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

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
working on linky, it was on MSNBC

I've read it too, but there is absolutely no proof for it beyond hearsay. A couple of days ago there were reports that Saddamn was moving around Scuds, but of course nothing concrete or verifiable. Not to say that he doesn't have them and they aren't arming chemicals, but until there is proof I refuse to go on the word of a "us official", especially since the biggest US official of them all based his uranium buying argument on bogus documents (see above).

 

[Tiger]

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

Add child abuser and rapist to that and you've got Clinton nailed.

 

[Acanthus]

Link

They also revealed that intelligence reports were indicating that Saddam was preparing to use chemical weapons against U.S. troops. Artillery shells with chemical warheads were being handed out to troops of Saddam?s elite Republican Guard at Al Kut, southeast of Baghdad, the reports indicated, while preparations were under way to coat bridges and roadways with a lethal VX nerve agent to slow U.S. troops on their advance to Baghdad.
U.S. intelligence reports also indicated that Saddam had as many as 50 unmanned drones he could use to attack U.S. troops with chemical weapons from the air, the sources said.

 

[Tiger]

They also revealed that intelligence reports were indicating that Saddam was preparing to use chemical weapons against U.S. troops. Artillery shells with chemical warheads were being handed out to troops of Saddam?s elite Republican Guard at Al Kut, southeast of Baghdad, the reports indicated, while preparations were under way to coat bridges and roadways with a lethal VX nerve agent to slow U.S. troops on their advance to Baghdad.
U.S. intelligence reports also indicated that Saddam had as many as 50 unmanned drones he could use to attack U.S. troops with chemical weapons from the air, the sources said.

Can't be. Everybody who's anybody know Saddam hasn't got any WMD's.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Link

They also revealed that intelligence reports were indicating that Saddam was preparing to use chemical weapons against U.S. troops. Artillery shells with chemical warheads were being handed out to troops of Saddam?s elite Republican Guard at Al Kut, southeast of Baghdad, the reports indicated, while preparations were under way to coat bridges and roadways with a lethal VX nerve agent to slow U.S. troops on their advance to Baghdad.
U.S. intelligence reports also indicated that Saddam had as many as 50 unmanned drones he could use to attack U.S. troops with chemical weapons from the air, the sources said.

Yeah I don't doubt that some websites have said it, I'm just saying that the Bush administration is not totally being truthful - or kinder they are not being entirely accurate these days it seems

 

[conjur]

And that part of the article was way down at the bottom. I'd think if there was actual proof it'd be headlines everywhere and more concrete evidence proffered.

 

[kadajawi]

Oh my... A sexual crime is NOTHING against starting a war based on lies... lies told to start a war. But... anyway, as I might want to take a trip to US someday I better keep quiet... who knows if I'm just atm noted down in a "terrorist list"...

 

[CaptnKirk]

The 'Aledged' Centrifuge tubes, were in fact 81MM Mortar Tubes that the Bush Administration signed of on as Authorized'
They keep being listed as "High strength aluminum tubes" yeah, I think they are 7075-T641 extrusions, most likely from
the Carlyle Group, which is one of the few companies allowed to sell to Iraq.
Haliburton also sells to Iraq, Oil Feild Equipment and Supplies, that's where Cheney came from.

Iraq has used Chemical Weapons against their neighbors - Iran has it's soldiers attacked with chemical agents that had
been sold to them by Ollie North & friends during the Reagan years.
And against their own people Kurd splinter groups, chemicals - unfortunately from same source (above)

Poppy Bush, in his CIA Suit, was instrumental in the overthrow of the previous Iraqi Government, and along with Rumsfield
put their "freind" Saddam into the position that led to his becoming the Iraqi President - What goes around comes around.

What I really do not understand is when Stupidity, Arrogance, and Stubbornness became a character strength.

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: Ornery
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...

That is not the question...why did I know you would not answer it?
Who do you believe more, Broaddrick or Anita Hill?

And if they are both believable, why would you want CT in the SCOTUS?

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Clinton was convicted of NOTHING

Are you sure? I think the Arkansas and the US Supreme Courts would disagree with you.

I am sure you can provide me with proof showing me that Clinton was convicted of something.

Oh, you can't???

Having a legal license taken away due to conduct in a trial is one thing...being convicted of something is completely different.

 

[freegeeks]

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.

I have the answer for you. A lot of people seem so blind because of the big american flag wrapped around their head.
You also forgot a couple of other points.

-Powell referred in the UN security council to a document made by the British Intelligence Services about Iraq. A couple of days later we heard the truth about this evidence. The document was part of a transcript made by a STUDENT. MI6 just copied the pages with spelling errors and everything.linky

-Powell showed footage about a Mirage F1 simulating an attack with anthrax. He forgot to mention that the footage was from before the first gulf war and that this footage was well known. I had already seen hat same footage some years ago. What's the point in showing footage from 13 years ago when you want to prove that Iraq has WMD today ???

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The 'Aledged' Centrifuge tubes, were in fact 81MM Mortar Tubes that the Bush Administration signed of on as Authorized'
They keep being listed as "High strength aluminum tubes" yeah, I think they are 7075-T641 extrusions, most likely from
the Carlyle Group, which is one of the few companies allowed to sell to Iraq.
Haliburton also sells to Iraq, Oil Feild Equipment and Supplies, that's where Cheney came from.

Iraq has used Chemical Weapons against their neighbors - Iran has it's soldiers attacked with chemical agents that had
been sold to them by Ollie North & friends during the Reagan years.
And against their own people Kurd splinter groups, chemicals - unfortunately from same source (above)

Poppy Bush, in his CIA Suit, was instrumental in the overthrow of the previous Iraqi Government, and along with Rumsfield
put their "freind" Saddam into the position that led to his becoming the Iraqi President - What goes around comes around.

What I really do not understand is when Stupidity, Arrogance, and Stubbornness became a character strength.

You forgot to mention that the Carlysle group has Bush1, at least one Bin Laden, and several Saudi royals on the board of directors. Bush2 said that people who give aid to terrorists will be pursued to the ends of the earth. When is he gonna put daddy in jail?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The 'Aledged' Centrifuge tubes, were in fact 81MM Mortar Tubes that the Bush Administration signed of on as Authorized'
They keep being listed as "High strength aluminum tubes" yeah, I think they are 7075-T641 extrusions, most likely from
the Carlyle Group, which is one of the few companies allowed to sell to Iraq.
Haliburton also sells to Iraq, Oil Feild Equipment and Supplies, that's where Cheney came from.

Iraq has used Chemical Weapons against their neighbors - Iran has it's soldiers attacked with chemical agents that had
been sold to them by Ollie North & friends during the Reagan years.
And against their own people Kurd splinter groups, chemicals - unfortunately from same source (above)

Poppy Bush, in his CIA Suit, was instrumental in the overthrow of the previous Iraqi Government, and along with Rumsfield
put their "freind" Saddam into the position that led to his becoming the Iraqi President - What goes around comes around.

What I really do not understand is when Stupidity, Arrogance, and Stubbornness became a character strength.

You forgot to mention that the Carlysle group has Bush1, at least one Bin Laden, and several Saudi royals on the board of directors. Bush2 said that people who give aid to terrorists will be pursued to the ends of the earth. When is he gonna put daddy in jail?

What is the Carlysle group?

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Originally posted by: Ornery
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...

That is not the question...why did I know you would not answer it?
Who do you believe more, Broaddrick or Anita Hill?

And if they are both believable, why would you want CT in the SCOTUS?

I believe Broaddrick AND Anita Hill. Difference is, Clinton helped saddle us with this BS legislation that we ALL now have to abide by. All except him apparently!

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh man this is terrible. A word to all you Republican knee-jerkers who spew Clinton at every critique of your Ivory God, you are just setting Democrats up with a perfect shield when the time comes to their President. They will just point to the liar Bush and that will be the end of the discussion. What a stupid thing to do. Sorry.

 

[Ornery]

zhena brought it on himself:

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

 

[tcsenter]

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.

Salon was founded by eminent lefty David Talbot, who remains Chairman and Editor-in-Chief. Salon is a publicly traded company.

Talbot's resume includes holding posts as Arts and Entertainment editor (no less) for the San Francisco Examiner and Senior Editor for Mother Jones. Let me guess, you think Mother Jones is a Rupert Murdoch publication, right?

Salon's CEO since 1996 is Michael O'Donnell, who holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science, not from Bob Jones or George Mason University, but FROM BERKELEY!

While I personally like Salon.com, it is more than a bit dishonest to characterize its 'tilt' as being anything but to the left. Its not pathologically so, I find there is some range of perspective at Salon.com, but the balance is undeniably liberal.

But maybe you're from San Francisco, where anything right of Mother Jones is considered a 'psuedo-liberal' or right-wing neo nazi publication.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Clinton was convicted of NOTHING

Are you sure? I think the Arkansas and the US Supreme Courts would disagree with you.

I am sure you can provide me with proof showing me that Clinton was convicted of something.

Oh, you can't???

Having a legal license taken away due to conduct in a trial is one thing...being convicted of something is completely different.

Clinton was found to have commited perjury in Arkanasas and disbarred. This disbarrment led to the US Supreme Court to forbid him from being heard in front of them also.

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

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.

Salon was founded by eminent lefty David Talbot, who remains Chairman and Editor-in-Chief. Salon is a publicly traded company.

Talbot's resume includes holding posts as Arts and Entertainment editor (no less) for the San Francisco Examiner and Senior Editor for Mother Jones. Let me guess, you think Mother Jones is a Rupert Murdoch publication, right?

Salon's CEO since 1996 is Michael O'Donnell, who holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science, not from Bob Jones or George Mason University, but FROM BERKELEY!

While I personally like Salon.com, it is more than a bit dishonest to characterize its 'tilt' as being anything but to the left. Its not pathologically so, I find there is some range of perspective at Salon.com, but the balance is undeniably liberal.

But maybe you're from San Francisco, where anything right of Mother Jones is considered a 'psuedo-liberal' or right-wing neo nazi publication.

You are completely right and I was wrong. I had my facts incorrect about Salon.

The source does not change the veracity of the facts.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer


Clinton was convicted of perjury in Arkanasas and disbarred. This disbarrment led to the US Supreme Court to forbid him from being heard in front of them also.

Are you sure? I couldn't find a link specifically showing where Clinton was convicted in Arkansas.

I did find this, though. :Q

 

[dcpsoguy]

All you liberals must spout lies all the time. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office. No matter how you try to compare what Bush has done compared to Clinton, you will never get far at all. The facts are there, Clinton avoided Vietnam, had an affair, lied under oath, and sent nuclear secrets to China. Shall I go on?

 

[lupy]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
All you liberals must spout lies all the time. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office. No matter how you try to compare what Bush has done compared to Clinton, you will never get far at all. The facts are there, Clinton avoided Vietnam, had an affair, lied under oath, and sent nuclear secrets to China. Shall I go on?

Like I said before in another thread, show me proof of him giving away nuclear secrets to China!
By the way, that book you had proves nothing, anyone with half a brain can write a book and call it truth, plus read the first reader's comments, that just about cracked me up!

Try to come up with something better, amateur!

 

[Finality]

Originally posted by: Electrode

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".

Yes exactly. Now that Bush is in power making a statement about what he did badly is viewed as tratorous.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: zhena
ok, this is not another dump on bush thread.
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.

1.) What does it matter? I believe a link was shown, but it is irrelavent. It doesn't matter one way or another. The point is that Saddam is looking to build up his forces just like Germany did in the 20's and 30's. They are buying lots of weapons and trying to consolidate their power.

2.) I haven't heard of them trying to buy uranium from Africa (I didn't listen to his SOTU), but there is evidence that they have nuclear material. After the first gulf war, they found enriched uranium. Why would he just abandon his research on the subject? The point is that he is trying to acquire more nuclear material (sorry, no proof).

3.) Just because the inspectors found some cheap centifuges doesn't mean that Iraq isn't trying to enrich or obtain enriched Uranium.

A lack of proof does not mean that Saddam is innocent. Bush has some very strong circumstancial evidence against Saddam. It's like someone having a gun behind their shirt and pointing it at you. There is no direct proof that the gun exists (it could be a marker or something), but that doesn't mean that you aren't going to give the person all your money. The same is true here. We have no direct evidence that Saddam has these weapons, but we can see the gun through his shirt (although he isn't pointing it at anyone). This is a convicted felon with a gun here. Wouldn't you be uneasy? My point is that Bush isn't lying. It's like playing telephone. Bush says something and the media interprets it a certain way and relays that info to the public. The public then interprets it again and suddenly you start seeing little holes in what is going on. Compound that with the fact that you are dealing with circumstantial evidence to begin with and everything starts looking like lies. I'm not saying that everything Bush says is the truth, but when it comes to this war with Iraq, he has been as honest as he can be.

 

[dcpsoguy]

Originally posted by: lupy

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
All you liberals must spout lies all the time. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office. No matter how you try to compare what Bush has done compared to Clinton, you will never get far at all. The facts are there, Clinton avoided Vietnam, had an affair, lied under oath, and sent nuclear secrets to China. Shall I go on?

Like I said before in another thread, show me proof of him giving away nuclear secrets to China!

Linkified once again