Paintball Forums  
User Name
Password

Paintball Forums > General > Chit Chat > Politics > Re: Does ANYONE believe the Bush people now?

Reply
Laughing at Bush
[1] Posted by Laughing at Bush 07-16-2003, 02:19 AM
 
Posts: n/a


Quote
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:55:37 GMT, "Roger R."
<jayraynospam21@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Look at this report:
>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6310763.htm
>
>
>"WASHINGTON - In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data, the CIA
>and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration assessment
>of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be
>presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
>
>After the objections, the planned testimony by Undersecretary of State John
>R. Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September.
>
>U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell members
>of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that
>Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had
>progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the
>region.
>
>The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was
>exaggerated."
>
>We all know that the Bush people have been - let's put it charitably -
>rather loose with the truth. We also know that they have gone way beyond
>what the CIA, DIA, and State Department Intelligence professionals have
>considered that the evidence they have prooves.
>
>Why should we believe them about Syria?
>

Why should we believe them about anything unless they're admitting
they're liars. Now that I can believe.




Just think, the asshole that runs this country said
in one of his drunken stupors.....

"You fucking son of a *****. I saw what you wrote.
We're not going to forget this."
A drunken George W., storming into a Mexican diner
in Dallas, and approaching Al Hunt (Wall Street Journal editor)
.. Al was dining with his wife and 4 year old son,
when Dubya interrupted cursing for several minutes
in front of everyone.

-----------------------------------------------------
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
 
Sponsored Links
Mr Wizzard
[2] Posted by Mr Wizzard 07-16-2003, 03:15 AM
 
Posts: n/a


Quote

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
news:air9hv4625r2uehqlpkla8klnq8a8348ab@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:55:37 GMT, "Roger R."
> <jayraynospam21@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Look at this report:
> >http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6310763.htm
> >
> >
> >"WASHINGTON - In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data, the

CIA
> >and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration

assessment
> >of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be
> >presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
> >
> >After the objections, the planned testimony by Undersecretary of State

John
> >R. Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September.
> >
> >U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell

members
> >of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that
> >Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had
> >progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the
> >region.
> >
> >The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was
> >exaggerated."
> >
> >We all know that the Bush people have been - let's put it charitably -
> >rather loose with the truth. We also know that they have gone way beyond
> >what the CIA, DIA, and State Department Intelligence professionals have
> >considered that the evidence they have prooves.
> >
> >Why should we believe them about Syria?
> >

> Why should we believe them about anything unless they're admitting
> they're liars. Now that I can believe.


Where is the actual "lie" ?? As I hear it, Bush said that Britian
has learned of Iraq's seeking to obtain yellow cake. That is not
a "lie" - Britian *did* learn that by their intelligence report. Turns
out that Britians intelligence wasn't good, but Bush's statement
was still true. Don't be twisting symantics here.




>
>
>
>
> Just think, the asshole that runs this country said
> in one of his drunken stupors.....
>
> "You fucking son of a *****. I saw what you wrote.
> We're not going to forget this."
> A drunken George W., storming into a Mexican diner
> in Dallas, and approaching Al Hunt (Wall Street Journal editor)
> . Al was dining with his wife and 4 year old son,
> when Dubya interrupted cursing for several minutes
> in front of everyone.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
> and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
>
> --Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)



 
Herb
[3] Posted by Herb 07-16-2003, 08:48 AM
 
Posts: n/a


Quote

"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
news:nfhahv4ethf4dcpenrlg346isjo68sudcv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:15:25 GMT, "Mr Wizzard" <wiz@muffy-mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
> >news:air9hv4625r2uehqlpkla8klnq8a8348ab@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:55:37 GMT, "Roger R."
> >> <jayraynospam21@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Look at this report:
> >> >http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6310763.htm
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"WASHINGTON - In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data,

the
> >CIA
> >> >and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration

> >assessment
> >> >of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be
> >> >presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
> >> >
> >> >After the objections, the planned testimony by Undersecretary of State

> >John
> >> >R. Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September.
> >> >
> >> >U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell

> >members
> >> >of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee

that
> >> >Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had
> >> >progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in

the
> >> >region.
> >> >
> >> >The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was
> >> >exaggerated."
> >> >
> >> >We all know that the Bush people have been - let's put it charitably -
> >> >rather loose with the truth. We also know that they have gone way

beyond
> >> >what the CIA, DIA, and State Department Intelligence professionals

have
> >> >considered that the evidence they have prooves.
> >> >
> >> >Why should we believe them about Syria?
> >> >
> >> Why should we believe them about anything unless they're admitting
> >> they're liars. Now that I can believe.

> >
> >Where is the actual "lie" ?? As I hear it, Bush said that Britian
> >has learned of Iraq's seeking to obtain yellow cake. That is not
> >a "lie" - Britian *did* learn that by their intelligence report. Turns
> >out that Britians intelligence wasn't good, but Bush's statement
> >was still true. Don't be twisting symantics here.

>
> Then stop doing it. How is knowingly repeating a lie NOT a lie? The
> identical false information had been removed from a Bush speech in
> October because it was known then to be false. If you know that the
> statement "all blue eyed people are insomniacs" is false, and I tell
> you "all blue eyed people are insomniacs" would you go out tell
> everyone that all blue eyed people are insomniacs? No. Why, because
> you know I told you something that was not true. Bush and his handlers
> knew that the information the British had was false, and knowingly
> chose to use it to their advantage to start an unjustified war.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just think, the asshole that runs this country said
> >> in one of his drunken stupors.....
> >>
> >> "You fucking son of a *****. I saw what you wrote.
> >> We're not going to forget this."
> >> A drunken George W., storming into a Mexican diner
> >> in Dallas, and approaching Al Hunt (Wall Street Journal editor)
> >> . Al was dining with his wife and 4 year old son,
> >> when Dubya interrupted cursing for several minutes
> >> in front of everyone.
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------
> >> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> >> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only

unpatriotic
> >> and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
> >>
> >> --Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)

> >

>
>
>
>
>
> Just think, the asshole that runs this country said
> in one of his drunken stupors.....
>
> "You fucking son of a *****. I saw what you wrote.
> We're not going to forget this."
> A drunken George W., storming into a Mexican diner
> in Dallas, and approaching Al Hunt (Wall Street Journal editor)
> . Al was dining with his wife and 4 year old son,
> when Dubya interrupted cursing for several minutes
> in front of everyone.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
> we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
> and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
>
> --Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)



 
Roger R.
[4] Posted by Roger R. 07-16-2003, 10:47 AM
 
Posts: n/a


Quote

"Mr Wizzard" <wiz@muffy-mail.com> wrote in message
news:hY6Ra.75537$N7.9209@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
> news:air9hv4625r2uehqlpkla8klnq8a8348ab@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:55:37 GMT, "Roger R."
> > <jayraynospam21@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Look at this report:
> > >http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6310763.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >"WASHINGTON - In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data, the

> CIA
> > >and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration

> assessment
> > >of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be
> > >presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
> > >
> > >After the objections, the planned testimony by Undersecretary of State

> John
> > >R. Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September.
> > >
> > >U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell

> members
> > >of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that
> > >Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had
> > >progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the
> > >region.
> > >
> > >The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was
> > >exaggerated."
> > >
> > >We all know that the Bush people have been - let's put it charitably -
> > >rather loose with the truth. We also know that they have gone way

beyond
> > >what the CIA, DIA, and State Department Intelligence professionals have
> > >considered that the evidence they have prooves.
> > >
> > >Why should we believe them about Syria?
> > >

> > Why should we believe them about anything unless they're admitting
> > they're liars. Now that I can believe.

>
> Where is the actual "lie" ?? As I hear it, Bush said that Britian
> has learned of Iraq's seeking to obtain yellow cake. That is not
> a "lie" - Britian *did* learn that by their intelligence report. Turns
> out that Britians intelligence wasn't good, but Bush's statement
> was still true. Don't be twisting symantics here.
>
>
>
>

Let's see - Bush made a statement that he knew was untrue, but then
attributed it to the Intelligence from the British instead of our own
intelligence agencies because they didn't think it was supportable. The
effect of that is a lie.

He clearly intended to lie to convince the nation to ~preemptively~ invade
Iraq and this falsehood was his only real hook to hand the idea that Iraq
was an "imminent threat" to the US. His only other evidence was the aluminum
tubes that had already been publicly discredited.

He presented information he knew to be untrue or unsupportable to convince
that nation to take a really serious action that we would not otherwise
accept. It is you who are twisting symantics here. Bush presented a lie. It
doesn't matter who he attributes it to.

RR


 
Brooks Gregory
[5] Posted by Brooks Gregory 07-16-2003, 11:06 AM
 
Posts: n/a


Quote

"Roger R." <jayraynospam21@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LzdRa.1216$Lq1.913@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com ...
>
> "Mr Wizzard" <wiz@muffy-mail.com> wrote in message
> news:hY6Ra.75537$N7.9209@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > "Laughing at Bush" <BushSucks@Bigtime.com> wrote in message
> > news:air9hv4625r2uehqlpkla8klnq8a8348ab@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 04:55:37 GMT, "Roger R."
> > > <jayraynospam21@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Look at this report:
> > > >http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6310763.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"WASHINGTON - In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data,

the
> > CIA
> > > >and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration

> > assessment
> > > >of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be
> > > >presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
> > > >
> > > >After the objections, the planned testimony by Undersecretary of

State
> > John
> > > >R. Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until

September.
> > > >
> > > >U.S. officials told Knight Ridder that Bolton was prepared to tell

> > members
> > > >of a House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee

that
> > > >Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had
> > > >progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in

the
> > > >region.
> > > >
> > > >The CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was
> > > >exaggerated."
> > > >
> > > >We all know that the Bush people have been - let's put it

charitably -
> > > >rather loose with the truth. We also know that they have gone way

> beyond
> > > >what the CIA, DIA, and State Department Intelligence professionals

have
> > > >considered that the evidence they have prooves.
> > > >
> > > >Why should we believe them about Syria?
> > > >
> > > Why should we believe them about anything unless they're admitting
> > > they're liars. Now that I can believe.

> >
> > Where is the actual "lie" ?? As I hear it, Bush said that Britian
> > has learned of Iraq's seeking to obtain yellow cake. That is not
> > a "lie" - Britian *did* learn that by their intelligence report. Turns
> > out that Britians intelligence wasn't good, but Bush's statement
> > was still true. Don't be twisting symantics here.
> >
> >
> >
> >

> Let's see - Bush made a statement that he knew was untrue, but then
> attributed it to the Intelligence from the British instead of our own
> intelligence agencies because they didn't think it was supportable. The
> effect of that is a lie.
>
> He clearly intended to lie to convince the nation to ~preemptively~ invade
> Iraq and this falsehood was his only real hook to hand the idea that Iraq
> was an "imminent threat" to the US. His only other evidence was the

aluminum
> tubes that had already been publicly discredited.
>
> He presented information he knew to be untrue or unsupportable to convince
> that nation to take a really serious action that we would not otherwise
> accept. It is you who are twisting symantics here. Bush presented a lie.

It
> doesn't matter who he attributes it to.
>
> RR
>
>


It won't make a dime's worth of difference. It is not what the majority of
voters will ask themselves in the voting booth.


--
A lot of little boys never grow up.
They just change the name of
their game from "Cowboys and
Indians" to "Democrats and Republicans"


Brooks Gregory



 
John Starrett
[6] Posted by John Starrett 07-16-2003, 12:04 PM
 
Posts: n/a


Quote
Mr Wizzard wrote:
>

<snip>
> Where is the actual "lie" ?? As I hear it, Bush said that Britian
> has learned of Iraq's seeking to obtain yellow cake. That is not
> a "lie" - Britian *did* learn that by their intelligence report. Turns
> out that Britians intelligence wasn't good, but Bush's statement
> was still true. Don't be twisting symantics here.

<snip>

I have learned that you are married to a goat. Sure, the
report is flawed, but I didn't lie! That is indeed what I
learned.

--

John Starrett

"It does not require a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen
to set brush fires in people's minds."

Samuel Adams
 
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: The Raw Truth About Jr's Military Desertion Joe S. Politics 42 07-14-2003 09:57 AM
Re: The Son of Man demands Mr. bush's immediate arrest or execution! - Wow eh?! Justice for All Politics 0 07-11-2003 02:50 PM
Re: The Raw Truth About Jr's Military Desertion Thom Politics 5 07-05-2003 01:49 PM
Re: The Raw Truth About Jr's Military Desertion AD Politics 15 07-05-2003 01:43 PM
Impeach the wimpy asshole! Harry Hope Politics 1 07-03-2003 01:29 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0