What is your favorite Anti-Bush Outrage?

[nobodyknows]

Dude, it was a joke........ This really had nothing to do with Hillary but whatever floats your boat.

I realize it was a joke. What I said was half in jest also. Bush was so bad, a white person couldn't even get elected after him. I think that's what pisses off the birthers so bad.

 

[dmcowen674]

Yes quite damning, just like these which he purposefully leave out.
http://myuploadpage.com/Harvey/TheLyingCabal.htm
Intellectual dishonesty FTW.

If someone is going to blame Bush for perpetrating the Iraq WMD lie, they should at least explain why everyone else was saying the same thing years before Bush even became president.

Keep spamming your cut-n-paste hatchet job, I'll sure it's only a matter of days before they bring Bush up on charges.
LMAO

Hey America hater, those Democrats said those things but they did not start a false war for oil like your hero and thousands died unnecessarily because of it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hey America hater, those Democrats said those things but they did not start a false war for oil like your hero and thousands died unnecessarily because of it.

I'm sure he feels as justified as the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building.

 

[Harvey]

Yes quite damning, just like these which he purposefully leave out.
http://myuploadpage.com/Harvey/TheLyingCabal.htm
Intellectual dishonesty FTW.

If someone is going to blame Bush for perpetrating the Iraq WMD lie, they should at least explain why everyone else was saying the same thing years before Bush even became president.

Keep spamming your cut-n-paste hatchet job, I'll sure it's only a matter of days before they bring Bush up on charges.
LMAO

Back at ya regarding your cut and paste hatchet job. Thanks for showing us you're such a good student of Hitler's propoganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, widely credited with the concept of "The Big Lie."

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Your implication is that Democrats were saying the same things at the same time, based on the same information known to the Bushwhackos about any threat posed by Saddam Hussein. That is a bare assed lie, and you are a bare assed liar who has repeatedly pimped that same lie for at least a year.

I don't know how many times you've posted that link, but I found two of them where I replied to them to point out that the differences between the quotes at your link and the quotes I cite from the Bushwhacko criminals:

1. Thirteen of them are from the Clinton administration in 1998 - 1999 based on information they had, then. However, Bill Clinton never started a shooting war war over those matters or even asked Congress for authorization to start one.

2. The rest of them are by members of Congress whose only source of information was the stovepiped lies spoon fed to them by your mercifully EX-traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal.

On 9-01-2009, in post #19 in this thread, which I quoted in my reply in post #20:

Originally posted by: Druidx

Originally posted by: Harvey

***snip****
Long list of quotes we've all sen a dozen times

Bush said this
Bush said that

blah, blah, blah
***snip****

You may have seen them all a dozen times, but obviously, but if you're referring to the list I posted, above, they're obviously not enough to get you to remember them. Here -- Let me refesh your memory with even more of the "this" and "that" and the "blah, blah, blah" that represent LIES spoken by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents by listing a few more of their lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Need more? No problem.

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

• Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
  Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002
  
• Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
  George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
  
• 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.
  Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002
  
• If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002
  
• We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003
  
• Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
  George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
  
• We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
  George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003
  
• Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
  George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003
  
• The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
  George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003
  
• Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
  Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003
  
• We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
  Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003
  
  But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003
  
• We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
  George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003
  
• There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
  Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003
  
• We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
  George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003
  
• I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
  Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003
  
• I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
  George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003
  
• We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
  
• You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
  George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003
  
• U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
  Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003
  
• We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
  Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003
  
• I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
  Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003
  
• We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
  Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
  
• They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
  Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003
  
• "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
  Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004
  
• This is about an imminent threat.
  Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003
  
• After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
  Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
  
• After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
  Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges to process nuclear material.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.

• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
(continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
(continues)

Originally posted by: Druidx

Be honest for once, you forgot these
http://myuploadpage.com/Harvey/TheLyingCabal.htm

Now, it's your turn to be honest, possibly for the first time in your life. Either:

1. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, or

2. You're just another Bushwhacko sycophant pimping their lies, pimping their war, pimping their treason, pimping their torture, pimping their murder, pimping complete denial of the magnitude and monstrosity of their heinous crimes.

Which is it?

On 10-14-2009, you posted it in post #66 in this thread, which I quoted in my reply in post #89:

Originally posted by: Druidx

You mean the macro where he list all those stupid Bush quotes? Proving how intellectually dishonest he is by completely ignoring the fact EVERYONE else was saying the same thing?
Is that the macro you're talking about? If so here are the missing quotes you'll never see in his macro.
Harvey's missing quotes

That page has been posted several times, and all it proves how really wrong you are. There is only ONE President of the United States at a time. Unfortunately for our nation, at the time, it was George W. Bush. Every person listed at your link based their decisions and their statements on the lies your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal.

• They received the intelligence.
  
• They chose to ignore the warnings they received from credible experts.
  
• They cooked the books and fed Congress lie after lie, after lie to get support for the crimes they then committed.
  
• They deceived every person quoted at your link.

In fact, those lies are part of the underlying acts that support charging them with murder. There are plenty of good grounds to charge the Bush administration with multiple felonies, including murder, treason, torture, war crimes and war profiteering. Another of their crimes, lying to Congress, which is a felony regardless of whether such lies are told under oath, directly supports charging them with murder under two theories:

1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:

MURDER SECOND DEGREE
(A-I Felony)
(Depraved Indifference Murder)
PENAL LAW 125.25(2)
(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)
(Revised December 12, 2006)

Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he or she recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of that person [or of a third person].

The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the adminstration started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from thousands of cases of mere negligent homicide, another criminal offense, to murder? :shocked:

2. The Felony-Murder Rule

A RULE OF LAW that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Generally an intent to kill is not necessary for felony-murder. The rule becomes operative when there is a killing during or a death soon after the felony, and there is some causal connection between the felony and the killing.

The felony-murder rule originated in England under the COMMON LAW. Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a ROBBERY accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Today most jurisdictions have limited the rule by requiring that the felony must be a dangerous one or that the killing is foreseeable, or both. Statutes that restrict the application of the rule to dangerous felonies usually enumerate the crimes. BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, rape, and robbery are typical felonies that invoke the rule. Under a number of statutes, the felony must be a proximate cause of the death. In other words, the killing must have been a natural and direct consequence of the felony.

The Bushwhackos LIED TO CONGRESS to pimp their war, which is a felony even if it not done under oath. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.

As of October 7, 2009, 4,348 American troops have died and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in your Traitor In Chief's war of LIES in Iraq.

That's more than enough to support charging him and his entire criminal cabal with murder. :|

Talk about intellectually dishonest, everyone else was only privvy to the information they were given by the US admin.

Now what?

We prosecute those lying, murdering, torturing traitors for the crimes they committed is what. :thumbsdown: :|

And we install reasonable oversight to enforce our laws to make sure nothing like this never happens again. They cost us far too much.

You can continue to pimp your lie, but doing so won't make it anymore true than it was the previous times you did so, and it won't make you any less of a liar. :thumbsdown:

To this day, you have never disproven any of the facts, quotes or charges I've listed in my various "macros" for one reason... YOU CAN'T!