Bush Comes Out Swinging!

Don't let on the Saddam was our creation in the first place George.

 

Yes, Saddam was actually the first test tube baby in the Middle east created by nefarious secret service agent fertility doctors and the CIA.

It was actually the UN who had a pretty big role in creating the current situation. All threat and no follow up.

 

It must be heart warming for George toknow he has still a few followers that do not believe that he is a liar.

 

It must be really hard to believe that we dont actually 'follow' the President, but Jesus Christ.

Guess you forgot where you came from and where you are now. Typical. I will pray for you.

 

I must be dreaming and my memory is not what it was, but I seem to remember Iraq was a client state of the former Soviet Union in the 70's and 80"s. </font>[/QUOTE]Russia’s patronage of Saddam’s CBW program began during the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam was casting about for a means of countering Iran’s human wave attacks. "Iraq asked specifically for a CBW system during the November 14, 1983 visit to Baghdad of Vladimir Mordvinov, deputy chairman of the USSR Committee for Foreign Economic Relations," reports James Ring Adams in the March issue of The American Spectator. "Mordvinov kicked the request back to Moscow, and two weeks later his boss Yakov Ryabov flew to Baghdad to make arrangements."

Soviet CBW support became evident during a 1983-84 engagement between Iraq and Iran in the marshes around Majnoon Island. "In the autumn of 1983, Saddam warned Iran that Iraq had a secret modern weapon," report Middle East analysts Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie in their book Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf. "The meaning of this warning became clear … when Iran, using human wave attacks, launched a massive offensive in the marshes of southern Iraq." As the Iranian tide overwhelmed Iraqi forces, "Saddam ordered the use of chemical weapons."

According to James Ring Adams, European doctors who treated victims of the battle of Majnoon reported that both mustard gas and a mycotoxin known as T-2 — more commonly known as "Yellow Rain" — had been employed by the Iraqis against the Iranians. The T-2 traces were clearly a Soviet footprint, and when confronted with this evidence the U.S. foreign policy establishment behaved in predictable fashion: It launched a cover-up. "Central Intelligence Agency sources warned reporters not to trust the findings of the Belgian specialist Aubin Heyndrickx, who was treating the Iranian victims of Majnoon," writes Adams. "The State Department fell silent about Yellow Rain. It was almost as if some secret deal had been struck to abandon the issue if the attacks ceased."

Source

Judith Miller where have I heard that name?

 

Only if you really mean it. Guess you forgot where you came from.

 

Those who call a man a liar when the evidence says otherwise might themselves be considered a liar by others. </font>[/QUOTE]And have I called him a liar?

 

Those who call a man a liar when the evidence says otherwise might themselves be considered a liar by others. </font>[/QUOTE]And have I called him a liar? </font>[/QUOTE]Not directly, to my knowledge, but all of these people have done so, either directly or indirectly. By doing so , they have branded themselves liars on the same issue of pre-war intelligence.

--President Bill Clinton


--Madeline Albright


-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL)


-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA)

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV)

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV)

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA)

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)

-John Edwards

-Dick Gephardt </font>[/QUOTE]-----------------------------------------------
But that is their job.
BTW it does go both ways, such is the nature of politics.

 

Those who call a man a liar when the evidence says otherwise might themselves be considered a liar by others. </font>[/QUOTE]And have I called him a liar? </font>[/QUOTE]Not directly, to my knowledge, but all of these people have done so, either directly or indirectly. By doing so , they have branded themselves liars on the same issue of pre-war intelligence.

--President Bill Clinton


--Madeline Albright


-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL)


-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA)

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV)

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV)

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA)

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY)

-John Edwards

-Dick Gephardt </font>[/QUOTE]-----------------------------------------------
But that is their job.
BTW it does go both ways, such is the nature of politics. </font>[/QUOTE]They have additionally branded themselves as hypocrites. </font>[/QUOTE]----------------------------------
Yep! Washington D.C. is full of em, somebody call Terminex.

 

I’m always skeptical of people who starting calling others liars. It reminds me of Jr. High. But we must keep in mind the kind of people we are dealing with and their maturity level.

President Bush is a man of integrity who truly cares about the American people. He is a remarkable President and those who oppose him could not walk a day in his shoes and come out looking half as good. I thank God George W. Bush is our President.

 

So Enoch what you are saying is that you are a follower of George Bush and that yu bel;iev that he is not a liar.
As I have stated previously that their would be a few who would believe that.

 

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Granted, he has done an ok job, and even that is pushing it a little. In my mind, for a man to have integrity, he has to be able to admit he is/was wrong when he is/was wrong, and if someone in his group does something wrong, he should fire them.

If the War was wrong, or not is debateble. It doesn't matter to me one way of the other. God wants me to live in peace, and be kind to my fellow man. But, even leaving the war out of the conversation, George's Group has done so much wrong, and they all seem to skate.. That to me isn't an honest man or a man of integrity.

I didn't like John Kerry either.. Sad thing is today it seems there is no one really honest in politics.

Jamie

 

Perception and reality are often world's apart.

Leftists politicians and media have hammered the "Bush lied" about WMD's theme now for months. Never mind the fact that Bush like virtually everyone else with the data presented to him believed what he said about Iraq.

Two thorough investigations have demonstrated that Bush believed what the intelligence services of the US, Britain, Russia, Germany, and even France said about Iraq. They have demonstrated that Bush did nothing to pressure for the answers he wanted.

The most reasonable conclusion is that Bush was mistaken like many others including the Clinton Administration that likewise thought Iraq was a serious WMD threat, not dishonest.

If you don't want to believe it because of the facts then just think in logical public relations. Do you really think that Bush and those surrounding him didn't think they would get caught if they lied or manipulated the evidence about WMD's? NO. They fully expected to not only find them but to have them used against our military.

Our military went in fully expecting to be hit with chemical weapons. Commanders don't risk heat stroke by putting their soldiers in MOPP gear if intelligence doesn't tell them there is a real threat.

Further, the gear only lasts for a matter of hours before needing to be exchanged. Several times I noticed that our guys had already donned the gear... meaning they were near a site that intelligence identified as an NBC threat.

People can be swayed by oft repeated false charges. Hitler convinced a whole nation that Jews were evil with only the accusation itself. Liberals have convinced many people that Bush is a liar with only an oft repeated but unfounded accusation.

 

It's about time. Obviously we now know that the intel during both the Clinton and Bush administrations was flawed. We now know that the information that the Democrats in Congress relied on to cast their votes and that the Bush administration relied on to set policy was badly flawed.

Do I think that the Democrats in Congress, such as Hillary Clinton, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, lied in their statements about Saddam Hussein in the fall of 2002? No, I do not.

Do I think that the Clinton administration lied in 1998 when it set U.S. policy to be regime change in Iraq? No, I do not.

Do I think that the Bush administration lied in their statements about Saddam Hussein? No, I do not.

 

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Granted, he has done an ok job, and even that is pushing it a little.</font>[/QUOTE] Really? He took over an economy going into decline and contributed to recovery through broad based tax cuts. He has named conservatives to the judiciary... driving Dems and liberals nuts.

Has he made mistakes? Yes. Am I disappointed in his failures concerning spending and rolling back the size and scope of government? Yes.

But is he dishonest? I don't think so.

Can you cite a specific instance? He was the first politician to acknowledge his responsibility concerning the Katrina response.

Is it now wrong or dishonest to have strong convictions and loyalties? I think his loyalty to those around him has been out of balance with his ultimate loyalty to the people but loyalty is not an indication of a lack of integrity but rather the abundance of it. I think that it is the epitome of integrity to stick by your convictions even as your detractors call you a liar, misrepresent you, and demonize you.

Want proof? Iraq is a tremendous success story. There have been less deaths in Iraq since the invasion started than there were on D-Day alone. An infrastructure has been built. A totalitarian state committed to terrorism has become an emerging democracy and thus the target of terrorists. The Iraqi people are better off than they ever were under Saddam... except for the fact that our enemies are afraid they will succeed. Where are the daily success stories in the media? Yeah, the report things like the disagreements over the constitution giving us a veiled impression of that success. But how about the successes that our soldiers report?

The liberal media refuses to report good news out of Iraq because they oppose Bush and the war... and perhaps even oppose the war because they oppose Bush since they didn't seem to have a problem with Clinton's use of force in the Balkans or even Iraq and Sudan.

As far as Iraq is concerned... Bush has no wrong to admit. He made the best, safest, most responsible choice in light of the information that was put in front of him.

Ask yourself this: since the intelligence agencies of the US and its allies uniformly agreed that Saddam was a real danger to security- if Bush had decided arbitrarily to do nothing thus leaving Saddam in power now and if the inspectors had now been gone for over three years leaving Saddam to reconstitute the nuke program that with the 500 tons of yellow cake we found, centrifuge designs that were buried in a scientist's garden, aluminum tubing that even the French admit was of suitable quality for a nuclear development, and materials gathered from nations like Niger... would that have been a responsible choice for a President?

Or, would it have been better to wait? Remember, the invasion had to begin in the spring. Saddam was kicking the UN inspectors out and restricting their access. Even those who ended up disagreeing with Bush's decision didn't disagree that Saddam was acting guilty. The military said that a summer invasion would create a situation where chemical protective gear would not be effective against the gas attacks everyone thought would come. The eariliest d-day would be 6 to 8 months later... Now even assuming that we knew that Saddam didn't actually have WMD's, is it not rational to assume he would have had them by the end of 6 months without inspectors? Many people thought he was only months away from an unsophisticated nuclear weapon. Do you really think that leaving Saddam in power until he had a full arsenal of WMD's to possibly include nukes purchased on the black market would have been a better, safer, more responsible call than acting on the intelligence presented to Bush?

It would be recklessly irresponsible and dangerous to ignore the unified voice of the intelligence community.

Only because liberals have effectively obscured the facts and history. It was not wrong. A man who had developed and used WMD's was kicking UN inspectors out of his country. He had made credible threats that he would attack the US and its allies and sponsor terrorism against us.

Since he had used WMD's against his own people, it would be a very, very foolish risk to assume that he wouldn't supply terrorists with those weapons to use against the US. Further, there could have been no invasion once he had developed and prepositioned WMD's. Imagine roadside bombs that released chemical weapons on our supply trains instead of explosives. Imagine even the threat of using nukes tactically to break up a US invasion. Imagine saboteurs who poisoned our water supplies behind the lines with biological agents.

Bush may be a sacrificial lamb for doing the right thing and happening to be a Republican at a time when liberals are out of power and angry. But he probably saved the world from a much darker history than the one we are experiencing without Saddam sponsored WMD terrorism.

Cite specifics of where credible evidence, not just accusations by the angry left, has been brought against Bush Admin officials and nothing happen.

The whole thing against Libby is contrived and that man is going to court. He is accused of lying about something that we know now wasn't a violation of the law in the first place... just like Clinton. The difference? Libby may very well go to jail when there is a chance that he simply forgot the details of two out of thousands of conversations while Clinton got away scot free after being undeniable guilty of perjury.

The whole Wilson-Plame thing stinks from the start... but that is another story.

Actually, I think the sad thing is that you think that without Bush actually lying... unless you call being mistaken a "lie".