to get through the day................3 were narcotics, plus, he was a heavy drinker...........

FDR drank a fifth of whiskey a day while in office.........................

it's a nightmare.........................and just gets worse!😉

AiieeeeeEeeekkkNooooo🙂🙁🙂
 
Originally posted by: jman7272
Heh... I think GW is doing a fine job. I am prior service from the Gulf War Time and believe this needs to be done with or without the help from countries like France, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GERMANY).

Thank's for the appreciation France
 
I think what the President proved what he wanted to prove. The UN played into his hand,s..what he was basically asking for was a statement declaring a position on the Iraq issue.

So the statement made, GW as called them out and flushed out the posers.

I finally feel vindicated. The Russians , French Chinese, and Germans will soon be clammering to gain an economic foothold in the "post saddam" Iraq. Chirac should finally be exposed for what he is.

Lets face it:

We Are right, we are morally justified, and finally we are the only ones with the testicular fortitude to stop this tyrant.

How the heck are China , Liibya even a part of the UN...with regard to Human Rights.


Im ranting, im drinking and I AM A PROUD AMERICAN
 
Back
Top