Bush is a liar and Americans that support him are fascists

[El Gorgonzola]

Not wasting time here.



The Iraq-Niger uraniam claim is false. Though the CIA warned Bush and Blair in 2002 that it was false, Bush used it in the State of the Union in 2003...... supposedly not knowing it was untrue.



Now CIA director Tenet is taking the blame and says it's all a mistake. People who read the news know that the CIA has been trying to rationalize Bush's and Blair's claims on the evilness of the Iraqi regime.



Bush and Blair are both liars and Tenet should watch out because he might not live very long.



Bush and Blair, selling this war, are evil liars. Everybody on the internet knows that. For the people who doubt I will post just 1 link. The link that shows that the war on terrorism is very profitable to the Bush family, the same link that shows that the Bush family is very much connected to the Bin Laden family.



Saddam Hoessein however is not at all connected to Bin Laden. To date there has been no evidence whatsoever to connect him to Bin Laden.



However there is evidence that senior Bush has been watching the 9/11 disaster together with the Bin Laden family in the morning of 9/11.



It's all in that same link I promised, here:



www.informationclearingho...le3995.htm



48 minutes full of sickening @#%$.

---

[Rev9Volts]

first i suggest you get a dictionary and learn exactly what a facist is. and on the short order a facist is not a nazi or a republican. here is an article i also posted else where. i would just hate for you to miss it.



A 'Miranda' Warning for Saddam?

Democrats try to discredit America's victory.



BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY

Monday, July 14, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT



"It's time to tell the truth," the Democratic National Committee urges in an Internet ad, complaining about something President Bush said about uranium. Yes, this is the same DNC headed by Clinton apologist Terry McAuliffe; you'd think the president proclaimed, "I did not have sex with that yellowcake."



But nothing so exciting; the ad is merely carping about the now-famous 16 words in the president's State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The White House now says this statement should not have been included; CIA Director George Tenet has said his agency erred in vetting the speech, and Democrats and other malcontents are in full cry about the president lying to build his case for war.



Now, those 16 words were entirely accurate in the sense that the British government had reached and publicized that conclusion. The media flogging the story might be more careful to tell us, too, that the British government maintains the same position today. The prime minister's official spokesman stood by the original report as recently as Friday, after remarking earlier in the week that he was "surprised that journalists had not yet picked up on what we had been saying consistently about this matter."



In testimony to a parliamentary committee on June 27 and consistently since, the British government has maintained that it reached this conclusion from "intelligence reporting from more than one source" and independent of documents that proved to be forged. It also believes it knows more than Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who debunked the allegations after the CIA sent him to Niger to investigate back in February 2002.



British intelligence has not revealed its sources, so unease naturally remains. Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee proclaimed the uranium report "very odd indeed," even while rejecting accusations of political interference and generally concluding that "Ministers did not mislead Parliament." In the end, the uranium issue seems to concern disagreement among intelligence analysts, in this case British ones and CIA ones.











Such controversies are pretty much routine after any war. The congressional hearings over the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack ran 39 volumes, for example, and the Ford administration formally chartered a "Team B" to second-guess estimates of the Soviet military build-up. Generally the losing side within the intelligence community will wrap itself in "professionalism" and charge "political interference." This is under way both in the U.S. and in the U.K., with Greg Thielmann, a retired State Department intelligence officer, joining Mr. Wilson on this side of the Atlantic.

The invocation of "professionalism," though, raises the issue of when was the last time the intelligence professionals got anything right. The professionals failed to foresee September 11, though terrorists had already attacked the same building once. They failed to warn in a persuasive way about Muslim terrorism, though I suspect that here the Clinton administration will have much to answer for. They failed to foresee the collapse of the Communist empire, though Ronald Reagan predicted it at least four times.



Intelligence professionals are entitled to our sympathy, I hasten to add, since their job is to sift for clues in inherently ambiguous signals. We shouldn't expect too much of them, and they shouldn't be surprised if policy makers decide for themselves what the signals mean.



Especially so since it frequently turns out that disagreements are above the professionals' pay grade. Mr. Thielmann, for example, concludes that "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States." Interesting word, "imminent." It also appears in the DNC ad and increasingly in press commentary.



The word does appear once in the president's State of the Union. To wit, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." He rejected this: "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." The whole thrust of the policy of pre-emption, after all, is that in a world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer wait until a threat is imminent. A madman like Saddam heading a nation-state is itself an intolerable threat.



This conclusion is of course subject to debate, but it is a matter for presidents, not intelligence "professionals." As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has tried to point out above the din, September 11 changed the American view of what threat is tolerable; hence decisions to call Saddam to account at the U.N. and to go to war if necessary. The war resolution passed the Senate by 77-23 and 29-21 among Democrats. The ayes included Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Daschle, Dodd and Clinton. For that matter, the policy of regime change was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton with the Iraqi Liberation Act back in 1998.











It's a mystery, too, what policy the malcontents would urge instead. The complaint seems to be that President Bush didn't read Saddam his Miranda rights. Does Howard Dean want to apply to international affairs Justice Cardozo's famous observation that since the constable has blundered the criminal should go free? If the president got the uranium report wrong, should we invite Saddam Hussein to come out of hiding and resume his murderous rule? And if not, what's all the fuss about anyway?

Yes, there is some thread of an issue, since by its nature intelligence is never perfect. But more fundamentally, the uranium issue is the latest in a series of desperate efforts by critics to impugn the president's success in Iraq. As the British might say, this is very odd indeed. Usually, intelligence controversies are over who is to blame for failure; this time it seems to be about discrediting victory.



Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

[debbie mannas]

but Saddam never WAS an imminent threat. NO intelligence was ever able to substantiate it, except forgeries and plagiarised documents using 10 year old intelligence and a wild imagination.

[debbie mannas]

because bush used the niger documents. without those forgeries it would not have passed.



www.boston.com/dailyglobe...ble+.shtml



and lets not forget that the war was NOT about saddam being a murderous thug of his own people. It was about his ability to launch his WMDs in 45 minutes. Backed up with a bunch of BS from bush and blair.

[debbie mannas]

www.larouchepub.com/other...fraud.html



"U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to President George W. Bush, demanding a full explanation from the Administration, as to why senior officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the President himself "cited forged evidence about Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear materials.".... "



Here is an exerpt from the letter to bush:



"On March 17, just days before the war began, Vice President Cheney said: "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.[17]



These statements played a pivotal role in shaping congressional and public opinion about the need for military intervention in Iraq. I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Like other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no threat is greater than the threat of nuclear weapons and no subject requires greater candor."



www.larouchepub.com/other...n_ltr.html

[Rev9Volts]

i will not answer anything by larouche. he is for a lack of better description a "nut of the fringe". he had been iin prison for income tax evasion. he is against every one- both democrats and republicans. he is mearly man who makes a living being an agitator.



henry waxman is one of the most liberal congressmen we have. do a search on some of the legislation he proposed/supported. he is mearly following democratic party lines.



nationally as well as globally the wall street journal is more respected than henry waxman.



still go back to the questions such as after saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people including gassing over 5000 kurds with slow aganizing deaths and many more still sick and being born with deformities. public executions for minor offenses i do not understand why anyone in the world would be against removing him?

[debbie mannas]

these people are, the issues are the same.



Bush lied, congress voted based on that lie.



that is the truth, whoever reports it. The words came out of bushes mouth.



and bush and gang should be in prison for a lot more than tax evasion. How about murder?

[Rev9Volts]

tax evasion? that is a new one.

[debbie mannas]

you're the one who dissed someone cause he was in prison for tax evasion.



Read my post. I said that bush and gang of thugs should be in prison for a LOT more than that. They are guilty of MURDER of thousands. They are war criminals, far worse than a tax evader, wouldnt you say??



anyway, pointless having these discussions with you.



ta-ta

[Rev9Volts]

suit yourself...

[NRKofOver]

I don't think that having Saddam gone is a bad thing. The only problem is whether or not Bush and Co. deliberately lied to the American people to meet that end. If Bush would've said taking out Saddam is the right thing to do because he annihilates his own people and then let the people decide, that is quite different than intentionally misleading the American public because he believed that was necessary for support. I don't know how much Bush did or didn't know. I really don't trust the guy but that's because I assume he's learned a lot from his covert operations CIA head, ex-president daddy.



But if there is evidence that Bush or someone in his administrations deliberately and intentionally misled the American public, then all Americans should be fuming mad.

Read all about ME!

[memphis mike]

Debbie, it is impossible to take anything you say seriously.....

over and over and over and over you say the same thing, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a murderer....

The majority of Americans feel that regardless of whether there were WMD, the war was justified just to rid the world and the Iraqi people frm the Butcher of Baghdad.....so, we the American people are all murderers in your eyes.....but, you know what? We don't care what you think....You're thinking all out of your head.....you can never change anything, because of your style, no one will ever listen to you.......

[Rev9Volts]

mega dittos memphis mike

[RonOnGuitar]

<<it is impossible to take anything you say seriously.....

over and over and over and over you say the same thing, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a murderer, Bush is a murderer....>>



Well, y'know, MMike, Debbie is a good person and - I'd venture to say - a fine human being. The problem is that, like many people, her starting points are ones of prejudice and bigotry. Again, that's not because Debbie's a bad lass at all.



It's common for people to not see their own prejudices. e.g. it's not too often that you'll hear a racist admit to his/her prejudice, but it would obviously colour his/hers views on something like inter-racial dating and other items. (err...no pun intended re:"colour"!)



Also, I think if you keep in mind that it is trendy - to the point of being expected - in some quarters to focus, think and rant soley about President Bush/Americans to the exclusion of all else, it helps to understand the situation. On a related note, I think someone else is addressing PC (political correctness) somewhere hereabouts.



Americans are of course wired differently (speaking in general) - there is obviously a wide variance of opinions among us, which makes things pretty interesting. Americans have great good fun having at it among ourselves on just about everything. Our realistic "warts and all" view of our nation and ourselves is probably one of the reasons America remains the greatest nation on the face of the earth. That is, you'll never hear Europeans (for example) denounce their own leaders/criticize themselves and very typically instead portray whatever their home country as a Utopian garden-of-eden.



Of course, it may not be too wise to do be speak out in that part of the world; in France, for example, it's a crime to criticize Chirac - punishable by a massive fine if not imprisonment. What we take for granted and our late-night hosts Leno, Letterman, etc, do on a regular basis - jabs at our leaders - is *verbotten* in much of the world.



At any rate, when people operate from a prejudice, it is very hard to get them to consider that they might not have things as correctly as they assume. That's due the circular nature of prejudice itself, it's a catch-22. We humans often tend to confuse our anger and emotional reactionswith legitimate convictions. I daresay many folks convictions do not at all fare well when looked at in calm, clear logic sans the prejudice.



Ron

[NRKofOver]

Wow! Ron, that's great stuff.



One of the reasons I like forums like this is because of oppositional discourse. It's too easy in an isolated situation to believe that your convictions are 'right'. When an alternative viewpoint is raised it forces me to think, yay! Sometimes I still disagree, sometimes I read more, sometimes I actually change my position (although that's rare because as much as the US is the greatest country in the world, I truly am the greatest person in the world, ).



But convictions are often tied to mantric responses rather than thought out discourse (I'm guilty of it too).



It's nice to see you reiterate the obvious, all of us often have to stop and really look at ourselves and others to hopefully work towards something externally positive and internally cohesive.



Again, great post!

Read all about ME!