Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Yet Another Bush Lie On WMD's  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Well, if you still think you can trust the president...

***

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War

Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it...

...In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.

"It was very assertive," said one weapons expert familiar with the report's contents.

Then, their mission completed, the team members returned to their jobs and watched as their work appeared to vanish.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

***


How does one defend the president on this? He got the report two days before his speech which said these weren't weapons labs, and yet went forward anyways and ignore the expert scientists and engineers to claim to the American people and the world that WMD's were found.

It seems every day a new lie/coverup/misinformation campaign by the president is uncovered. It really disgusts me that this group of people is running our country.

[Edited 2006-04-12 06:49:54]


NO URLS in signature
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

This shit happened nearly three years ago . . . any reason you can't post something more recent to bash PotUS with??? Between your dated material and ClipperHawaii's you two could conduct a History Course right here on A-Net.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

ANCFlyer,

This "shit" was exposed today. I am posting it because it IS recent and it IS relevant. The by line is "April 12, 2006". The reason this is news is because it shows that Bush lied once again.

Why do you get so mad at this? When the president and his staff made claims to go to war based on WMD's, did you support it? I know I did. Now I don't support the war, and it pisses me off to know how much I was lied to. Three years later and 2,300 American soldiers dead, when news like this comes out it IS relevant because our troops are in Iraq on a war that we are seeing more and more was started on lies. Lies like the article above exposes.

So as long as our soldiers are dying, as long as my tax money is being funneled into Iraq, and as long as Bush and Co. are in power, I will NOT remain silent on issues like this.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Why do you get so mad at this?

Hell, TBar, I'm not mad . . . just hate reading old news. Byline may be today, but we've seen this before.

...In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.

It's old news . . . that simple. It's old enws presented by a new writer getting another 15 minutes in the spot light . . . Dredge up something new . . .


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Byline may be today, but we've seen this before.

Fine, the pressure is on you now. Since you claim we've seen this before, and that I'm digging up old news, back up your claim. Find where this was exposed before, then I will retract this thread.

Until then, I think your claims are ridiculous and unfair. A news story that breaks TODAY is not old news. And a news story where the President is caught in a bold faced lie surrounding the Iraq war is never old news.

Find me an older news article where its mentioned that Bush manipulated this report and lied about it. The onus is on you now.

And BTW, why don't you try commenting about the article or about the issue at hand here.

Does it bother you that the president lied about this?
Should there be some accountability?
Will anybody be held responsible?
IS there any accountability at all in this White House?

...

[Edited 2006-04-12 07:07:50]


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3499 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):

Hell, TBar, I'm not mad . . . just hate reading old news.

Me too. The fact that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq isn't exactly an earth-shattering revelation. Leave it to the media (completely non-critical until it doesn't matter anymore) to pop a chubby over this.



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 4):
Fine, the pressure is on you now. Since you claim we've seen this before, and that I'm digging up old news, back up your claim. Find where this was exposed before, then I will retract this thread.

I don't care if you retract the thread or not.

And this very item -

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
...In the end, the final report -- 19 pages plus a 103-page appendix -- remained unequivocal in declaring the trailers unsuitable for weapons production.

- the inability of those trailers to have produced WMD, has been brought forward here - on A-net - before . . .

Have fun with the thread . . .

At least we agree on Dumsfeld . . .  wink 


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Keep trying, but you are still avoiding the questions and the topic at hand.

The story is NOT about there not being WMD's in Iraq.

The story IS that the president has been caught in another lie.

Note my thread title, its not "No WMD's found in Iraq".



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 7):
The story IS that the president has been caught in another lie.

As you said to me: Burden of proof is on you . . . .

You publish a "Bush Lied Again" thread every couple days . . . and still haven't seen/heard anything to prove same . . . just speculation and conjecture.

But you keep having a go at it . . . gives you something to do.

[Edited 2006-04-12 07:20:28]

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

ANCFlyer,

Are you saying the article that I posted is just speculation and conjecture? Are you saying the Washington Post is just making this stuff up? Did you read the article?

Bush said on March 29 that weapons labs were found.
Experts told Bush in the report on March 27 that they were NOT weapons labs.
Bush went ahead and lied about it anyways.

So is the Washington Posts reporting just speculation and conjecture? Or is that only so when it fits what you like to hear? Seriously, the opening thread was an article, and a quick summary of it.

I just don't understand, what more do you want? This is coming from a main stream media source, and its still "speculation and conjecture"? Somehow, the president's actions over the last five years have led you to put so much trust and faith in his words and actions?

And how about you answer my questions that I posted in Reply 4. I'll even preface those question with "IF its true that the president lied" so as not to offend you.

Finally, since you claim this is old news, you should produce an article or source backing that up. This story was released today, you claim otherwise, so prove it.

Lets try some more questions too while we're at it.
- Based on the article, do you believe the president lied in his speeches about the weapons labs on March 29?
- Do you believe that the president ignored the expert report?
- If the president did indeed change the reports of the experts, what is the motivation of one man to do this?
- If the president did change these reports to suit his needs, is this morally or ethically right?

[edit] I have to go to work early in the morning, so I'm going to sleep. I'll continue this discussion tomorrow, I hope you will try to at least address some of my points.

[Edited 2006-04-12 07:33:12]


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 9):
Did you read the article?

Of course . . . I'm not your normal A-Netter - I have this terrible habit of actually READING the shit I'm going to discuss . . . .

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 9):
Are you saying the article that I posted is just speculation and conjecture?

Nope, there were no WMD in those trailers and they weren't capable, apparently, of producing WMD.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 9):
Experts told Bush in the report on March 27 that they were NOT weapons labs.

Nowhere in the article did it say this. What is said was:
Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
"Findings to Washington" versus "Told the President" are two completely, totally and extraordinarily DIFFERENT things.

There's the speculation and conjecture. And there's your straw grasping.

Press on TBar . . .


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
It's old news . . . that simple. It's old enws presented by a new writer getting another 15 minutes in the spot light . . . Dredge up something new . . .

TBar is right. The story isn't the lack of WMDs, it's the fact that this info was available to Bush two days before he trotted out the BS. And trust me -- that's news. Most of the Watergate exposees were about stuff that had happened years before. When that stuff is revealed, it's news.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
"Findings to Washington" versus "Told the President" are two completely, totally and extraordinarily DIFFERENT things.

You can argue that maybe he didn't see it in those two days, but it's much harder to explain why the charade continued for many months, showing up in speeches again and again. This report was apparently unequivocal. Does anyone believe that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al haven't seen it?

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 5):
Leave it to the media (completely non-critical until it doesn't matter anymore) to pop a chubby over this.

Has it occurred to you, with all the recent discussion about de-classified intelligence reports, that it's a tad difficult for the media to get its hands on classified info? Ever heard of Daniel Ellsberg?

Interesting, isn't it, that Bush/Cheney felt no compunction about de-classifying pieces of intelligence reports (and misrepresenting them) on the bogus uranium scare. Wonder why he didn't de-classify this report at the same time.

I can't see this guy serving until the end of his term; the evidence that he cooked up the rationale for Iraq is almost overwhelming. This report adds to it.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
I can't see this guy serving until the end of his term; the evidence that he cooked up the rationale for Iraq is almost overwhelming. This report adds to it.

That's probably not sufficient grounds for impeachment. It's not illegal. It's dishonest, manipulative, and grossly negligent, but it's not illegal.

I agree with you, however, that this is another strong indication that Bush wasn't just wrong about WMD,... he lied about it. The aluminum tubes, the yellow-cake, and now this. I didn't believe that Bush lied about this stuff, or I should say I didn't WANT to believe he did. I was inclined to think they just got it wrong. Apparently, that's not the case.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1724 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
This shit happened nearly three years ago

The events described happened 3 years ago, true.

No one knew that the president continued to use false accusations of the existence of WMDs over a year after this report and other Pentagon sponsored research had already determined the WMDs didn't exist in these trailers or likely elsewhere.

In other words, the president knew there were likely no WMDs well before he admitted it because he was trying to drum up support for the war and his re-election. This is important.

It is 3 years old because the White House was hiding it.

"McClellan did not directly answer questions about whether Bush, when he made his statement [that the trailers were mobile WMD labs], was aware that a team of experts had already concluded the trailers were not involved with WMD manufacturing."*

Bush knew or should have known the trailers were harmless, but continued to use them as 'evidence' of WMD for months. It was either a bad mistake (charitable explanation) or outright dishonesty (makes more sense) that Pentagon experts already said the trailers were harmless while Bush continued to cite them as WMD "evidence".

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
Why do you get so mad at this?

Because anything anti-military, anti-Bush, anti-US should be discussed quietly, and once only, if at all. You are bad for even bringing it up, you're a bad American and please get back to supporting new military action elsewhere - like Iran.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 2):
I will NOT remain silent on issues like this.

And the White House should be made to answer for this war everyday it goes on, not listen to those who say the war itself is old news and we should move on to asking about American Idol or the Bush library.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
just hate reading old news.

Then don't. There is plenty of bandwidth here to disucss a news story presented in one of the nation's leading newspapers, if you consider it old, then stick to discussing news that is new enough for you. I hear the government is planning a whole new war for you to get excited about, and to take your mind off the unpleasant Iraqi one.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 5):
The fact that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq isn't exactly an earth-shattering revelation

Your reading skills are interesting.

The absence of WMD is, in fact, old news. The cover-up and obvious plan of deception aimed foremost at the American people to disguise the known absence of WMD at an early (pre war) date is just now coming up. This is of the same importance as the revelation that Bush cherry picked and declassified information solely to discredit critics of the war.

If Bush is as honest as he says, then all this will blow over. If all sorts of false or misleading information was used to justify the Iraq war, then the avalance is just beginning.

Cairo

*http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14325691.htm


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 12):
That's probably not sufficient grounds for impeachment. It's not illegal. It's dishonest, manipulative, and grossly negligent, but it's not illegal.

That has to be the real tragedy in all this -- that nothing he has done so far is in any way illegal. Thousands are dead in a war based on a lie, but that's not illegal. One of the advantages of a parliamentary democracy is that the leader can be ditched (or handed a loaded gun) without the party surrendering its control of the government. I don't know how Tony Blair has avoided this. How many Republicans would it take to convince Bush he had to resign?



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6568 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is old "shit":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060412/ap_on_sc/sweden_ancient_dung

"STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Swedish geologists have found fossilized feces from a worm that lived some 500 million years ago, media reports said Wednesday. "

It wasnt news when the worm defecated 500million years ago. Its news today.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 9):
Are you saying the article that I posted is just speculation and conjecture?

Nope, there were no WMD in those trailers and they weren't capable, apparently, of producing WMD.

probably because they'd been stripped bare and cleaned with industrial solvents prior to their inspections....that's not conducive to the story so don't expect to see it from people looking to make points....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMaury From United States of America, joined May 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1700 times:

Sometimes it takes a long time for news to work itself out, for stories to develop. Remember how long that nice Ken Starr had to work, and how much money he had to spend, to get the first-class results he eventually came through with? I bet y'all do!

I understand McClellan had yet another difficult day trying to spin this one. The poor man is just not good at thinking on his feet...and he certainly can't be expected to directly answer...

Quoting Cairo (Reply 13):
questions about whether Bush, when he made his statement [that the trailers were mobile WMD labs], was aware that a team of experts had already concluded the trailers were not involved with WMD manufacturing



It does seem that there are more and more incidents involving this President that end up being of the "what did he know, and when did he know it?" ilk...and where the initial premise seems to always be "the original information/story/explanation was later determined to be false."


User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

Bush is a pile of s**t. We all know it. He lies every fricken day about Iraq. We all know that, too.

Bush backers won't admit it, because it would mean admitting he's a liar, and not the good Christian he claims to be, and you all make him out to be. Lying is a sin, though. And since lying is a sin, this guy is gonna have to spend one hell of a lot of time in with a priest to get that off his shoulders.


When the Bush backers can come up with one SHRED of evidence that Bush has been truthful about the campaign in Iraq, and WMD's, etc. etc. etc., I'll change my view. Until then.....Good luck proving he is an honorable man, and a good President.


Meanwhile, I'm gonna go figure out how I'm gonna survive the rest of my life, since this country is totally f**ked.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 13):
Because anything anti-military, anti-Bush, anti-US should be discussed quietly, and once only, if at all.

The ironic thing is, nothing I said was anti-military or anti-U.S. Now if equating criticism of the president with being Anti-U.S. and anti-military, then God help us.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 16):
probably because they'd been stripped bare and cleaned with industrial solvents prior to their inspections....that's not conducive to the story so don't expect to see it from people looking to make points....

Really? Hey ANC, where's your shouts of "speculation and conjecture"? DL, you have a source?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter):
How does one defend the president on this?

It's easy for some, on a lot of different levels:

-Some just don't have the balls to critisize this preisdent.

-Some support it because of their own post-9/11 fear and paranoia.

-Some support it, because in the post-9/11 era, they wanted someone's ass to kick, and Iraq was an easy target.

Those are the main 3 reasons, in my mind. None, of course, justify this war in any way. The only reason given before the war was WMD. Some on here shrug that off, or argue to the contrary, but it was the truth. And it's becoming more and more apparent that this preisdent and this administration used this fear, and this now-discredited intel, to get a war it wanted.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
This shit happened nearly three years ago . . . any reason you can't post something more recent to bash PotUS with???

And it's coming to light-now, 3 years later-doesn't bother you, my friend? This guy has lied so many times to the American people he should be renamed Pinocchio. It is important, because, to many of us, it shows once again, that this president isn't who he says he is.

This story isn't about WMD; it's about the lies and falsehoods that this adminsitration has fobbed off since before the war in Iraq, and how they speak with complete dishonor about the character and honesty of the men and women who have helped to push this lie on the American people.

That, to me, is why it's relevant.


User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
This shit happened nearly three years ago . . . any reason you can't post something more recent to bash PotUS with??? Between your dated material and ClipperHawaii's you two could conduct a History Course right here on A-Net.

LMAO! That made my day ANCFlyer! Big grin



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineHKA From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 148 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

people are pissed off at the 2300 US soldiers killed in the war.

What about the 25,000 civilians killed by the forces ??

Bush is being used as a scape goat. There is whole group of agencies, people that pushed him into going to the war.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

Bush's statement on the 29th was based on a report from the 28th, which was likely written long before the 27th.

I notice that the Post fails to say who in washington the report was sent to... could that be that they very reasonably believe the president wasn't the one it was sent to and likely didn't see it before the 29th?

Someone please make a positive connection between the president and the report on the 27th.


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 11):
I can't see this guy serving until the end of his term; the evidence that he cooked up the rationale for Iraq is almost overwhelming. This report adds to it.

As much as Id love to see him go, I dont want that crackpot Cheney running the show(he pretty much already is). I am tired of the lies, and its not even just this, this administration has at every given opportunity lied to the American people. The guys running this country are as shady as any street criminal, when asked a tough question, simple answer, anything but the truth.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 12):
That's probably not sufficient grounds for impeachment. It's not illegal. It's dishonest, manipulative, and grossly negligent, but it's not illegal.

Funny thing about this is that Bush somehow found a loophole for him not to testify under oath to the 9-11 commission. The lies are getting out of hand, when will there be an investigation done ala Lewinsky gate for Bush and Iraq.
I want a goddamn truth session with Bush...under oath, about the pre-war intelligence.
I want to see a bill introduced probably through the ethics committee that will punish any federal elected official or thier staffs for knowingly lying to people about US government business.


25 Falcon84 : He sent them there, didn't he? Those troops didn't go on their own, did they? So, if this is true, why is Bush a "scapegoat"? It's his war; his dream
26 AirCop : What really troubles me is that we have nearly 2 1/2 years left with him as president, and according to numerous polls Americans feel that he is untru
27 L-188 : Tbar...this story is soooo 2003. Why don't you find some new muck to rack up? It is breakup season after all!.
28 Cairo : Scape goat is the wrong term - Bush alone is the C-I-C of the military and he alone ordered the Iraq war. BUT, I somewhat agree with you in one regar
29 Post contains images MDorBust : And the next two paragraphs...
30 Falcon84 : It is not "soooo 2003", L-188. The thrust of this story is not WMD. It's a RECENT revalation of how, again, this president you don't have the guts to
31 L-188 : Pretty much sums up Islam, Whabbisim and Shira law doesn't it?
32 YOWza : If the best you can do to defend your precious president is say "this is old news" or "this is so 2003" well that's pretty weak. WWII ended about 60 y
33 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Wrong, the info was "sent to Washington" two days before . . . I can also argue - if I felt like it - that it could be months before anyone in West W
34 Post contains links Cairo : I couldn't agree more and have to say I am surprised you'd draw the comparison. Those that continue to support their leader despite wars of agression
35 Itsjustme : Speaking of "dated material", wasn't PotUS recently bragging about a terror plot being thwarted back in 2002? That was over 4 years ago.
36 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Yes . . . and? The whole thing died pretty quickly as I recall . . . not sure if I believe all that either. But, since you're an LEO, you get the sam
37 S12PPL : I wouldn't expect you to say anything less than that, ANC...Not just you, but ANY right wing republican.
38 Itsjustme : Scapegoat or not, it was Bush's decision to go to war. Unfortunately for President Bush, "Commander In Chief" is more than just a cool title. It carr
39 Itsjustme : Careful with the generalizations. I haven't said anything about Tbar's need to shut up. Yep, we see the same daily "updates" which are, at times, com
40 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Agreed, whether it be his fault or the fault of our supremely slooooow and archiac intelligence community . . . . You sometimes wonder . . . WTF? Sha
41 S12PPL : What I love is how all the die hard republican Bush backers on this forum get all quiet when lie after lie from Bush is exposed. That is just so damn
42 Maury : As a friend of mine points out: if this were a Democratic president, Fox "News" would be running a little box in the corner of the screen, 24/7: "BIN-
43 Post contains links and images JakeOrion : If your saying Saddam never EVER had WMDs, then obviously you need a history check: http://www.culturalorientation.net/kurds/khist.html My question is
44 Post contains images Dvk : And of course, it's Nancy Pelosi's fault, too!
45 Post contains images SATX : This thread is yet another example of how some of the most prolific right-wing American posters refuse to hold Bush accountable for anything. They'll
46 HKA : Maybe, when I call Bush as the "scape goat", I mean thier are other people that are equally responsible. Bush can't have won the election without thie
47 MDorBust : Hmmm... let's see, I meet the cop and military qualification but I never even implied that Tbar should shut up. I asked for a positive connection bet
48 Itsjustme : Yes the official position of the Bush Administration has changed....again (and again and again and again and...). Just a suggestion...either take the
49 MDorBust : Would you rather he stuck by his old, invalidated, position instead? Actually this time it's worse then that. "Jump" doesn't have and "e" in it, so c
50 Bushpilot : I dont buy the argument that he smuggled them out, because if he did, after all that has been done in Iraq, they would have surfaced by now, but not
51 Maury : It's great when Bush and the GOP pull a 180. I mean really... The Reeps' mantra is to slam the Democrats for "not having a plan," then to wail "la la
52 Post contains links Cairo : You are of course free to think a past choice of this president to go to war is irrelevant. The war is still going on today and both the original dec
53 Post contains images Bushpilot : No it was Clintons fault...didnt you know. He cut and run from Somalia, downsized the military in the face of balancing the budget and a much reduced
54 MDorBust : That's a really good tirade there. I'm proud of you on many levels. You'll make a good campaign advisor someday. Please do two things for me: 1. Show
55 Maury : Boy, that's a tough one! Considering the alternative is to have him wander off towards a new, invalid position...it's Hobson's choice. (Don't go chec
56 Post contains images MDorBust : So the answer is no, no one can in fact tell us when the president was made aware of the report, so any charges that he knew the information in the s
57 Cairo : Only in your Bushcentric dreams is this statement true. Just becuase no one has yet revealed when the White House knew of this report does not make c
58 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Show me. Rarely, very damned rarely, do I ever discuss Pres Clinton or Sen. Kerry- unless it's absolutely relevent. Not like a hell of a lot of other
59 MDorBust : I said it makes the charges without merit. If a charge can not be substantiated it is by definition without merit. No one, even by your admission, ca
60 Itsjustme : Here's a thought...how about if he gets it right the first time? Or at least the second or third? His mistakes are deadly.....literally. I see. So no
61 Cairo : Well, I agree that Rumsfeld is their main target of anger, however, I disagree with your imiplication that opposing Rumsfeld does not stand for oppos
62 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Then we both disagree with each other - since your implication (and that of the LA Times) is that it is in opposition to the administration. Regardle
63 Cairo : I think what we disagree with each other about is the definition of 'administration.' I see the Iraq war as the defining feature and policy of the Bu
64 ANCFlyer : I don't disagree, but I must tell you - that is much easier said than done . . . it is a prosecutable offense under the UCMJ. Unless the cards are pl
65 11Bravo : So the nefarious "Media", many thousands of them from all over the world mind you, are engaged in a unified conspiracy to misrepresent the situation
66 Post contains images ANCFlyer : C'Mon Grunt - you know better and you know you took the entire statement of mine completely out of context . . . The media reports what makes news -
67 Post contains images 11Bravo : LOL. I would too if that were the choice. There are problems with that however. First, the view from the field has a long history of being myopic. Th
68 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Problem is, how to solve that. Example: BG Dave Grange. You know his hostory- if not, ask . . . he's the ideal commander to have in the field. He's b
69 MDorBust : Not going to dispute that. Just looking for substantiation to a charge. Something I hope you can understand. But then again.. you neve did answer the
70 Post contains images Texan : As much as I would like to completely roast the PotUS, whom I have actively opposed since he first ran for governor here in 1994, ANCFlyer has a very
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Bush Lie: NSA Monitoring Many Americans. posted Thu May 11 2006 17:01:35 by Falcon84
Yet Another Bush Criticism Thread posted Fri Sep 9 2005 06:03:18 by DLKAPA
It's Beginning To Look Like Bush Lied On WMD's posted Sat May 31 2003 02:59:51 by Alpha 1
Yet Another Attack On A US Consulate posted Mon Dec 6 2004 12:16:23 by DIJKKIJK
Yet Another Beating By LA Police posted Fri Nov 10 2006 22:44:36 by BristolFlyer
President Bush's Speech On Saddam And Iraq posted Sun Nov 5 2006 17:12:01 by AerospaceFan
Yet Another Midnight Snack Thread... posted Thu Oct 19 2006 09:41:18 by Carmenlu15
Caption Yet Another Football Pic. posted Fri Oct 6 2006 22:23:18 by Thom@s
Olberman On Bush / Olberman On Clinton posted Wed Sep 27 2006 01:08:18 by Diamond
Yet Another Person Forced Off An A/c posted Mon Sep 11 2006 00:30:17 by Bravo45