We were told by the national media that Pres. Bush was making up the stuff about Iran's nuclear weapons program!

So how are they going to 'splain this, Lucy?


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/africa/27iran.php

I'm not sure about Iran, but he she as hell lied or had REALLY FUCKING BAD intel (AKA: scape goat) on IRAQs nuke plans.....


Iran has had an admitted program for quite a while.....i am frustrated that Iraq got all the attention when Iran was up north steadily advancing their program. Now if they really legitmately wanted only electrical power, then i am fine with any country having it so long as they can use it safely and without the intent to weaponize it.....and that means not selling you waste to terrorists as well)....

let whoever comes next deal with it.....bush is as lame a duck as one can imagine in the office.....his credibility is toast and he's pretty much used up all his favors.......

Ah, well. Show me a president -- of any country including ours -- and I'll probably be able to show you a president who did not get elected. There seems to be a prerequisit for a 'prevarication gene' in any politician.

So I'd be safe in assuming that Bill Clinton and several other world leaders were liars too then.

Politician and liar are synonyms.

I wonder if it is something in the water in D.C. or something that "secret government agency" puts in the air in the capitol that changes well meaning, first time politicians into career lairs and charletains.

Shit must be in the water in the U.K. too seeing how all of the Brits are up in arms lately.

Wonder what a Hummer would be referred to as in Britain?

as others have noted, all politicians are liars to one extent or another.

Bill was no doubt a liar as well, but as i noted in another thread, while clinton tried to contain Saddam, bush pushed it to invade, cost us probably in the trillions before it will be over, and has cost us 4000+ us lives.....so yes ... i'm a tad more bitter about Bush than i am about Bill and the oval office BJ.

Believe Obama has the answer. No one is really a threat attitude. Osama was never really a threat either, or Humas or any of these other little groups. Don't like the not kisk ass (political correct) policy that the surge had to correct. Locally or global, those who act are always second guessed, nitpicked or backstabbed. Have always taken threats seriously, especially those who have sworn to kill to control. Example Those who scream the loudest when a gangbanger with a rap sheet a mile long is shot, cry when their people are victims and why wasn't anything done. (Soak 2 rags in kerosene, Wrap around ankles, Then the ants won't crawl up your leg and bite your CANDY ASS)

From Scott McLellan's new book.....

"And though no one has a crystal ball, it's not asking too much that a well-considered understanding of the circumstances and history of Iraq and the Middle East should have been brought into the decision-making process. The responsibility to provide this understanding belonged to the president's advisers, and they failed to fulfill it. Secretary of State Colin Powell was apparently the only adviser who even tried to raise doubts about the wisdom of war. The rest of the foreign policy team seemed to be preoccupied with regime change or, in the case of Condi Rice, seemingly more interested in accommodating the president's instincts and ideas than in questioning them or educating him.

An even more fundamental problem was the way his advisers decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not. Most of the arguments used – especially those stated in prepared remarks by the president and in forums like Powell's presentation at the UN Security Council in February 2003 – were carefully vetted and capable of being substantiated. But as the campaign accelerated, caveats and qualifications were downplayed or dropped altogether. Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded. Evidence based on high confidence from the intelligence community was lumped together with intelligence of lesser confidence. A nuclear threat was added to the biological and chemical threats to create a greater sense of gravity and urgency. Support for terrorism was given greater weight by playing up a dubious al Qaeda connection to Iraq. When it was all packaged together, the case constituted a "grave and gathering danger" that needed to be dealt with urgently."


so....yes....in my opinion...bush lied....and most of his advisers were in just a bunch of "yes-men" who let him do it.

I freely admit there are threats out there, but i don't think Bush handled them in the best way for the nation......

I have reservations about any book written by someone who was fired from their job.
Remember, anyone can assert anything in a book and it turn out not to be true.

I think a lot of my point is being missed.

I do not think it is credible to lay all this at Bush's feet when there are documented speeches and quotes form politicians on both sides stating the exact same things.
And many of those are from years ago, before the Bush presidency.

i understand your point, but i don't recall him being fired, at the time it sure felt like he was leaving on his own.....that of course is something we will likely never know for sure, but the admin will of course offer up that he was a disgruntled employee they let go.

agreed that some of the same material was used before bush...the difference being that before bush it was to contain and control the situation, with Bush it was purposely manipulated to get the public to buy into the need to invade Iraq....the caveats and qualifiers were removed to make a "slam dunk" arguement....

the difference is in what you did in response to that data or those speeches. Contain vs. Invade. there would have been no need to convince the US people further that we needed to contain and control saddam.....it took a hell of a lot of manipulations to get the need to invade across to the people. And as for the politicians on the other side saying the same thing, they were getting distilled reports prepped and vetted by the bush admin....of course they are going to see what they need to see in order for bush to get what he wants....that is the whole point of the "bush lied" argument.....he got what he wanted to hear, what he needed others to hear in order to get what he wanted.....

like fucking jedi mind tricks......only works on the stupid...which includes most of DC and a whole hell of a lot of the Sheeple out there.

In no way do i solely blame Bush for the debacle.....i also blame congress for being such timid little bitches as to just turn the reigns over to him......lest they look weak on terror.....at that time....you could have legalized prostitution nationwide if you could have proven that it would control terror.

And that right there is the most dangerous part of the whole thing!

If we surrender our rights, for whatever reason, we will never see them again!


But I actually blame the media more than any political hacks and clowns.
They are the ones who misrepresent and out right lie about events!

Which is another reason I am skeptical of any book written by a press secretary...................

agreed....i think you can be skeptical of any book written by anyone who ever held an elected position or was appointed by an elected official......

as for the press there was a very interesting commentary by the big three prime time anchors this AM about the pressure they were under form the Pentagon any time they reported something that the Admin didn't like, they would get calls almost immediately threatening them with loss of access if they didn't go easier on president or the war or....etc.

propaganda at work..... say what the leadership wants or lose access......some would call that blackmail.....

I can't agree.
The press answers to no one.

And after the pure, complete, out and out lies I saw on television after hurricane Katrina I will never trust anything said by the media!

Interesting observation about katrina, Brian Williams made a similar comment that unlike katrina where they reported with bodies literally floating past them, they had eyes on the situation and could report on what they see, which he said was in stark contrast to the info that they got about the UN Nuc inspectors in Iraq, all they got were filtered reports from government officials.

I do understand your point about trusting the press, they can report as much or as little info as they want....problem is...governments in control of info can do the same...they just release only what they want the press to know. That is why you have very controlled settings for presidential press conferences. Preferred reporters get preferential treatment.....how do you think they get preferred?....by being cute?......no....they play ball.

it amazes me when we see a reporting tossing softballs at a clinton getting grilled by Fox news, and of course Fox does the same with their chosen conservative of the month, and the liberals scream about it.

There is bias in everything, that is why we have to be vigilant and not just take the word of one media outlet. We are so lucky today that we have internet access to world news all the time. Because i can check US news sources and English, and wherever else they publish in English......and if they are all agreeing on something....it is probably true.....if not....well there is some controversy and different view points will be reported. In the US you can say the press answers to no one.....you can't say that about all other nations......


and you have to trust some of what the media says......what other sources of info do you have?.....

Doesn't matter.

When a reporter sticks a camera in your face and asks you some off the wall, stupid assed question that any answer you gave would sound racist, you can't trust them.
Especially if it is after you just finished sharing an MRE with them in a flooded New Orleans neighborhood!
And this went on every day all day.
Several times we went back to the checkpoints and literally kicked the reporters out of our vehicles, a pair of AP reporters specifically come to mind.....

And then at night, we'd drag our burnt up, tired asses back to a hotel that had no electricity, where your room was on the 11th floor, so you had plenty of steps to climb, and first you would have to negotiate the obstacle course of cable news motor homes and slide outs lining the center of the boulevard and watch them mixing frozen drinks and laughing their drunk asses off!

It was interesting that the only one I saw that actually took the time to sit down with any of us and just chat was Ed Bradley!

ah....my apologies, i wasn't fully aware of your personal interactions with them, i certainly understand your view point now.

.........Sometimes I get carried away..........................

Look how many lives are lost in Washington DC. FAR more. It's safer in Iraq!

You have a choice:

A. Fight raghead terrorists on their own soil
B. Fight them here while they kill our families.

Click to view attachment

Speak of the devil............. Will with the AK.........asshole newsman with the camera..........

I remember that picture, had forgotten it was Will though.

sorry about that!

Well....4000 is the number of dead US soldiers, not the total deaths for all nationalities.....not sure i would say Iraq is safer....i understand your argument but respectfully disagree.

as for the terrorists on their own soil....that was what Afganistan was about for sure.....Iraq...well that was the justification after the WMD turned out to be a load of BS....

I would agree with you if we were actually carpet bombing the shit out of the mountains in Pakistan to basically vaporize Bin Laden.....but then Bush just seems to have forgotten about him....at least until he needs to mention the Boogey Osama to scare people again.....

the goal of terrorism is to scare people into changing their way of life.......they succeeded!....look how different our lives are compared to 9/10......the world changed and not for the better.....even taking the battle to them....life is not really better today....in my opinion......

Ah........taking the battle to them.

Oh for the days when Billy Klinton was still there.........We could just ignore the terrorists and put them out of our minds.
Never mind the first WTC bombing, Kobar Towers, USS Cole, Bin Ladin's head being offered to us on a platter by Sudan............Let's just ignore it and maybe it'll go away....OOPS, too late: 9/11 happened because the battle wasn't taken to them soon enough. Thank you Bill Klinton and his ilk.

Bush is sooooo easy to blame it all on.......never mind that the whole Dem establishment trumpeted the need to take care of Saddam's WMD's........, and signed on for it. Bush actually went for it, and didn't just adjust his blinders like Klinton.
I'm just sick to fucking death of second-guessing Bush's administration in the interest of Dem-World. Like it or not, he did something about the terrorists, while the Dems and Klinton just turned a blind eye.......
If (God forbid) Obamalama or the she-Klinton gains the White House, we'll see how fast the whole situation goes down the tubes, both in the aspect of the war and the domestic situation........... Be careful what you wish for.

(You live too close to Madison, dude.........)

Well, (in WJC's defense), he *DID* fire a few Tomahawk's into Somalia (oops, sorry! Those damned desk buttons ontinue on, Honey ) .

I guess (personally) that Osama Bin Laden would probably be the last thing on my mind too whilst engaged in the middle of an Oval office hummer.

Jeaux,

Suffice it to say we a difference of opinion on Bush....

Other than dating a girl from madison for about 2 months, i have avoided the city most of the time.....Not a big fan of the place. And it is way too liberal for me.....i'm sure you are stunned to hear that.

by no means saying Clinton was the best person to take on terrorism. I get the argument that we are fighting them off of our soil. that is all great and fine but i would feel a hell of a lot better with more of our billions going into fixing our porous security at the borders and ports of this nation.

As mentioned before i don't place all blame on Bush, congress screwed the pooch big time. Do i think Bush and his cronies lied (exaggerated, embellished, dropped qualifiers, and ignored contradictory evidence...define lied however you want) to get us to invade Iraq? Yes i do.....I understand not everyone will share that position, time will tell who was right.

as i said before....bush started off post 9/11 fine. Taliban was smashed for a while, the hunt for osama was on. We liberated Afghanistan from the taliban, set up a budget to rebuild the country, then Bush diverted those funds to invade Iraq (without congressional approval - that was an illegal act and an impeachable offense, but he got a pass because it was war time) - now Afghanistan is falling back into the wrong hands, opium production is going back up, and we are stuck in Iraq for god knows how long. Had he had a real strategy other than "Stay the course", been able to admit mistakes and make adjustments, i might have a very different opinion of the guy, but as it is, in my book he has been a unmitigated failure as a president. This is not to say that he didn't mean well. I think at heart the guy believes in what he does, and makes decisions to go with his beliefs.

I'm sorry Jueax, i'm very middle of the road politically, i have some liberal views, some very conservative views also, but on Bush I just think the nation picked extremely badly....twice. With his approval ratings ducking under 30%....i know i am not alone in my opinion, and unless 70 of the nation went liberal recently, there are a hell of a lot of conservatives who are not pleased with him lately.

I know many people who in the 90's had Clinton countdown calendars.....there will always be a group of people who dislike the person in office.......i don't think we should act like Bush is the first president to catch hell in office......

And really.....it is possible to be a conservative, or moderate, and still think Bush is a turd......you don't have to be a liberal. It is also not unpatriotic to question the leadership of the country. My allegiance is to the flag and nation for which it stands....not to those who are elected to lead it.....they are transitory....i hope my country is not.

Same shit as Viet Nam (another clusterfuck war we fought). Too many fucking Chiefs (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for one) who want to run things (questioning the Military leadership we have on the ground there like she really knows what the fuck is happening even if carefully explained to her dumb liberal ass ) and not enough fighting Indians (freaking "yes men" career Supply Depot Generals looking to get another star before retirement who will suck up to anyone who gives them any bit of attention saying we have no chance of winning now over there).

Yeah, the terrain might be tough to fight on (like the jungles of Southeast Asia), but take all the (wasted) money spent on bus fuel shuttling the minorities to the polls so they can vote Democrat and use it instead to re-fuel unmanned (but armed) drone aircraft so that they can circle the battlefield hot spots (especially at night when the Taliban most likely move around) and bomb the shit out of anything that dares to move then.

The reason why we have so many unnecessary U.S. casualties over there is because of all the dumb ass DAYLIGHT vehicular patrols we are doing now. It's kinda hard to kill something with an IED when HumVees and shit are scarce on the major roadways and you can't see them in the dark to push the garage door remote control button. Use the improved technology we have now (what we didn't have back in Viet Nam), and stop presenting our troops to unnecessary danger.