[WOT/LIBERAL SHILLS] Time To Apologize To Bush

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040714-101159-2743r.htm

July 15, 2004

Time To Apologize To Bush

Earlier this week, Americans learned from the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) report that the Bush administration did not lie about or manipulate intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. To reiterate, the report found "no evidence that the [intelligence community's] mischaracterization or exaggeration of [Iraq's] weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure ... The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Yesterday, a British inquiry exonerated the Blair government of exactly the same charge. "We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence [on the part of the Blair administration]. We found no evidence of [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments and the judgments inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC," the report said.

The British report also agreed with the SIC about the nature of Iraq's weapons programs. In short, intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs on both sides of the Atlantic was flawed, but no one "lied" about it. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair acted in good faith given the intelligence provided by their respective agencies. This is the nature of leadership.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the 2004 elections. Soon after the fall of Baghdad, it started to become clear that Saddam Hussein did not have the weapons programs everyone believed he had. Urged along by one dissembling former ambassador, the Democrats soon lost control and began to accuse the president of the United States of lying to, or at least misleading, the American people.

To name only a few, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), in a television ad, mentioned the "yellowcake" reference in the president's 2003 State of the Union, adding "the administration knew it wasn't true ... It's time to tell the truth." (No, it was true, then as now.) The DNC Web site also informed readers about the administration's "year-long campaign of deception involving a bogus intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear program." DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe huffed, "This may be the first time in recent memory that a president knowingly misled the American people during the State of the Union address." According to John Kerry, Mr. Bush "misled every one of us." Sen. Joseph Biden believed the administration "hyped [the intelligence] ... to create a sense of urgency and a threat." Sen. Carl Levin said, "The statement that Iraq was attempting to acquire African uranium was not an inadvertent mistake. It was negotiated between CIA and National Security Council officials, and it was highly misleading."

We agree with the Wall Street Journal on this matter: Apologies are in order.
 
The British report also agreed with the SIC about the nature of Iraq's weapons programs. In short, intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs on both sides of the Atlantic was flawed, but no one "lied" about it. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair acted in good faith given the intelligence provided by their respective agencies. This is the nature of leadership.

First of all this should be on the Political sig and second of all why don't we have a b***s*** smiley icon so I can respond clearly to this post?
 

rescath

Membership Revoked
Moderator: Please move this post.

Oh, you mean the majority-Republican Senate Intelligence Committe, right? They're all complicit.

Bush owes an apology to the American people to whom he clearly lied, to the U.S. soldiers he sent to their deaths in Iraq, and to the 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians who died in this unjust war.

I still remember arguing against this war BEFORE we went in. Standard neocon response: "Oh, but our noble valiant president MUST know something that we don't, so we need to give him the benefit of the doubt on this." Evidently not.
 

'plain o joe'

Membership Revoked
here's one...
 

Attachments

  • bsmeter.gif
    bsmeter.gif
    2.9 KB · Views: 167

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
guess we can't possibly expect liberals and bush-haters to acknowledge the truth. it just isn't in them. must be that same disease that clinton had: they actually believe their own lies...
 

rescath

Membership Revoked
I'm against the war and I'm against Bush, so I'm always labeled a liberal. But I'm not. I'm strongly conservative.

I ask those who support Bush as a conservative, as I've asked on numerous occasions without a single response from a neocon Bush supporter --

Since WHEN have the following been conservative values --

1) open borders with Mexico
2) flushing the rule of law down the toilet by giving amnesty to those who broke our laws -- in essence giving them preferential treatment vs. those who tried to get in legally (if you really wanted to fill these jobs, you let in x number of people on the waiting list to get in and immediately deport all the illegals -- Bush is a globalist with globalist allegiances deliberately destroying the U.S. and undermining our national sovereignty)
3) selling the U.S. economy down the drain via NAFTA
4) refunding UNESCO
5) extending and expanding Clinton's anti-2nd amendment assault weapons ban
6) destroying civil liberties via the Patriot Act
7) launching pre-emptive wars
8) running up enormous budget deficits (more than any Democrat ever did)
9) enormously bloating the size of government via the creation of new agencies
10) swearing allegiance to a Satanic Illuminati organization
11) telling Taiwan they are part of China

Anyone? Anyone? I really want to see an answer.
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
Let's see; Wilson lied about Dubya's lying and that's BS?

Or?

If you figure Dubya lied, that makes him smarter than the entire intelligence community the world over who all thought SH had WMD's.

Yet I am sure all of you think Dubya is a Doofus.

So how come a Doofus is so smart?

Scientific mystery?
 

JUDGECAL

Deceased
HUH?!!! OUR government LIE?!!! NEVER!!!!​

"It Was A Pretty Serious Fib"

– When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.

But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.

The White House is now making its case. to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected to present specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech to the United Nations next week.

But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action....

That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified....

"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence ," says former US Rep. Lee Hamilton (D) of Indiana, a 34-year veteran lawmaker until 1999, who served on numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, and is now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. The Bush team "understands it has not yet carried the burden of persuasion [about an imminent Iraqi threat], so they will look for any kind of evidence to support their premise," Mr. Hamilton says. "I think we have to be skeptical about it." --CSM, Sept. 6, 2002



BLAIR-POWELL "DECEPTION CAN ONLY CORRODE PUBLIC TRUST"

"The Government has grudgingly admitted a failure to acknowledge sources - while insisting that the information remains valid. This misses the point. Plagiarism is not the main issue. The central issue is that of public trust. At best, this episode demonstrates incompetence and the failure to oversee the most important claims which the Government puts into the public domain. At worst, a deliberate attempt to hoodwink and mislead the public will undermine trust in anything the Government says about the Iraqi threat at this vital time." 02.09.03
guardian ed

INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT POWELL PRAISED AS EVIDENCE CUT AND PASTED BY SECRETARY OF BLAIR'S SPIN DOCTOR AND GOFERS FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, MAJOR ONE 12 YEARS OLD
"Late last Tuesday night, a three-page email started circulating among a select group of friends concerned about the impact of sanctions on Iraq... Full of academic outrage, it explained how the so-called 'secret spy dossier' published last week by the Government as a crucial plank in the argument for why the West should go to war was largely cribbed from an American postgraduate's doctoral thesis - grammatical mistakes and all - based on evidence 12 years out of date... And, to cap it all, the finished document appeared to have been cobbled together not by Middle East experts, but by the secretary of Alastair Campbell, the Government's chief spin doctor, and some gofers...One crumb of comfort is that with Blair's reputation for trustworthiness on the war already dented - a poll last week found that, while 81 per cent of Britons believe UN inspector Hans Blix, only 43 per cent trust Blair to tell the truth over the war and only 22 per cent trust Bush - the dossier debacle is unlikely to make it any worse." 02.09.03
guardian

Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq, Cited by Powell As Reason For War, Came From Magazines With Obsolete Data
"The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals.... The document, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was posted on No. 10 Downing Street's Web site on Monday. It was depicted as an up-to-date and unsettling assessment by the British intelligence services of Iraq's security apparatus and its efforts to hide its activities from weapons inspectors and to resist international efforts to force it to disarm. But much of the material actually came, sometimes verbatim, from several nonsecret published articles, according to critics of the government's policy who have studied the documents. These include an article published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs in September 2002, as well as three articles from Jane's Intelligence Review, two of them published in the summer of 1997 and one in November 2002. In some cases, the critics said, parts of the articles — or of summaries posted on the Internet — were paraphrased in the report. In other cases, they were plagiarized — to the extent that even spelling and punctuation errors in the originals were reproduced.... But critics of the government said that not only did the document appear to have been largely cut and pasted together, but also that the articles it relied on were based on information that is, by now, obsolete.... Critics of the British and American policy toward Iraq said the report showed how little concrete evidence the two governments actually have against Iraq, as well as how poor their intelligence sources were. " 02.08.03
nyt

POWELL'S CLAIMS OF IRAQ-AL QAEDA CONNECTION NOT CREDIBLE
"The Bush administration creates the impression that the US is still as wounded and ready to lash out as it was in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Centre. I am not sure that this is true of the majority of Americans, but the country's moribund political structure and the Democrats' horror of appearing unpatriotic combine to make effective opposition very difficult. The President may take comfort from the thought that Tony Blair's Gladstonian vision lends him some moral authority, but it does not wash over here. If the world has become a more dangerous place since 11 September 2001, it is not solely because of the activities of a bunch of Islamic terrorists. " 02.09.03
smith

POWELL'S "TERRORIST FACTORY" TURNS OUT TO BE RUINS, BAKERY
"If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.' Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking." " 02.09.03
hardy

***

"MUCH U.S. EVIDENCE MUST BE ACCEPTED ON TRUST"
"This is the heart of the matter. Much of the US evidence must be accepted, if it is accepted at all, on trust. Mr Powell's sources were mostly anonymous defectors, detainees, third country spooks and US intelligence. His overall case was undercut by the recycling of old tales about al-Qaida "poison plotters" in Baghdad. He refused to accept the IAEA's conclusions on Iraqi nuclear bomb-making. His evidential interpretations were often harsher than those of Hans Blix. Mr Powell certainly did the UN a service in finally opening his Iraq dossier to public view. But the way forward must now be expanded, intensified inspections equipped with this new evidence, as France proposes. Iraq must disarm. The US and Britain must not jump the gun." 02.06.03
guardian ed


BRITISH INTELLIGENCE CONTRADICTS POWELL. NO LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA, THEY SAY
"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report seen by BBC News. The classified document, written by defence intelligence staff three weeks ago, says there has been contact between the two in the past. But it assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideologies. That conclusion flatly contradicts one of the main charges laid against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by the United States and Britain - that he has cultivated contacts with the group blamed for the 11 September attacks. The report emerges even as Washington was calling Saddam a liar for denying, in a television interview with former Labour MP and minister Tony Benn, that he had any links to al-Qaeda. " 02.06.03
bbc

IRAQI TERRORIST GROUP POWELL IDENTIFIES AS LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA RULES KURDISH TERRORITY NOT CONTROLLED BY SADDAM AND TARGETS SADDAM AS THEIR ENEMY
"As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" — the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is now at the center of the U.S. case. Powell showed a satellite photograph of what he said was a chemical weapons training center in Northern Iraq, used by al Qaeda and protected by Ansar al-Islam. "Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq," said Powell. The group, whose name means "Supporters of Islam," rules a remote portion of the autonomous northern Kurdish territories in Iraq near the Iran border, which is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government...In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to al Qaeda. "They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim." 02.06.03
abc

***

SMOLDERING GUN OF IRAQ'S NUKE PROGRAM LEFT IRAQ IN '95 FOR U.S.
"In the summer of 1998, when Hamza first went public with his story about Saddam's relentless desire for the Bomb, much of the press ignored him. The country was transfixed by the saga of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But in March 2001, the scientist found himself sitting next to an influential Republican named Richard Perle at a seminar at George Washington University. He briefed Perle, one of the earliest and most vehement proponents of regime change in Iraq, about his past. "I came away very impressed, thinking this is a sensible, sober fellow," says Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's advisory Defense Policy Board. Hamza said he'd been debriefed only by low-level "civil servants" in the Clinton years. Perle soon introduced the defector to the top tier of the Bush administration, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. " 02.06.03
wp

IRAQI NUKE SCIENTIST LIVING IN CANADA SINCE '98 CONTRADICTS HAMZA

"Given its history, US intelligence should come with a health warning " "We know from experience that politicians about to go to war are not above manipulating information to heat up public opinion. They have manufactured international incidents - the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin "clash", for example, which President Johnson used to deceive the Senate into giving him a declaration of war against North Vietnam. They can be the simple peddling of "evil Hun" stories, as with the discredited accounts of Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators. History has revealed the truth about such episodes, but too late. On the few occasions we are allowed sufficient facts to form an independent assessment, the intelligence on offer is rarely persuasive. " 02.06.03
bennett+perman

QUESTIONED PENATGON CLASSIFIED PHOTOS USED PRIOR TO FIRST GULF WAR REMAIN CLASSIFIED
"The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior's national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon's line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks." 02.06.03
o'kane


US claim dismissed by Blix
The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council. Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found." Dr Blix said that the problem of bio-weapons laboratories on trucks had been around for a while and that he had received tips from the US that led him to inspect trucks in Iraq. The Iraqis claimed that the trucks were used to inspect the quality of food production. He also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged "by several nations" and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear. --The Guardian, 02.05.03


BUSH SPEECH "SKIMMED ALONG EDGES OF REALITY," PARTICULARLY RE SADDAM AND AL QUEDA
"As far as the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is concerned, one of the most prominent authorities on the deadly terrorist group remains unimpressed by the evidence offered up to date - including Bush’s stab at connecting those dots in the State of the Union, during which he insisted that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda." Peter Bergen, author of Holy War, Inc. (Free Press, 2001) and a fellow at the New America Foundation, told me after the speech that the Saddam/Osama connection "is really [the administration’s] default mode, isn’t it?" Bergen pointed me to his December article in the Nation, in which he pooh-poohs the Iraq/Al Qaeda link as "somewhere between tenuous and nonexistent." "Al Qaeda members live in 60 countries around the globe," Bergen wrote in the Nation, "so by the law of averages a few of them will show up in Iraq. Indeed, intelligence estimates suggest there are some 100 Al Qaeda members at large in the United States, although that is not an argument to start bombing Washington." " 02.03.03
byrne


U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS PUZZLED BY BUSH, POWELL CLAIMS OF SADDAM-AL QUEDA CONNECTION
"Intelligence officials said they are puzzled by the administration's new push. "To my knowledge, there's nothing new," said a senior U.S. intelligence official who asked not to be identified. The expectation within the CIA regarding Powell's speech, the source said, "is that it's going to be more comprehensive than bombastic and new." Intelligence officials have discounted if not dismissed other information believed to point to possible links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The CIA said it can find no evidence supporting post-Sept. 11 reports that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers in the attacks, met with an Iraqi agent in the Czech capital, Prague, in 2001. Similarly, intelligence officials described reports that Hussein is funding an Al Qaeda-connected extremist group in northern Iraq as "wildly overstated." There is no evidence so far to confirm that Iraq is arming, financing or controlling the group, known as Ansar al-Islam, one official said. "There isn't a factual basis for such assertions," the official said. " 02.03.03
lat
 

'plain o joe'

Membership Revoked
rescath said:
Since WHEN have the following been conservative values --

1) open borders with Mexico
2) flushing the rule of law down the toilet by giving amnesty to those who broke our laws -- in essence giving them preferential treatment vs. those who tried to get in legally (if you really wanted to fill these jobs, you let in x number of people on the waiting list to get in and immediately deport all the illegals -- Bush is a globalist with globalist allegiances deliberately destroying the U.S. and undermining our national sovereignty)
3) selling the U.S. economy down the drain via NAFTA
4) refunding UNESCO
5) extending and expanding Clinton's anti-2nd amendment assault weapons ban
6) destroying civil liberties via the Patriot Act
7) launching pre-emptive wars
8) running up enormous budget deficits (more than any Democrat ever did)
9) enormously bloating the size of government via the creation of new agencies
10) swearing allegiance to a Satanic Illuminati organization
11) telling Taiwan they are part of China

Anyone? Anyone? I really want to see an answer.





Pat Buchanan was Right !!!
 

rescath

Membership Revoked
jed turtle said:
guess we can't possibly expect liberals and bush-haters to acknowledge the truth. it just isn't in them. must be that same disease that clinton had: they actually believe their own lies...

I'm not a liberal. BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats are accomplished liars. Since you're SUCH a conservative, could you answer any of my questions about how Bush qualifies as a conservative?
 

lynnie

Membership Revoked
I did not see a single person-liberals included- on CNN or FOX news network before the war say that the defectors were lying. They'd have these guys on all the time, some of whom had been pretty high level in Iraq before they escaped, and they all talked about WMD programs.

I am no expert on body language but everything about them exuded honesty. It is possible that Saddam was boasting and lying to his subordinates and they believed and repeated lies, but the fact remains, we had numerous reports from Iraqis who had been part of the regime about WMD. I believed them. I still do. We have probably searched about two mosques in the whole country because of the Geneva Convention, and if they are not under the mosques then they may be in Iran, or Syria.
 
JUDGECAL,

What EXPLICITLY do you wish rebutted -- don't throw up a bunch of excerpts and expect a point-by-point counterargument -- boil it down.


intothegoodnight
 

someone

Inactive
Earlier this week, Americans learned from the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) report that the Bush administration did not lie about or manipulate intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

they got the cia to do it for them

you know i begining think jed's run out of lead,

guess we can't possibly expect liberals and bush-haters to acknowledge the truth. the truth about the fact that tecnechly your "concervative" president runs around playing the roll of a liberal democrat. W is concervative like my ass smells like roses. ii bet he can't even say it


come on george spit it out cccc...oooonnn...cceerrrvvvaaaattttiiiivvvveee, ahw shuck i miss spelled it ;)




into,

i think what the judge is saying is that the gov has a very bad track record of invading countries on false pretences. yet we only find out how big the lies were after the fact. so that infers that the little info we know now should lead us to believe that bush and his crew mislead the american public, which is not a problem cause we our greatest country on earth, ordained by god so :fgr: if they can't take a joke, right?

someone
 

'plain o joe'

Membership Revoked
intothatgoodnight said:
JUDGECAL,

What EXPLICITLY do you wish rebutted -- don't throw up a bunch of excerpts and expect a point-by-point counterargument -- boil it down.


intothegoodnight


hmmm I ran into the same problem with a .06 Data Dump.

As I lost my scorecard, what team or side are you on Judgecal?
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
"you know i begining think jed's run out of lead"
actually, when they moved this thread they failed to leave a clue that they did or where it went and it didn't occur to me that they had made a new SIG and that they had moved it here until this morning.
the libs and de-bunkers here seem to forget that the Dem's leading lights all through the Clinton Regime agreed that Iraq was developing WMD. no doubt, mis-lead by the same Tenet that mis- lead the Repubs.
but i'm with Lynnie on this one. i think that there ARE WMD - probably under the mosques or buried in the desert - or moved to Syria, Iran, Sudan or SA. the recent attempted / foiled chemical attack in Jordan indicates Syria.
oh yea, let's see, rescath's list:
1) open borders with Mexico"
i voted for Buchanan on this issue. i know that there is increased activity along the border to slow down the influx. i also suspect that the human misery index in Mexico is so serious that allowing this illegal migration northward is the only solution that might prevent total social collapse without requiring fantastic economic handouts to the entire Mexican nation far above anything we have ever dreamed of before. or so bad, that allowing our border to become a sieve (providing a labor pool that of course allows many businesses to keep their final product prices lower and competitive with Chinese prices...) takes pressure off the Mexican government to completely go the Cuban route to maintain order, a move that would guarantee a hostile communist country on our doorstep without a water barrier between us. but i'm such a handicap (not ever watching television) that perhaps maybe no one else can see these things...
2) flushing the rule of law down the toilet by giving amnesty to those who broke our laws -- in essence giving them preferential treatment vs. those who tried to get in legally (if you really wanted to fill these jobs, you let in x number of people on the waiting list to get in and immediately deport all the illegals -- Bush is a globalist with globalist allegiances deliberately destroying the U.S. and undermining our national sovereignty)
if, as i've speculated above, that those coming in illegally are, in fact, beneficients of the only way we can provide humanitarian help to Mexico without completely destroying - immediately - our own economic situation, then the globalist tag doesn't necessarily stick. i have a friend who married a mexican gal and lives there half the year. the situation is very bad down there. the fact that those who come here to work send such a significant portion of their income back home to help their families speaks to just this thing: that the misery there is overwhelming, and they are doing exactly what you would do in order for your family to survive. i do not agree with open borders, (and i note that the US gov is increasing patrols and the % of returnees etc), but i can understand when they come here and why the government has permitted it over the last 20 years (ie: the Bush administration is not to be singled out for the situation...)
3) selling the U.S. economy down the drain via NAFTA

NAFTA was well on its way to establishment prior to this administration. Congress - the people's representatives - voted for it. prices for the consumers came WAY down as foreign imports picked up and of course as domestic manufacturers slipped out of the country to produce overseas. None of us should have failed to see it coming even before NAFTA was first proposed. the ever inflating number of dollars goaded the ever-greater demands of the unions which always spear-headed the rise in general growth of wages for everyone else. It was OBVIOUS that one day somebody would realize that 2/3 of the world's population was able to do the same work and was willing to work for peanuts. The only question is how could anyone ignore that truth for as long as we did?
4) refunding UNESCO
i have no knowledge of this subject and will invite other responses if there are any.
5) extending and expanding Clinton's anti-2nd amendment assault weapons ban
at the moment it looks like the Bush administration is NOT going to push Congress to do so.
Got a problem with that or did you not notice?
6) destroying civil liberties via the Patriot Act
forgive me for pointing this out to you, but ARE YOU NUTS? Even before 9-11 this country has been experiencing a vast growth in gangs, gangland murders, and of course unexplained shipments of Chinese assault weapons destined for gangs. And we weren't even paying real attention to the huge growth in our hostile Islamic population. We know have from 8 to 12 million potential Jihadists amongst us. And many of them are reaching out to American blacks who have become a rich field of new conversions to Islam and with a rascist anger against whites deep in their hearts. And as the recent sniper killings indicated, a single serial killer can turn a single rifle into a weapon of mass terror...
We are at WAR. During WWII many civil liberties were suspended for the duration, not the least of which was the freedom of Japanese Americans to go wherever they wanted. However, iirc, the internment camps were actually voluntary, legally. And we aren't even there, yet.
Personally, my freedom hasn't been impacted yet, and i'm a bit pissed that people who swear their allegiance to the Koran HAVEN'T been impacted yet, as the Koran clearly calls for the replacement (overthrow) of all governments by Islamic government. I gingerly suggest that you re-analyze our REAL circumstances and at least speculate that the minuscule (by percentages) numbers of people who we have running the government are vastly outnumbered by the people who could tear our social fabric apart at the seams by massive civil disobedience, much less widespread acts of terror.

7) launching pre-emptive wars
frankly, friend, i haven't got a problem with that myself, as long as they are predicated on removing the imminent threat of a terror attack upon our shores.
With regard to WMD, it's a little late to "do something" after AVOWED ENEMIES have just murdered a million or more unarmed civilians with anthrax, a nuke, or something we've never even thought of. Personally, i hope China is on our list. I believe we are about to remove NK and subsequently Iran from the list of avowed enemies-with-Nukes, and i hope that China and/or Russia just TRIES to do something about it, because in both cases China and Russia are equipping our enemies TO BE PROXIES.
8) running up enormous budget deficits (more than any Democrat ever did)
no, that's bullshit. Vietnam was a Democratic war and that cost us dearly. Not to mention LBJ's War on Poverty has cost us the same amount that we now owe known as the National Debt...
We went into a huge hole to wage WWII. DEEP hole. The country's survival was at stake and everyone knew it. It is now, but half the country can't get its head out of that place where the sun don't shine to figure it out.
9) enormously bloating the size of government via the creation of new agencies
happened during WWII. But you probably didn't notice. Happened during the Viet Nam era but maybe you were still in diapers and didn't notice.
10) swearing allegiance to a Satanic Illuminati organization
while the Yale Fraternity Skull and Bones is quite likely the pre-emminent organization you infer it is, there is not absolute proof of that. But more importantly, our President, from ALL appearances, after nearly wrecking his life with the world's temptations, discovered and gave his life to Jesus Christ. Having gone through the same transformation myself, i can tell you that no oath or belief that i held previous to that transformation holds any water now. President Bush, if so transformed, is literally a different person than he was before the transformation.
11) telling Taiwan they are part of China
that occurred during the Nixon administration when the Rockefellas had total control of the reins of power. Kissinger had been Rockefella's private secretary before entering the Administration.
China has been Rockefellas private vision since the days of Mao. Clinton sure didn't help Taiwan's case when he was trading nuclear and missile blueprints for campaign donations...
President Bush has agreed to sell Taiwan some significant military equipment over the next several years. Read the news lately?
 

Libertarian

Deceased
rescath said:
I'm against the war and I'm against Bush, so I'm always labeled a liberal. But I'm not. I'm strongly conservative.

I ask those who support Bush as a conservative, as I've asked on numerous occasions without a single response from a neocon Bush supporter --

Since WHEN have the following been conservative values --

1) open borders with Mexico
2) flushing the rule of law down the toilet by giving amnesty to those who broke our laws -- in essence giving them preferential treatment vs. those who tried to get in legally (if you really wanted to fill these jobs, you let in x number of people on the waiting list to get in and immediately deport all the illegals -- Bush is a globalist with globalist allegiances deliberately destroying the U.S. and undermining our national sovereignty)
3) selling the U.S. economy down the drain via NAFTA
4) refunding UNESCO
5) extending and expanding Clinton's anti-2nd amendment assault weapons ban
6) destroying civil liberties via the Patriot Act
7) launching pre-emptive wars
8) running up enormous budget deficits (more than any Democrat ever did)
9) enormously bloating the size of government via the creation of new agencies
10) swearing allegiance to a Satanic Illuminati organization
11) telling Taiwan they are part of China

Anyone? Anyone? I really want to see an answer.

I'd love to see the neocons answer those too rescath. Somehow I think all you'll get is verbal abuse and obfuscation. :shr:
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
i don't know if i'm a neocon or not. but apparently you decided not to acknowledge my answers because you didn't like them? or do you just have me on ignore?
 

milkydoo

Inactive
jed turtle said:
guess we can't possibly expect liberals and bush-haters to acknowledge the truth. it just isn't in them. must be that same disease that clinton had: they actually believe their own lies...
The truth is that Bush is not concerned with America's safety. Borders: It's not a mistake, it's not an oversight, it's corruption.

1) open borders with Mexico"
i voted for Buchanan on this issue. i know that there is increased activity along the border to slow down the influx. i also suspect that the human misery index in Mexico is so serious that allowing this illegal migration northward is the only solution that might prevent total social collapse without requiring fantastic economic handouts to the entire Mexican nation far above anything we have ever dreamed of before. or so bad, that allowing our border to become a sieve (providing a labor pool that of course allows many businesses to keep their final product prices lower and competitive with Chinese prices...) takes pressure off the Mexican government to completely go the Cuban route to maintain order, a move that would guarantee a hostile communist country on our doorstep without a water barrier between us. but i'm such a handicap (not ever watching television) that perhaps maybe no one else can see these things...
And here we go again. Always an excuse to do the WRONG thing. Always, always, always. I wish I could get a job coming up with these excuses; it wouldn't be hard. Maybe I could work in the lab next to the ketchup-flow-tester guy.

Is this the primary equation that so-called conservatives use in their think tanks? Let's go over this again: We can't close our borders because the Mexican economy would collapse and then we would be forced to give 'em even more food stamps. Heads they win, tails we lose......of course, "we" doesn't include fat cat politicians who will never have to worry about a thing in their lives again, besides how many book deals they can get.

Is it any wonder our government is fouled up?

* Give trillions in aid to corrupt foreign nations
* Wage war against corrupt foreign nations
* Build American puppet democracies
* Strip American rights and freedoms in an effort to protect American rights and freedoms from those nations that we've pissed off with our BS games.
But more importantly, our President, from ALL appearances, after nearly wrecking his life with the world's temptations, discovered and gave his life to Jesus Christ.
Don't tell me you're buying that hogwash? Every stinking politician needing votes can be found chanting in some church, and soon after, they're waging war again while shouting "God bless America". I just don't understand why so many people are fooled by such a cheap parlor trick.

This reminds me of a Simpson's toon where Marge and Apu were shopping at the new 'Mega Mart'. Apu commented that big stores don't show the personal care and concern for their customers as the small ones do. At that moment, a cold, cheezy voice comes over the PA and says, "....and we just wanted to let you know that we care about each and every one of you". Across the store, all of the shoppers collectively smile and sigh, having been comforted by a cheap machine recording.

If Bush has indeed found Jesus, then we should expect some serious policy changes....yesterday. I think Jesus would want Bush to close the damn borders and leave the election results in His Hands, don't you think? Would Jesus reduce veterans' benefits? Would Jesus uphold the hemp ban, something that has litterally wrecked our nation inside out?

One of these days I'm going to pay an artist to paint Jesus Christ at the wheel of an F-15 Eagle dropping a bomb on a hospital. The caption will read, "Kill 'em ALL!", and Jesus will be giving us the 'Devil Horns' sign.
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
a remarkably dis-oriented rant, milkydoo. i see i have cast pearls before swine. shoulda known. over and outa here.
 

bigwavedave

Deceased
how to turn tunnel vision into your advantage

White House, CIA refuse to release pre-war intelligence document

PLA Daily 2004-07-15

http://english.pladaily.com.cn/engl...20040715001011_InternationalMilitaryNews.html

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Xinhuanet) -- The White House and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have refused to give the US Senate Intelligence Committee a one-page summary of pre-war intelligence on Iraq prepared for President George W. Bush, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The document contains few of the qualifiers and none of the dissents spelled out in longer intelligence reviews, the report said, quoting Congressional officials.

While Senate Democrats claimed that the document could help clear up exactly what intelligence agencies told Bush about Iraq's illicit weapons, Republicans on the committee dismissed the Democrats' argument that the summary was significant.

The review, prepared for Bush in October 2002, summarized the findings of a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's illicit weapons.

"In determining what the president was told about the contents of the N.I.E. (National Intelligence Estimate) dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, qualifiers and all, there is nothing clearer than this single page," Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois, said in a 10-page "additional view" that was published as an addendum to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report released last Friday.

Congressional officials also said that notes taken by Senate staffers who were permitted to review the document showed the review eliminated references to dissent within the government about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusions.
 

milkydoo

Inactive
jed turtle said:
a remarkably dis-oriented rant, milkydoo. i see i have cast pearls before swine. shoulda known. over and outa here.
Sorry I couldn't make an ice cream sundae out of your sewage. When you basically excuse Bush's border policy as a Mexican appeasement program (whatever happened to "kill 'em all!"?) and then blindly accept Bush as a Christian just because he's gone through the conversion process like a paint-by-numbers program, what do you expect?

There's an excuse for Bush's decadence and corruption around every corner. I'm not impressed.
 
Top