Bush Lied

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
If you are serious with that comment, I will tell you this it was made dripping with sarcasm and I thought that was pretty obvious.

I won’t answer for Vroom, but you ask him why he would make that comment.

Well, why wouldn’t you question his sanity.

I have seen you many times tell people your famous “You come to the best muscle building website on the planet, and wast your such and such post with this” comment.

jerffy has never posted one substantial word much less sentence outside of a political forum and most of the time with the class of an ass clown and you don’t question his stability? He’s never offered a word of encouragement or help to another lifter. After all the common bond here is training right? Oh, that’s right he worships the war like you do, how could I forget![/quote]

Elk, you are getting worked up over nothing. I don’t “worship” the war. In fact, sometimes I even wonder why we are there.

However, I do think that there was a general consensus early on (both parties) that Saddam was a bad guy who had the potential to do many harm. In addition to this he was in violation of the UN charter and the UN was doing nothing about it. Now that we are deeply involved those who spoke out for the war and agasint Saddam are now back peddling for potential political capital. Jeff’s post points this out quite well.

Is the world better off right now because Saddam sits in a jail cell eating Doritos (to much salt and empty calories) instead of running torture camps and killing thousands of innocents?

Yea…I think it’s far better off…

As far as Jeff’s post, I think it made a great deal of sense, and he obviously did his homework. I even think when you are calm your posts make sense as well.

Try to understand that not everyone thinks that President Bush does everything wrong. He does plenty wrong (as I have stated in other posts) but not everything.

This is politics I suppose…I hate politics…I really do.

62

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
…
Whatever happened to the contract with america that Newt and Luntz wrote?

I have to admit I bought that hook, line and sinker.

What happened to Delay taking a stand against corruption in the house?

What a joke. He re-wrote the book on corruption.

…

The Republicans actually did achieve a significant number of goals they utlined in the Contract with America.

Now that they are in power the do not show a lot of interest in actually shrinking government intrusion in our lives. Gee I wonder why.
[/quote]

Because politicians first loyalty is to themselves, regardless of party! Did I ever mention that I hate politics?

63

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
JeffR, you might apologize…it appears you’ve drooled all over the political forums again.

Elk,

Perhaps ZEB is the father JeffR appeals to in your scenario…?

(ZEB, even I thought you were smarter than to stand along side JeffR!)[/quote]

Really? Somehow your comment does not surprise me, in fact it could be predicted!

Someone once said, “you can always tell the amount of (political) truth that is being told by the great opposition which rises against it.”

In Jeff’s case I would say he hit a home run relative to truth, with this thread because of all the liberals who showed up to oppose it.

I have read some very nasty personal attacks directed at Jeff, but not read one credible word disputing his facts!

64

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:
JeffR, you might apologize…it appears you’ve drooled all over the political forums again.

Elk,

Perhaps ZEB is the father JeffR appeals to in your scenario…?

(ZEB, even I thought you were smarter than to stand along side JeffR!)

Really? Somehow your comment does not surprise me, in fact it could be predicted!

Someone once said, “you can always tell the amount of (political) truth that is being told by the great opposition which rises against it.”

In Jeff’s case I would say he hit a home run relative to truth, with this thread because of all the liberals who showed up to oppose it.

I have read some very nasty personal attacks directed at Jeff, but not read one credible word disputing his facts!

[/quote]

The further south Iraq goes you guys on the right will soon be saying “Bill Clinton actually started the Iraq invasion and poor dubya inherited it”.

65

Zeb wrote:

"Someone once said, “you can always tell the amount of (political) truth that is being told by the great opposition which rises against it.”

In Jeff’s case I would say he hit a home run relative to truth, with this thread because of all the liberals who showed up to oppose it.

I have read some very nasty personal attacks directed at Jeff, but not read one credible word disputing his facts!"

Exactly.

My friend, I’ve learned what counts as a win. If my liberal pals: e-hater, ILOVEGEORGWBUSH1 (rsu), marma-touchme, and lumpy cannot refute the argument, they resort to personal attacks.

I live for personal attacks!!!

I do feel sorry for them. Can you imagine reading these quotes if you were a democrat?

Ouch!!!

JeffR

66

Yeah, jerkky, go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better. It does some like your whole existance hinges on it.

67

[quote]ConorM wrote:
Well due to the one party system over there this sort of thing is inevitable.[/quote]

How true. When I went through some of the quotes on the original post I kept thinking, WHO CARES they’re all on the same team.

68

Jeffy, your original post was ouchtastic. As I was reading all those comments by Clinton and gang, I was just shaking my head. I better never hear another democrat say “Bush lied, people died”. That is the height of hypocrisy, and that is why none of the dems on the forum are able to say shit to you about it. This is the truth, and the truth hurts like a motherfucker. Bush did not lie.

And as for 100’s fixation (hehe) on the word “fixed” in the Downing street memo:
Dude, the word “fixed” in Limey-speak (english english, I mean) doesn’t mean what you think it does. Help me out here T-Brits?

69

JeffR, I don’t think anyone thought Saddam was a good guy – no one, right or left…

But, I know at least my own problem with the war was how it was wrapped up in a bundle of fear to appear as though it was part of the War on Terror – a reaction to 9/11. This has been shown false, and considered false since day one by many of the war’s opponents.

It has been demonstrated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

It has been admitted by the President et al. that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

These were the two primary reasons for invading Iraq. We did so without an adequate plan, without adequate worldly support, and without an accurate picture of the capabilities of the opponent. Thus, we’re still there some 3 years later and we’ll be there well into the next president’s term…

Bush declared the “Mission Accomplished” long, long ago (part of the overwhelming marketing campaign that painted every action taken and decision made under Bush as a success and without a trace of fault or error.)

Do you agree with this? Was the mission in fact accomplished that glorious day on the carrier? Or was that a distasteful, misleading photo opportunity?

70

ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1 (rsu) wrote:

“JeffR, I don’t think anyone thought Saddam was a good guy – no one, right or left…”

Absolutely. Further, right and left were in near total agreement about the danger he posed going forward. The difference, of course, is the response to said threat: talk versus action.

“But, I know at least my own problem with the war was how it was wrapped up in a bundle of fear to appear as though it was part of the War on Terror – a reaction to 9/11. This has been shown false, and considered false since day one by many of the war’s opponents.”

Wrong. Plenty of terrorist cells/members being supported by saddam before the war. Plenty of direct, undeniable evidence uncovered of said connections.

“It has been demonstrated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.”

I agree that he wasn’t behind the attacks.

But, and I want you to think about this, he was a regime that supported and supplied terrorists.

“It has been admitted by the President et al. that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.”

Yes, he said that. What he didn’t say was that there weren’t any undeclared WMD in Iraq. Nor did he say that Hussein wasn’t pouring money into reconstituting the weapons. Nor did he say that there weren’t plenty of undeclared convential weapons. On and on and on.

You may have been cozy with waiting around for the inevitable. The rest of us (including your leadership) was not.

“These were the two primary reasons for invading Iraq. We did so without an adequate plan,”

Wrong. Hussein’s army destroyed in how many days?

After major combat operations over, it’s always easy to second guess. I want you to think over the implications: More troops equals more casualties. It also equals more money being spent. It also equals a much heightened sense of the Americans as “occupiers.”

The supporters of this war are very suspicious that you and your pals would not have the nerve to accept or support any of these outcomes. Frankly, we don’t think you have the will to support a total war.

We are suspicious that you will grasp at ANY ploy or scheme that gets you headlines. Saying that “we should have had more troops on the ground” and consequently this war is an abject failure, is a colossal waste of time. What if the Administration agrees with you? What then? Would kerry win the election? Does it help the War in any way? Do you gain seats. No, no, and no.

“without adequate worldly support”

We didn’t have france/germany. I ask you directly: How big a deal is this really? Especially after the information that has come to light since.

We had:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Do not insult them as inadequate again.

“and without an accurate picture of the capabilities of the opponent.”

Do you live your life this way? If you do, it must be a sad chronicle of “I should have done this or that.”

There probably is some valid concerns about pre-war planning. However, the wild haymakers you clowns are throwing around is completely out of bounds.

“Thus, we’re still there some 3 years later and we’ll be there well into the next president’s term…”

Please indicate where W. ever stated this was going to be a “one year and done” scenario.

“Bush declared the “Mission Accomplished” long, long ago (part of the overwhelming marketing campaign that painted every action taken and decision made under Bush as a success and without a trace of fault or error.)”

Major combat operations against hussein’s army was over long, long ago. Are you saying that W. hasn’t admitted errors in planning for post major combat operations? Please say this directly. Better yet, run a google search on your own.

“Do you agree with this? Was the mission in fact accomplished that glorious day on the carrier? Or was that a distasteful, misleading photo opportunity?”

Major combat operations against hussein’s army were over. I fully supported and support that speech. Why don’t you ask members of the Abraham Lincoln how much it meant to them to have him on that carrier?

The carrier’s captain had to give a direct order to his crew to stop painting signs of welcome for W. There were too many on the carrier!!!

You guys hate the support given to W. by the military. It is genuine and it is widespread. Care to look back at the percentages of the military that voted for W?

Thanks, ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1, it’s been fun!!!

JeffR

71

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Jeffy, your original post was ouchtastic. As I was reading all those comments by Clinton and gang, I was just shaking my head. I better never hear another democrat say “Bush lied, people died”. That is the height of hypocrisy, and that is why none of the dems on the forum are able to say shit to you about it. This is the truth, and the truth hurts like a motherfucker. Bush did not lie.

And as for 100’s fixation (hehe) on the word “fixed” in the Downing street memo:
Dude, the word “fixed” in Limey-speak (english english, I mean) doesn’t mean what you think it does. Help me out here T-Brits?[/quote]

This has been debunked. Fixed means Fixed as recently confirmed by countless Brit reporters. Also clueless Jeff thinks minutes from meetings in 2002 are horseshit. Loth and Jeff, please point to the quote that says “we know where the wmd are”, I’m still not seeing that one. Also Loth and Jeff are Clinton’s comments in the context of weapons inspectors and possible air strikes? Yep.

Are Bush and co.'s in the context of invading Iraq? yep. Was invading Iraq a Dem goal? Nope. A Bush and Co. goal? Yep. For the love of God, just stop shilling. Oh and Jeff why does Rummy hate our troops—surely you saw his comments this weekend—weird how negative it was…it’s like you’re dead wrong or something- all the time.

72

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Absolutely. Further, right and left were in near total agreement about the danger he posed going forward. The difference, of course, is the response to said threat: talk versus action.
[/quote]
wrong, wrong, wrong. Why lie about this? Containment, no-fly zones, air strikes, weapons inspectors–all working like GANGBUSTERS! Benefits no WMD and no thousands of americans killed, and no terrorist hot bed, no new afghanistan, no insurgency lasting (what did rummy say) 15 YEARS!!!

Laughable. Not even the admin claims this anymore—why do you?

And now there are more terrorist there than we could have ever imagined getting incredible training against the best military force in the world. Wonderful.

There called weapon inspectors, they weren’t finding anything, he didn’t have anything, should have let them continue not finding anything and we wouldn’t have the current terrorist hotbed at a cost of 200 billion plus. Now explain N. Korea. Your leadership is doing…? Why do you make this stuff up?

overwhelming force is overwhelming force. More troops equals containment of secure areas, better troop security, etc.,etc. More money than what? The 1.5 billion it was supposed to cost? Are any of the troops thinking of these fake “implications”? Also the second guess was Bush and Co. second guessing accurate military planning (which requested double the troops) Bush and Co. were dead wrong at the cost of how many? Yet still you shill. Don’t you want anybody fired? Rummy?

Gee that’s putting it mildly. How about FIRE the people responsible for making bad decisions…and troop casualties are hardly out of bounds.

how’s about Bush Co:

Donald Rumsfeld, 3/7/03:

It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03:

I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months

Thank you for the beautiful dittohead setup!

And your guys of course hate to actually support the troops.

73

[quote]100meters wrote:
This has been debunked. Fixed means Fixed as recently confirmed by countless Brit reporters.[/quote]
Oh really, 100?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050608/pl_usatoday/downingstreetmemogetsfreshattention

“Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being “fixed around” Iraq policy. " ‘Fixed around’ in British English means ‘bolted on’ rather than altered to fit the policy,” he says."

Wake up and smell something besides dogshit, 100. If I say I’m pissed, you think it means “angry”, when a Brit would think I’m drunk. This is the same kind of thing. Nobody “cooked up” anything, which is what you want to hear. Sorry, it didn’t happen. Next!

[quote]Loth and Jeff, please point to the quote that says “we know where the wmd are”, I’m still not seeing that one. Also Loth and Jeff are Clinton’s comments in the context of weapons inspectors and possible air strikes? Yep.

Are Bush and co.'s in the context of invading Iraq? yep. Was invading Iraq a Dem goal? Nope. A Bush and Co. goal? Yep. For the love of God, just stop shilling. Oh and Jeff why does Rummy hate our troops—surely you saw his comments this weekend—weird how negative it was…it’s like you’re dead wrong or something- all the time.[/quote]

So it was okay to bomb them, but not invade them then? 100, you amaze me. Yeah, let’s just blast them to smithereens and don’t try to help the real victims (the citizens) afterwards… fucking dems. It’s like to be a democrat, you need your soul surgically removed to qualify. (Oooo! I meant soul as in a metaphorical sense… don’t get uppity on me, religious folks!! :))

74

lumpy,

Your last two posts border on total and complete lunacy.

Until now, you have amused me as a perfect partisan. Nothing the dems do is wrong. The Republicans are all bad. That sort of thing.

However, I am sincerly worried about your mental health. You quoted things out of context. You refused (or couldn’t) make simple connections.

I say this in friendship: Seek some help. Take deep breaths. Lift some weights. Do something to ease that pounding in your head.

Then come back on as the fun-loving lumpy that I love.

Good luck!!!

JeffR

75

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,

Your last two posts border on total and complete lunacy.

Until now, you have amused me as a perfect partisan. Nothing the dems do is wrong. The Republicans are all bad. That sort of thing.

However, I am sincerly worried about your mental health. You quoted things out of context. You refused (or couldn’t) make simple connections.

I say this in friendship: Seek some help. Take deep breaths. Lift some weights. Do something to ease that pounding in your head.

Then come back on as the fun-loving lumpy that I love.

Good luck!!!

JeffR[/quote]

It is not worth trying to have a rational discussion with 100meters about politics. He is truly on the fringe.

76

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
…
Whatever happened to the contract with america that Newt and Luntz wrote?

I have to admit I bought that hook, line and sinker.

What happened to Delay taking a stand against corruption in the house?

What a joke. He re-wrote the book on corruption.

…

The Republicans actually did achieve a significant number of goals they utlined in the Contract with America.

Now that they are in power the do not show a lot of interest in actually shrinking government intrusion in our lives. Gee I wonder why.

Because politicians first loyalty is to themselves, regardless of party! Did I ever mention that I hate politics?
[/quote]

Booyah!

ZEB hit the nail on the head.

Politicians are first loyal to themselves.

77

[quote]
“It has been demonstrated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.”

JeffR Wrote:
I agree that he wasn’t behind the attacks.[/quote]

?

78

[quote]
? [/quote]

Your best post yet.

79

marma-lovemetender wrote:

“It has been demonstrated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.”

JeffR Wrote:
I agree that he wasn’t behind the attacks.

?

That’s what I don’t get about you “Paleo-Conservatives/democrats.”

It’s like you have some sort of brain block.

So saddam wasn’t behind the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, we do nothing about him?

Bullshit, it’s like saying ok I fixed my ruptured gall bladder. Let’s not go ahead and do chemo on my brain cancer.

Excellent thinking!!!

JeffR

80

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
100meters wrote:
This has been debunked. Fixed means Fixed as recently confirmed by countless Brit reporters.
Oh really, 100?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050608/pl_usatoday/downingstreetmemogetsfreshattention

“Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being “fixed around” Iraq policy. " ‘Fixed around’ in British English means ‘bolted on’ rather than altered to fit the policy,” he says."

[/quote]
are you serious with this? Ok Micheal Smith from London times (not a washington think tank) who published the DSM says:

This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there.

well you were dead wrong, and you were had by gop propoganda. So yeah next.

Blasting them to smithereens? Uhmmm…Ok. I think the goal was contaiment and wmd prevention. It worked. Cheap. No loss of life. No huge increase in terrorists.Good solution in my book. The soul stuff of course is pure garbage.