WHY aren't the LIES told by the current administration (read: bush) getting more attention?

zhena

Senior member
Feb 26, 2000
587
0
0
ok, this is not another dump on bush thread.
Regardless if you are a republican or democrat, if you are a conservative or a liberal, if you support the war or you don?t

in the past several moths, bush told flat out lies to the world and the American people. this is one of those things that just amazes me.
nobody seems to care. it's not really in the news or anything.

for anyone who wants to know what lies i am talking about:

1. There is a link between bin laden and saddam.
THIS IS FALSE! so says the CIA. No, I am not one to say that saddam wouldn't work with bin laden.
But the fact is this just hasn't happened. Bush promised to provide proof of this when the time came right?
well where is the proof? the time has come. Can any one site one fact that shows this to be true?

2. THIS I THINK IS THE MOST EMBARASSMENT LIE Iraq has been trying to buy African uranium.
Bush even said it in his STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH. THIS IS TOTALY FALSE AND IS AN EMBARASSMENT.
The so called proof of this was given by the US and UK to the UN. And the UN looked at the papers and said this is false.
They not only said it, they proved it. One of the papers was signed by a leader who is no longer in power, but was in power
in the 1980's. The other signature in a different document was simply not the signature of the person who?s name appeared on the dotted line.

3. The centrifuges that saddam got was to advanced the nuclear program in Iraq.
Now i am not claiming that iraq doesn't want to get nukes more than ever.
But once again this is simply false! The UN inspectors and every coherent document on this matter says that you can't do
sh!t with those centrifuges.

If you haven't heard of these I don't blame you because this hasn't really been in the news.
Now, please once again! I don't want this to turn into a dem. vrs. rep. thread.

I just don't understand how people can support BUSH (not the war, but BUSH himself) when he is flat out lieing.
You can be pro war, and still should want BUSH impeached.

Clinton was impeached after $40 million dollars was waisted for lieing about getting a blow job.

Regardless of you opinion on Clinton or Bush, based on the facts whats a -- well how should i put this -- what lie is a REAL lie.

I don't understand how people change their mind and opinion on what things are important and what aren't.


P.S. sorry to no links for now. If you don't know about the specifics of what I said don't bash or make stupid comments.
In all honesty I haven't researched these topics much either. This is strait from cnn and a few other sources.
If you know if anything I said is wrong please correct me. But lets stick to the facts.
this isn't a pro/anti war/bush discussion. I am interested on the opinions purely on the facts.
 

Electrode

Diamond Member
May 4, 2001
6,063
2
81
WHY aren't the LIES told by the current administration (read: bush) getting more attention?

Because depicting Bush as anything but an infallable superhuman leader gets you labled "unamerican".
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,352
259
126
1. There is a link between bin laden and saddam.
Include a fully attributed quote and source, please. We don't take 'trust me, that's what he said' around here.
2. THIS I THINK IS THE MOST EMBARASSMENT LIE Iraq has been trying to buy African uranium.
Include a fully attributed quote and source, please. We don't take 'trust me, that's what he said' around here.
3. The centrifuges that saddam got was to advanced the nuclear program in Iraq.
Include a fully attributed quote and source, please. We don't take 'trust me, that's what he said' around here.

BTW, the aluminum tubes could not be used to enrich uranium IN THEIR CURRENT STATE. There is no definitive conclusion here, there are only scientists who have said it is "unlikely" these tubes could be used IN THEIR CURRENT STATE to enrich uranium, and that it was more likely the tubes were for missile bodies or engines, they did not say it was impossible.

The most commonly used tactic to dishonestly accuse someone of being a liar is to distort what the person in question actually stated. If you want your accusation to be resistant to criticism and give it more credibility, you should not call Bush a liar based on what you 'remember' him saying or what you 'think' he said, but rather what he actually said.
 

LeeTJ

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2003
4,899
0
0
To be frank.

Clintons lie was under oath. Bush's lies are seen as just politicians doing their thing. we haven't held politicians accountable for what they say in public for a long time. Bush Sr, Read my lips No more taxes for example.

 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
1. There is a link between bin laden and saddam.
THIS IS FALSE! so says the CIA. No, I am not one to say that saddam wouldn't work with bin laden.
But the fact is this just hasn't happened. Bush promised to provide proof of this when the time came right?
well where is the proof? the time has come. Can any one site one fact that shows this to be true?

Whoops!

Someone has been posting a link to the satellite photos of this place as well.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
You're right on points 1 and 2. I support the war in its current state but there is NO significant link between saddamn and al queda. As you stated even the CIA denies it. There is a much greater link between arafat and terrorism than saddamn. This is a scape-goat argument used to rally support based on 9/11, which by all accounts Iraq had nothing to do with.

In regards to the Uranium you're totally right. I was watching on CNN and it showed a specific quote by Bush in one of his somewhat recent speaches about iraq trying to buy it and then it interviewed some US officials and the fact of the matter is that the document Bush based this on (his administration claims there was other evidence as well, though of course it's not been proven) was utterly fraudulent and a bad one at that. The conclusion was that this was not deliberate on the part of Bush, but incompetent nonetheless. Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.

Point 3 me dunno!
 

yellowperil

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2000
4,598
0
0
There are much more definite links from al-Queda to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabians hate American guts. I think this connection of Iraq to al-Queda is just a ploy, along with the BS "US cares about the welfare of people in Iraq" argument.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
To be frank.

Clintons lie was under oath. Bush's lies are seen as just politicians doing their thing. we haven't held politicians accountable for what they say in public for a long time. Bush Sr, Read my lips No more taxes for example.
Yeah but Clinton didn't lie in an effort to start a war. Like I said I support what Bush is doing here, but my God the guy is diplomatically a total failure.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
To be frank.

Clintons lie was under oath. Bush's lies are seen as just politicians doing their thing. we haven't held politicians accountable for what they say in public for a long time. Bush Sr, Read my lips No more taxes for example.
Yeah but Clinton didn't lie in an effort to start a war. Like I said I support what Bush is doing here, but my God the guy is diplomatically a total failure.

You're right Skoorbie he didn't. He tried to start a war because of a lie.

 

3L33T32003

Banned
Jan 30, 2003
333
0
0
WHY aren't the LIES told by the current administration (read: bush) getting more attention?

Because the term "liberal" media is the biggest lie of all.

Why is this easy to see?
Clinton/Gore could not fart without it being turned into a scandal.

Meanwhile, our coke using, alcoholic draft dodger in the White House gets a free ride.
 

3L33T32003

Banned
Jan 30, 2003
333
0
0
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
To be frank.

Clintons lie was under oath. Bush's lies are seen as just politicians doing their thing. we haven't held politicians accountable for what they say in public for a long time. Bush Sr, Read my lips No more taxes for example.

Bush lied under oath as well. Only it was not about something that happened in private and had nothing to do with how he conducted his job. It was directly involved with matters of the Texas State government, and in my opinion, far far worse:


Read the entire sordid story here.

BTW I laugh at everyone who would question this source. They are owned by one of the largest conglomerates on the planet which is run by conservatives.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
WHY aren't the LIES told by the current administration (read: bush) getting more attention?

Because the term "liberal" media is the biggest lie of all.

Why is this easy to see?
Clinton/Gore could not fart without it being turned into a scandal.

Meanwhile, our coke using, alcoholic draft dodger in the White House gets a free ride.
Clinton raped one woman and sexual harassed another. It was he and his party that shoved all this sexual harassment legislation down our throats in the first place! Serves him right to get dragged through the wringer.
 

3L33T32003

Banned
Jan 30, 2003
333
0
0
Originally posted by: Ornery
Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
WHY aren't the LIES told by the current administration (read: bush) getting more attention?

Because the term "liberal" media is the biggest lie of all.

Why is this easy to see?
Clinton/Gore could not fart without it being turned into a scandal.

Meanwhile, our coke using, alcoholic draft dodger in the White House gets a free ride.
Clinton raped one woman and sexual harassed another. It was he and his party that shoved all this sexual harassment legislation down our throats in the first place! Serves him right to get dragged through the wringer.

Given the level of proof you have submitted, I assume you were against Clarence Thomas becoming a Supreme Court judge? I mean the witnesses were far more credible, there were more of them, and they were willing to testify to Congress to prove it. They only let Anita Hill testify, but the statements of other women were read into the record.

Funny how there are two standards applied here. For instance, Oliver North was CONVICTED in the Iran Contra scandal, and others were indicted, but due to Bush1's pardons the conservatives call them "innocent men." Clinton was convicted of NOTHING, and yet you call him a rapist.

Rape is a legal term, btw, you cannot really say someone is a rapist unless he is convicted.

Before you try to take the argument off on a tangent, please answer the Clarence Thomas question.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
Originally posted by: LeeTJ
To be frank.

Clintons lie was under oath. Bush's lies are seen as just politicians doing their thing. we haven't held politicians accountable for what they say in public for a long time. Bush Sr, Read my lips No more taxes for example.

Bush lied under oath as well. Only it was not about something that happened in private and had nothing to do with how he conducted his job. It was directly involved with matters of the Texas State government, and in my opinion, far far worse:


Read the entire sordid story here.

BTW I laugh at everyone who would question this source. They are owned by one of the largest conglomerates on the planet which is run by conservatives.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. OK. Here's your homework assignment. Look up the words proof and alleged.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: 3L33T32003
WHY aren't the LIES told by the current administration (read: bush) getting more attention?

Because the term "liberal" media is the biggest lie of all.

Why is this easy to see?
Clinton/Gore could not fart without it being turned into a scandal.

Meanwhile, our coke using, alcoholic draft dodger in the White House gets a free ride.

As opposed to the pot-smoking, draft-dodging, adulterous rapist we had previously?
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Clarence wouldn't have been on the grill if it weren't for the legislation that Bill and his ilk got passed. Yet he doesn't have to abide by it! Fvck him, he deserves what he got. Do I believe Broaddrick or Clinton? Hmmm, let me think...
rolleye.gif
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
saddam is now distributing chemical weapons to his republican guard in eastern iraq... who woulda thought... GEE! HE HAS WMDS!
 

godmare

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2002
5,121
0
0
Clinton was impeached after $40 million dollars was waisted for lieing about getting a blow job.
:confused:


Okay, why don't you just start with some sources for any information in your post. We'll go from there.
EDIT:
LINKS to articles are really popular.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
saddam is now distributing chemical weapons to his republican guard in eastern iraq... who woulda thought... GEE! HE HAS WMDS!

link?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
saddam is now distributing chemical weapons to his republican guard in eastern iraq... who woulda thought... GEE! HE HAS WMDS!
Is this according to the same US officials who said they saw scuds being moved, but of course didn't provide a lick of evidence to show to the UN - evidence that may have helped in a pro-war vote?