Bush doesn't lie?

[RandomGuy]

article | posted September 25, 2003 (October 13, 2003 issue)
The Other Lies of George Bush

David CornGeorge W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest. In the run-up to the invasion, Bush based his case for war on a variety of unfounded claims that extended far beyond his controversial uranium-from-Niger assertion. He maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons and was directly "dealing" with Al Qaeda--two suppositions unsupported then (or now) by the available evidence. He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material). Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding.

But Bush's truth-defying crusade for war did not mark a shift for him. Throughout his campaign for the presidency and his years in the White House, Bush has mugged the truth in many other areas to advance his agenda. Lying has been one of the essential tools of his presidency. To call the forty-third President of the United States a prevaricator is not an exercise of opinion, not an inflammatory talk-radio device. Rather, it is backed up by an all-too-extensive record of self-serving falsifications. While politicians are often derided as liars, this charge should be particularly stinging for Bush. During the campaign of 2000, he pitched himself as a candidate who could "restore" honor and integrity to an Oval Office stained by the misdeeds and falsehoods of his predecessor. To brand Bush a liar is to negate what he and his supporters declared was his most basic and most important qualification for the job.

(continued)

[RandomGuy]

His claims about the war in Iraq have led more of his foes and more pundits to accuse him of lying to the public. The list of his misrepresentations, though, is far longer than the lengthy list of dubious statements Bush employed--and keeps on employing--to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq. Here then is a partial--a quite partial--account of the other lies of George W. Bush.

Tax Cuts

Bush's crusade for tax cuts is the domestic policy matter that has spawned the most misrepresentations from his camp. On the 2000 campaign trail, he sold his success as a "tax-cutting person" by hailing cuts he passed in Texas while governor. But Bush did not tell the full story of his 1997 tax plan. His proposal called for cutting property taxes. But what he didn't mention is that it also included an attempt to boost the sales tax and to implement a new business tax. Nor did he note that his full package had not been accepted by the state legislature. Instead, the lawmakers passed a $1 billion reduction in property taxes. And these tax cuts turned out to be a sham. After they kicked in, school districts across the state boosted local tax rates to compensate for the loss of revenue. A 1999 Dallas Morning News analysis found that "many [taxpayers] are still paying as much as they did in 1997, or more." Republican Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry called the cuts "rather illusory."

One of Bush's biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with analyses of where the money would really go. A report by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal outfit that specializes in distribution analysis, figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and NBC News all reported that Bush's package produced the results CTJ calculated.

To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.

As he sold his tax cuts from the White House, Bush maintained in 2001 that with his plan, "the greatest percentage of tax relief goes to the people at the bottom end of the ladder." This was trickery--technically true only because low-income earners pay so little income tax to begin with. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, "a two-parent family of four with income of $26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush plan, which is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes." But here was the punch line: The family owed only $20 in income taxes under the existing law. Its overall tax bill (including payroll and excise taxes), though, was $2,500. So that twenty bucks represented less than 1 percent of its tax burden. Bush's "greatest percentage" line was meaningless in the real world, where people paid their bills with money, not percentages.

Bush also claimed his tax plan--by eliminating the estate tax, at a cost of $300 billion--would "keep family farms in the family." But, as the New York Times reported, farm-industry experts could not point to a single case of a family losing a farm because of estate taxes. Asked about this, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "If you abolish the death tax, people won't have to hire all those planners to help them keep the land that's rightfully theirs." Caught in a $300 billion lie, the White House was now saying the reason to abolish the tax--a move that would be a blessing to the richest 2 percent of Americans--was to spare farmers the pain in the ass of estate planning. Bush's lies did not hinder him. They helped him win the first tax-cut fight--and, then, the tax-cut battle of 2003. When his second set of supersized tax cuts was assailed for being tilted toward the rich, he claimed, "Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money." The Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute found that, contrary to Bush's assertion, nearly 80 percent of tax filers would receive less than $1,083, and almost half would pocket less than $100. The truly average taxpayers--those in the middle of the income range--would receive $265. Bush was using the word "average" in a flimflam fashion. To concoct the misleading $1,083 figure, the Administration took the large dollar amounts high-income taxpayers would receive and added that to the modest, small or nonexistent reductions other taxpayers would get--and then used this total to calculate an average gain. His claim was akin to saying that if a street had nine households led by unemployed individuals but one with an earner making a million dollars, the average income of the families on the block would be $100,000. The radical Wall Street Journal reported, "Overall, the gains from the taxes are weighted toward upper-income taxpayers."

The Environment

One of Bush's first PR slip-ups as President came when his EPA announced that it would withdraw a new standard for arsenic in drinking water that had been developed during the Clinton years. Bush defended this move by claiming that the new standard had been irresponsibly rushed through: "At the very last minute my predecessor made a decision, and we pulled back his decision so that we can make a decision based upon sound science and what's realistic." And his EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, said the standard had not been based on the "best available science." This was a harsh charge. And untrue.

The new arsenic standard was no quickie job unattached to reasonable scientific findings. The EPA had worked for a decade on establishing the new, 10-parts-per-billion standard. Congress had directed the agency to establish a new standard, and it had authorized $2.5 million a year for studies from 1997 through 2000. A 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had concluded that the existing 50-ppb standard "could easily" result in a 1-in-100 cancer risk and had recommended that acceptable levels be lowered "as promptly as possible." EPA policy-makers had thought that a 3-ppb standard would have been justified by the science, yet they took cost considerations into account and went for the less stringent 10 ppb.

Bush's arsenic move appeared to have been based upon a political calculation--even though Bush, as a candidate, had said he would not decide key policy matters on the basis of politics. But in his book The Right Man, David Frum, a former Bush economic speechwriter, reported that Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, had "pressed for reversal" of the arsenic standard in an attempt to win votes in New Mexico, one of a few states that have high naturally occurring levels of arsenic and that would face higher costs in meeting the new standard.

Several months after the EPA suspended the standard, a new NAS study concluded that the 10-ppb standard was indeed scientifically justified and possibly not tight enough. After that, the Administration decided that the original 10 ppb was exactly the right level for a workable rule, even though the latest in "best available science" now suggested that the 10-ppb level might not adequately safeguard water drinkers.

The arsenic screw-up was one of the few lies for which Bush took a hit. On the matter of global warming, he managed to lie his way through a controversy more deftly. Months into his presidency, Bush declared that he was opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 global warming accord. To defend his retreat from the treaty, he cited "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge." This was a misleading argument, for the scientific consensus was rather firm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international body of thousands of scientists assembled by the UN and the World Meteorological Organization, held that global temperatures were dramatically on the rise and that this increase was, to an unspecified degree, a result of human-induced emissions.

In early June 2001 the NAS released a report Bush had requested, and it concluded global warming was under way and "most likely due to human activities." Rather than accept the analysis it had commissioned, the Bush White House countered with duplicity. Press secretary Fleischer maintained that the report "concludes that the Earth is warming. But it is inconclusive on why--whether it's man-made causes or whether it's natural causes." That was not spinning. That was prevaricating. The study blamed "human activities" while noting that "natural variability" might be a contributing factor too.

Still, the Bush White House wanted to make it seem as if Bush did take the issue seriously. So on June 11, he delivered a speech on global warming and pledged to craft an alternative to Kyoto that would "reduce" emissions. The following February he unveiled his plan. "Our immediate goal," Bush said, "is to reduce America's greenhouse-gas emissions relative to the size of our economy."

Relative to the size of our economy? This was a ruse. Since the US economy is generally growing, this meant emissions could continue to rise, as long as the rate of increase was below the rate of economic growth. The other industrialized nations, with the Kyoto accord, were calling for reductions below 1990 levels. Bush was pushing for slower increases above 2000 levels. Bush's promise to lower emissions had turned out to be no more than hot air.

September 11

As many Americans and others yearned to make sense of the evil attacks of September 11, Bush elected to share with the public a deceptively simplistic explanation of this catastrophe. Repeatedly, he said that the United States had been struck because of its love of freedom. "America was targeted for attack," he maintained, "because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." This was shallow analysis, a comic-book interpretation of the event that covered up complexities and denied Americans information crucial for developing a full understanding of the attacks. In the view Bush furnished, Osama bin Laden was a would-be conqueror of the world, a man motivated solely by irrational evil, who killed for the purpose of destroying freedom.

But as the State Department's own terrorism experts--as well as nongovernment experts--noted, bin Laden was motivated by a specific geostrategic and theological aim: to chase the United States out of the Middle East in order to ease the way for a fundamentalist takeover of the region. Peter Bergen, a former CNN producer and the first journalist to arrange a television interview with bin Laden, observes in his book Holy War, Inc., "What [bin Laden] condemns the United States for is simple: its policies in the Middle East." Rather than acknowledge the realities of bin Laden's war on America, Bush attempted to create and perpetuate a war-on-freedom myth.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush was disingenuous on other fronts. Days after the attack, he asserted, "No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft--fly US aircraft--into buildings full of innocent people." His aides echoed this sentiment for months. They were wrong. Such a scenario had been imagined and feared by terrorism experts. And plots of this sort had previously been uncovered and thwarted by security services in other nations--in operations known to US officials. According to the 9/11 inquiry conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, the US intelligence establishment had received numerous reports that bin Laden and other terrorists were interested in mounting 9/11-like strikes against the United States.

Fourteen months after the attack, Bush said, "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." But his actions belied this rhetoric. His White House refused to turn over information to the intelligence committees about a pre-9/11 intelligence briefing he had had seen, and the Bush Administration would not allow the committees to tell the public what intelligence warnings Bush had received before September 11. More famously, Bush would not declassify the twenty-seven-page portion of the committees' final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia. And following September 11, Bush repeatedly maintained that his Administration was doing everything possible to secure the nation. But that was not true. The Administration did not move--and has not moved--quickly to address gaping security concerns, including vulnerabilities at chemical plants and ports and a huge shortfall in resources for first responders [see Corn, "Homeland Insecurity," September 22].

It did not start with Iraq. Bush has been lying throughout the presidency. He claimed he had not gotten to know disgraced Enron chief Ken Lay until after the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election. But Lay had been one of Bush's larger contributors during that election and had--according to Lay himself--been friends with Bush for years before it. In June 2001, Bush said, "We're not going to deploy a [missile defense] system that doesn't work." But then he ordered the deployment of a system that was not yet operational. (A June 2003 General Accounting Office study noted, "Testing to date has provided only limited data for determining whether the system will work as intended.") His White House claimed that it was necessary to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to "secure America's energy needs." But the US Geological Survey noted that the amount of oil that might be found there would cover up to slightly more than two years' worth of oil consumption. Such a supply would hardly "secure" the nation's needs.

Speaking for his boss, Fleischer in 2002 said, "the President does, of course, believe that younger workers...are going to receive no money for their Social Security taxes." No money? That was not so. A projected crunch will hit in four decades or so. But even when this happens, the system will be able to pay an estimated 70 percent of benefits--which is somewhat more than "no money." When Bush in August 2001 announced he would permit federal funding of stem-cell research only for projects that used existing stem-cell lines--in a move to placate social conservatives, who opposed this sort of research--he said that there were sixty existing lines, and he asserted that his decision "allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research." Yet at the time--according to scientific experts in the field and various media reports--there were closer to ten available lines, not nearly enough to support a promising research effort.

Does Bush believe his own untruths? Did he truly consider a WMD-loaded Saddam Hussein an imminent threat to the United States? Or was he knowingly employing dramatic license because he wanted war for other reasons? Did he really think the average middle-class taxpayer would receive $1,083 from his second tax-cut plan? Or did he realize this was a fuzzy number cooked up to make the package seem a better deal than it was for middle- and low-income workers? Did he believe there were enough stem-cell lines to support robust research? Or did he know he had exaggerated the number of lines in order to avoid a politically tough decision?

It's hard to tell. Bush's public statements do suggest he is a binary thinker who views the world in black-and-white terms. You're either for freedom or against it. With the United States or not. Tax cuts are good--always. The more tax cuts the better--always. He's impatient with nuances. Asked in 1999 to name something he wasn't good at, Bush replied, "Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something." Bush likes life to be clear-cut. And perhaps that causes him to either bend the truth or see (and promote) a bent version of reality. Observers can debate whether Bush considers his embellishments and misrepresentations to be the honest-to-God truth or whether he cynically hurls falsehoods to con the public. But believer or deceiver--the result is the same.

With his misrepresentations and false assertions, Bush has dramatically changed the nation and the world. Relying on deceptions, he turned the United States into an occupying power. Using lies, he pushed through tax cuts that will profoundly reshape the US budget for years to come, most likely insuring a long stretch of deficits that will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the federal government to fund existing programs or contemplate new ones.

Does Bush lie more than his predecessors, more than his political opponents? That's irrelevant. He's guiding the nation during difficult and perhaps perilous times, in which a credible President is much in need. Prosperity or economic decline? War or peace? Security or fear? This country has a lot to deal with. Lies from the White House poison the debates that must occur if Americans are going to confront and overcome the challenges of this century at home and abroad.

Presidential lying, in fact, threatens the country. To render informed and wise choices about the crucial and complicated controversies of the day, people need truthful information. The President is generally in a position to define and dominate a debate more than other political players. And a lie from the White House--or a fib or a misrepresentation or a fudged number--can go a long way toward distorting the national discussion.

Bush campaigned for the presidency as the fellow who would bring honesty back to the White House. During his first full day on the job, while swearing in his White House staff, he reminded his cadre, "On a mantelpiece in this great house is inscribed the prayer of John Adams, that only the wise and honest may rule under this roof." But Adams's prayer would once more go unanswered. There has been no restoration of integrity. Bush's promise was a lie. The future of the United States remains in the hands of a dishonest man.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn

[RandomGuy]

Or try one of the 25 MILLION links to "bush lies".... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+lies&btnG=Google+Search)

[RandomGuy]

Oddly enough, I did an experiment for this too...

"Republican lies" gives 12 million hits... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=republican+lies&btnG=Search)

... and "democrat lies" get about 5 and 1/2 million (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=democrat+lies&btnG=Search)

Make of that what you will...

[RandomGuy]

The REALLY sad thing is that the article is a couple of years old.

How many NEW lies has the president told in the last two years?

(heads to google to find some examples)

[RandomGuy]

Today's Bush Lie

"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"

"...And this isn't the first time the Internet has baffled Bush. Back in 2003, the President cited another student's thesis when making a case to go to war. The student's [plagiarized and "sexed up"] work ended up in a government document describing Iraq's weapons capability. Not exactly the kind of hard intelligence needed to justify an attack on another country." The Register, 07.28.04

[RandomGuy]

Here is a good article on HOW Bush lies, I found this one to be kind of instructive.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm

(selected excerpts)

1) Stating as fact what are allegations — often highly dubious ones (this is a staple of Bush’s speeches and Powell’s U.N. presentation; I’ll limit myself to three):

2) Withholding the key fact that destroys the moral underpinning of an argument

3) Misrepresentation/Invention:

4) Delegated lying/Team lying:

5) Straw man:[here's one that sounds familiar--RG]

6) Withholding the key fact that would alert viewers that the purported grave threat is non-existent:

7) Using mistranslation and misquotation to plant a frightening impression in the minds of trusting citizens that is the exact opposite of what you know to be true:

8) Putting the most frightening interpretation on a piece of evidence while pretending that no other interpretation exists:

9) Withholding highly relevant information that would weaken your case, because what you really want to obtain from the citizenry is “the UNINFORMED consent of the governed”:

[This is really the BIG one that I have caught Bush on the most--RG]

10) Bold declarations of hot air:

11) Creating in the public mind an intense but unfounded fear:

12) Citing old news as if it’s relevant today, while leaving out the reason it’s not:

13) Transference:

14) Hallucinatory lying:

15) Withholding the key fact that would show your principled pose to be a pose devoid of principle:


[note: the whole article lists the various supporting and explanatory lies and why they were lies]

[Hook Dem]

Having fun posting all by yourself? :lol

[SA210]

RandomGuy, what is wrong with you? How dare u call our President a liar at a time of war? U must be against the troops. Oh, and btw, how dare u prove Bush is a liar by using facts. That's not fair. Can't u just realize what is really important; Clinton got a blowjob.

[SA210]

Having fun posting all by yourself? :lol
it's usually what happens when u use facts. usually u hear crickets.

[boutons]

"Having fun posting all by yourself?"

more interesting and useful than your dumbshit, content-free bullshit.

[SA210]

Today's Bush Lie

"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"

"...And this isn't the first time the Internet has baffled Bush. Back in 2003, the President cited another student's thesis when making a case to go to war. The student's [plagiarized and "sexed up"] work ended up in a government document describing Iraq's weapons capability. Not exactly the kind of hard intelligence needed to justify an attack on another country." The Register, 07.28.04

Be careful RandomGuy, u could be looked at as a traitor and that u may be backing up Castro over the US. :rolleyes

[boutons]

another lie about Iraq-Al Qaida link.

Torture works great.

============================

The New York Times
December 9, 2005

Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.

A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.

A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.

At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody.

Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him.

While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.

Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists.

The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week.

Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials. He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004, and his current location is not known. A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case. The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified.

During his time in Egyptian custody, Mr. Libi was among a group of what American officials have described as about 150 prisoners sent by the United States from one foreign country to another since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks for the purposes of interrogation. American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.

Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he had no specific knowledge of Mr. Libi's case. Mr. Fahmy acknowledged that some prisoners had been sent to Egypt by mutual agreement between the United States and Egypt. "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture," Mr. Fahmy said. "We're not in the business of torturing anyone."

In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons. Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."

The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers."

The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.

Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified.

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

[jochhejaam]

Or try one of the 25 MILLION links to "bush lies".... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+lies&btnG=Google+Search)
Or if you're really bored try one of the 84 MILLION links to bush great. :lmao


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+great

[jochhejaam]

Or try one of the 25 MILLION links to "bush lies".... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+lies&btnG=Google+Search)
And if you type in Quotation marks "President George Bush is a liar" you come up with only thirty six (36). :lol

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22President+George+Bush+is+a+liar%22

What a lame point you make with the googling thing.

And you have the nerve to speak of intellectual honesty!

[jochhejaam]

Oddly enough, I did an experiment for this too...

"Republican lies" gives 12 million hits... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=republican+lies&btnG=Search)

... and "democrat lies" get about 5 and 1/2 million (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=democrat+lies&btnG=Search)

Make of that what you will...

Random Guy Lies <googled> Whoa! 3,510,000 :lol

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Random+Guy+Lies&btnG=Search

[RandomGuy]

Or if you're really bored try one of the 84 MILLION links to bush great. :lmao


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bush+great


Heh, you might want to look at some of the links from that search.

"Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?"

"Bush's great leap forward"
-Bush's 'Great Leap Forward' Our Great Helmsman is steering us toward disaster.

Bush's Great Debate -- With Himself


:lol

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy Lies <googled> Whoa! 3,510,000 :lol

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Random+Guy+Lies&btnG=Search


heh, that is actually kinda fun. I love the randomness.

[RandomGuy]

Having fun posting all by yourself? :lol


I just wanted to build up a good case.

I noticed that you and jocche seem to have very pointedly not admitted that Bush has lied through his teeth before during and after both elections.

He makes Clinton seem honest in comparison.

[RandomGuy]

And if you type in Quotation marks "President George Bush is a liar" you come up with only thirty six (36). :lol

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22President+George+Bush+is+a+liar%22

What a lame point you make with the googling thing.

And you have the nerve to speak of intellectual honesty!


I said "make of it what you will". I simply thought it amusing, no more no less.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/changingsubject.jpg


Back to the poster child for deceit and half-truth...

[jochhejaam]

I just wanted to build up a good case.

I noticed that you and jocche seem to have very pointedly not admitted that Bush has lied through his teeth before during and after both elections.

He makes Clinton seem honest in comparison.

Makes Cliinton seem honest? Let's not get carried away here. :lol

[boutons]

Here's another way dubya/dickhead lie.

By promising they will do something (which requires spending many $Bs), but never doing it.

The only promises dubya/dickhead keep are those to cut taxes for rich+corps campaign contributors.

=====================

The New York Times
December 9, 2005

Op-Ed Columnist

The Promiser in Chief
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Sometimes reconstruction delayed is reconstruction denied.

A few months after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush promised to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and economy. He - or, at any rate, his speechwriters - understood that reconstruction was important not just for its own sake, but as a way to deprive the growing insurgency of support. In October 2003 he declared that "the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become."

But for a long time, Iraqi reconstruction was more of a public relations exercise than a real effort. Remember when visiting congressmen were taken on tours of newly painted schools?

Both supporters and opponents of the war now argue that by moving so slowly on reconstruction, the Bush administration missed a crucial window of opportunity. By the time reconstruction spending began in earnest, it was in a losing race with a deteriorating security situation.

As a result, the electricity and jobs that were supposed to make the killers desperate never arrived. Iraq produced less electricity last month than in October 2003. The Iraqi government estimates the unemployment rate at 27 percent, but the real number is probably much higher.

Now we're losing another window of opportunity for reconstruction. But this time it's at home.

Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush made an elaborately staged appearance in New Orleans, where he promised big things. "The work that has begun in the Gulf Coast region," he said, "will be one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen."

Such an effort would be the right thing to do. We can argue about details - about which levees should be restored and how strong to make them - but it's clearly in the nation's interests as well as local residents' to rebuild much of the regional economy.

But Mr. Bush seems to have forgotten about his promise. More than three months after Katrina, a major reconstruction effort isn't even in the planning stage, let alone under way. "To an extent almost inconceivable a few months ago," a Los Angeles Times report about New Orleans says, "the only real actors in the rebuilding drama at the moment are the city's homeowners and business owners."

It's worth noting in passing that Mr. Bush hasn't even appointed a new team to fix the dysfunctional Federal Emergency Management Agency. Most of the agency's key positions, including the director's job - left vacant by the departure of Michael "heck of a job" Brown - are filled on an acting basis, by temporary place holders. The chief of staff is still a political loyalist with no prior disaster management experience.

One FEMA program has, however, been revamped. The Recovery Channel is a satellite and Internet network that used to provide practical information to disaster victims. Now it features public relations segments telling viewers what a great job FEMA and the Bush administration are doing.

But back to reconstruction. By letting the gulf region languish, Mr. Bush is allowing a window of opportunity to close, just as he did in Iraq.

To see why, you need to understand a point emphasized by that report in The Los Angeles Times: the private sector can't rebuild the region on its own. The reason goes beyond the need for flood protection and basic infrastructure, which only the government can provide. Rebuilding is also blocked by a vicious circle of uncertainty. Business owners are reluctant to return to the gulf region because they aren't sure whether their customers and workers will return, too. And families are reluctant to return because they aren't sure whether businesses will be there to provide jobs and basic amenities.

A credible reconstruction plan could turn that vicious circle into a virtuous circle, in which everyone expects a regional recovery and, by acting on that expectation, helps that recovery come to pass. But as the months go by with no plan and no money, businesses and families will make permanent decisions to relocate elsewhere, and the loss of faith in a gulf region recovery will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Funny, isn't it? Back during the 2000 campaign Mr. Bush promised to avoid "nation building." And so he has. He failed to rebuild Iraq because he waited too long to get started. And now he's doing the same thing here at home.

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

[boutons]

Here's another lying sonofabitch warhawk of a desk jockey whose bullshit contributed hugely to the pack of pre-war lies.

Wolfie's reward for lying about Iraq? Presidency of the World Bank

Wolfowitz was also the guy saying the Iraq war and reconstruction would be "self-financing", as soon as the American invaders got their hands on the Iraqi oil revenue. what an asshole.

===========================

washingtonpost.com

Intelligence Design and the Architecture of War

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, December 8, 2005; A03

On another day when the Iraq war was tearing Washington apart, a leading architect of that war, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was donning sheep's clothing over at the National Press Club.

The former deputy defense secretary, now president of the World Bank, gave a 30-minute speech yesterday about the virtues of peace, the ills of poverty and the benefits of multilateralism -- without a mention of Iraq.

"One of the things that's fun about this job is [that] development is a unifying mission and you can get a lot of people together across a table to put their political differences aside," said the man President Bush calls "Wolfie."

Only when questioners pressed him about Iraq would Wolfowitz address the subject. "How do you account for the intelligence failures regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" he was asked.

"Well," he said after a long pause, "I don't have to."

Being Wolfie means not having to say you're sorry. Nearly three years ago, he offered some of the most memorable forecasts about Iraq: that it was "wildly off the mark" to think hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq; that the Iraqis "are going to welcome us as liberators"; and that "it is just wrong" to assume that the United States would have to fund the Iraq war.

Wolfowitz was 0-for-3 on those, but since taking the World Bank job six months ago he has found a second act. He has toured sub-Saharan Africa, danced with the natives in a poor Indian village, badgered the United States to make firmer foreign aid commitments, and cuddled up to the likes of Bono and George Clooney.

But Iraq haunts him still. Outside the National Press Building yesterday, a half-dozen demonstrators greeted Wolfowitz with a sign saying, "Wolfowitz Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction." Upstairs, Wolfowitz entered the ballroom to scattered applause from a respectable, but not capacity, crowd. Wolfowitz lunched on filet mignon -- and press club President Richard S. Dunham of Business Week tried to goad him into a red-meat speech.

"His admirers have called him the intellectual high priest of the neoconservatives," Dunham said in his introduction. "I can't repeat some of the things his critics have called him." Wolfowitz pursed his lips and sipped his coffee as Dunham recalled how Wolfowitz "drew fire from Democrats for predicting that U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators." By the time Dunham got to Wolfowitz's student deferment during Vietnam, Wolfowitz was shaking his head.

Wolfowitz, hoarse with a case of laryngitis, said he had received some lavish introductions before, and "this isn't that kind of introduction." He then read a prepared text that sounded more Mother Teresa than Vice President Cheney.

He noted that there are "as many orphans from AIDS in sub-Sararan Africa as there are children east of the Mississippi." He recalled his visit to "a poor village just outside of Ouagadougou." He lamented the "1.2 billion people worldwide living on less than a dollar a day." And he urged people to remember the World Bank's lofty mission, "helping free the world of poverty."

The crowd was silent through this talk, except for the occasional clink of teaspoon in coffee cup. Dunham, reading questions submitted by the audience, softened up Wolfowitz with some queries allowing Wolfowitz to establish his independence. "I work for 184 countries; I don't work for the Bush administration," Wolfowitz said. He even asserted that Bush's foreign aid spending is not "adequate."

With 10 minutes to go, Dunham started the Iraq questions. Wolfowitz insisted that, "believe it or not," his Iraq role has not interfered with his work at the World Bank.

Asked about the weapons in Iraq, Wolfowitz explained that this wasn't his problem. "And it's not just because I don't work for the U.S. government anymore," he said. "In my old job I didn't have to. I was like everyone else outside the intelligence community. . . . We relied on the intelligence community for those judgments, so the question is, in a way, how do they account for it?"

It was an unexpected response from a man who, as the Pentagon's No. 2, sat atop 80 percent of the nation's intelligence budget and an intelligence agency that made particularly aggressive claims about Iraq's weapons. But Wolfowitz said the military shared his fear that weapons of mass destruction could be used against U.S. troops. "If you have any doubt about it, read Bob Woodward's book," he suggested.

Wolfowitz was asked about the common criticism that more troops should have been used to pacify Iraq. "Um," he said after a long pause, then paused again before concluding, "I personally don't think more troops would have answered the problem."

Dunham took the precaution of presenting Wolfowitz with the customary press club mug and certificate "before we ask the final question," and for good reason: It tied the Nuremburg war trials to Wolfowitz and the Iraq war.

Wolfowitz was unbowed. "I still think that what has been done for the United States and the world is something important," he said. Praising the sacrifices of U.S. and allied troops, he added that Iraq will become a place of "tolerance and freedom" in the Muslim world. "I think the whole world, frankly, should be enormously grateful."

Wolfowitz took a back elevator to the garage and avoided the protest outside.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Useruser666]

A politician is a liar? OMG!!! I hope he's the only one!

[SA210]

Makes Cliinton seem honest? Let's not get carried away here. :lol
Everyone, do u still see the spin, the changing of subjects, not admiting Bush is a liar and that he will lie at all costs to get what he wants no matter how small or big?

Let's bring up anything and respond to a post full of nothing just for the sake of saying we posted so noone says we avoided this particular political thread, one of the most important threads in the entire history of SpursTalk. :rolleyes

I'm sure they'll post their own "Clinton or Dems are liars" thread, but they won't admit the actual point of this incompitent, lying, evil president that is ruining our country right now.

[xrayzebra]

Everyone, do u still see the spin, the changing of subjects, not admiting Bush is a liar and that he will lie at all costs to get what he wants no matter how small or big?

Let's bring up anything and respond to a post full of nothing just for the sake of saying we posted so noone says we avoided this particular political thread, one of the most important threads in the entire history of SpursTalk. :rolleyes

I'm sure they'll post their own "Clinton or Dems are liars" thread, but they won't admit the actual point of this incompitent, lying, evil president that is ruining our country right now.

Ah yes, let's post from a Left Wing Socialist group, like "The Nation" who supports:




Editor's Cut
Annals of Outrage III
Katrina vanden Heuvel | A top ten list of the Bush Administration's most egregious corruption scandals of 2005.


ActNow!
Release Them Unharmed
Peter Rothberg | Join Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy, Rashid Khalidi, Cindy Sheehan and many others in calling for release of peace activists in Iraq.


The Online Beat
An Antiwar Challenge to Hillary Clinton
John Nichols | Veteran union leader and activist Jonathan Tasini will run in 2006 Democratic primary.


Capital Games
Beyond Wilkerson's Remark on Cheney as a War Criminal
David Corn | The former Powell aide again blasts Cheney; he also raises serious questions about the prewar intelligence and the post-invasion planning.





Important articles from around the web.

British Court Bars Testimony Extracted Under Torture | The Guardian -- posted 12/9/2005 7:45 EST

Deal on Patriot Act Stirs Opposition | Reuters.com -- posted 12/8/2005 19:49 EST

Imagine There's No Heaven: An Atheist Manifesto | Sam Harris/TruthDig -- posted 12/8/2005 14:51 EST

Christian Peacemakers and the Failure of the Left | Mark LeVine/Mother Jones -- posted 12/7/2005 16:24 EST

The Jesus Symbol, the Witch and the Wardrobe | Laura Miller/Salon -- posted 12/7/2005 16:16 EST

Bush in Iraq: Slouching Towards Genocide | ConsortiumNews.com -- posted 12/7/2005 11:26 EST





Support the National Forest Protection/ Restoration Act


Support a Commission to Investigate Detainee Abuses


Has the US Misused Iraq Reconstruction Funds?


Support Local Radio!


Long Live the Estate Tax
================================================== ======

Yes, yes. My fine feathered friends. You show your true colors each
and everyday. Let me see, you say you support the troops, yet you
put down the Commander in Chief. What you really want is a defeat for
this country and George Bush. You think this will bring you back to
your glory days. You care only for a socialist policy, to hell with the
United States. You not only don't support our troops, you don't and
wont support your own country. Bush owns you and your dumb ass
stupid ideas. You folks are wrong as two LEFT feet. What a bunch of
losers. Bush three more years, love it.
:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

[Hook Dem]

"Having fun posting all by yourself?"

more interesting and useful than your dumbshit, content-free bullshit.
As usual, FUCK YOU BOUTONS!!!!!!! :lol

[SA210]

Xray, what is funny, is I knew yall would try to say "look at the source." :lmao just more spin and deflections from the actual point, again.

When I hear Bush talk, how's that's for a source? Directly from the liar of all liars. The man that was to retore honor and integrity.

[xrayzebra]

^^^^babe, you spin like a top. Like it or not, you still got him for three more
years and your side is still a bunch of sore losers, always have been, always
will be. It is just your nature. The really sad thing is is that you support people
like Tookie, Hillary (except when she doesn't toe to mark), Castro and their ilk.

[SA210]

^^^ you are spinning in every way we said u would spin. We support Hillary or don't, Kerry this, Cinton that. I actually posted before, that you'd say we support Castro :lmao.

The fact remains. Bush is a liar. No way around that. It's ok to admit that. It really is.

[xrayzebra]

^^^yep, I support my President and country. No embarrassment here. And
I said you support Castro, I sure did and meant it.

[RandomGuy]

Makes Cliinton seem honest? Let's not get carried away here. :lol


Have you done ANY reading on Bush? In all due seriousness, Bush's machine is waaay more well-oiled and dishonest than Clinton ever was.

The photo-op town hall meetings during the campaigns were a good indicator of the lengths they were willing to go to.

It isn't much of a town meeting if you only pack in people who are ardent supporters and spoon feed the candidate questions.

The payment of journalists for favorable stories was never something the Clinton white house ever did.

The list goes on. You hated Clinton because you thought HE was "slick" and you give THIS guy a free ride for 8 years without calling him on his bull-puckey?

What WILL it take for you to admit that Bush might not be a paragon of honesty?

[RandomGuy]

[ a lot of stuff that really isn't worth repeating]



http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/nice_one.jpg

[SA210]

^^^yep, I support my President and country. No embarrassment here. And
I said you support Castro, I sure did and meant it.
Just because Bush is a liar doesn't mean someone doesn't support their country. But u actually know this. You just hope ppl bite on your accusations and go with it, like other conservatives do. Evil tactic.

Typical conservative nonsense, spin, excuses, and lies to deflect the real issue.
You have as much credibilty as Gtown.

[Oh, Gee!!]

yet you put down the Commander in Chief.

did you never put down Clinton when he was Commander-in-Chief? Just wondering how far your uber-righteous attitude extends. To everyone or just people that don't like your guy Bush?

[Mr. Peabody]

did you never put down Clinton when he was Commander-in-Chief? Just wondering how far your uber-righteous attitude extends. To everyone or just people that don't like your guy Bush?

We are in the middle of a war, Oh Gee!. What part of that don't you understand? You undermine our troops and attack Christmas by saying negative things about Bush.

Every time something negative is said about President Bush, it makes baby Jesus cry.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Who here thinks we should send Xray to Iraq so he can show his support for Dubya?

[SA210]

and Gtown?

[Oh, Gee!!]

and joecham (?) or whoever the fuck he is

[Mr. Peabody]

Who here thinks we should send Xray to Iraq so he can show his support for Dubya?

He'd probably turn chicken hawk just like those he supports in this administration.

[Oh, Gee!!]

He'd probably turn chicken hawk just like those he supports in this administration.


Nah, I heard he served in 'Nam. Killed him some gook babies. Woot Woot

[SA210]

nah, can we send Bush? He already has the flight suit.

[xrayzebra]

Who here thinks we should send Xray to Iraq so he can show his support for Dubya?

My friend, I would go in a New York minute. I spent over 20 years in the
military, two of which was in the Middle East. I tried getting recalled and
was turned down. They don't want men of my age. But I will guarantee you
one thing, if I could I would and do so gladly. What the hell have you done
for your country lately, except tell everyone how bad it is. :depressed

[xrayzebra]

He'd probably turn chicken hawk just like those he supports in this administration.

Yeah, Mr. peabody has spoken again, and still is saying zip.
:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

[SA210]

My friend, I would go in a New York minute. I spent over 20 years in the
military, two of which was in the Middle East. I tried getting recalled and
was turned down. They don't want men of my age. But I will guarantee you
one thing, if I could I would and do so gladly. What the hell have you done
for your country lately, except tell everyone how bad it is. :depressed

No, just saying the president is bad, and a liar.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What the hell have you done for your country lately

voted for Kerry and against the idiot that's going to get us all killed

[gtownspur]

Bush is going to kill you?

Really. Where can i drop of a hefty campaign contribution?:lol

[bigzak25]

regarding the title of the thread, of course Bush fucking lies.

he's a politician isn't he?

he's just not as good as billy bob was. thus the hate.

[boutons]

"he's just not as good as billy bob was. thus the hate."

TOTAL BULLSHIT, dubya/dickhead/condi/powell/wolfie/WHIG/etc ...

lying their way into a war

... in an orchestrated campaign of lying over years is completely different from run-of-the-mill politician's lies, such as campaign promises, lying about consensual sex between adults, etc.

1000's of American military are dying for the Repugs lies, along with 10's of 1000s of Iraqis.

[xrayzebra]

"he's just not as good as billy bob was. thus the hate."

TOTAL BULLSHIT, dubya/dickhead/condi/powell/wolfie/WHIG/etc ...

lying their way into a war

... in an orchestrated campaign of lying over years is completely different from run-of-the-mill politician's lies, such as campaign promises, lying about consensual sex between adults, etc.

1000's of American military are dying for the Repugs lies, along with 10's of 1000s of Iraqis.

That's a good boy boutons, get it all out of your system. Bush lied, Bush
lied. The other side is the good guys. Now don't you feel better.

[SA210]

That's a good boy boutons, get it all out of your system. Bush lied, Bush
lied. The other side is the good guys. Now don't you feel better.

Yea, Bush lied, and he still lies.

[ThugJohnson]

But what is your fucking point?

did you think Clinton or any other fucking President EVER, never told a lie?

even Washington lied. of course he fucking cut down that cherry tree, but if you believe he copped to it the 1st time, your fooling yourself.

every man and woman on earth has lied.

[SA210]

Blame others as a defense as well. As expected.

Bush lied.

[RandomGuy]

But what is your fucking point?

did you think Clinton or any other fucking President EVER, never told a lie?

even Washington lied. of course he fucking cut down that cherry tree, but if you believe he copped to it the 1st time, your fooling yourself.

every man and woman on earth has lied.

That's my point exactly.

I have talked to some Bush supporters who believe everything the man says, including a couple in this forum.

Scary.

[jochhejaam]

That's my point exactly.

I have talked to some Bush supporters who believe everything the man says, including a couple in this forum.

Scary .
What's so scary about it?



You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
-Abraham Lincoln-

[mikejones99]

It does not matter is Bush lies or not. He is the boss and is rich so he can do whatever he wants in the USA.

[spurster]

Realistically, you can't believe anything that comes out of a President's mouth or any of his sycophants. You have to look at the results.

[mikejones99]

Is that the greatest shot in NBA history or what? Hello michigan

[SA210]

It does not matter is Bush lies or not. He is the boss and is rich so he can do whatever he wants in the USA.
Well, that makes it all better.

[SA210]

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
George W. Bush


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
George W. Bush

Flip Flop

[SA210]

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." —Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

Dumbya

[RandomGuy]

What's so scary about it?


"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
---Abraham Lincoln

[boutons]

"They don't want men of my age"

damn, that's a shame. Signing up to get killed fighting bogus Repug war would be more evidence of natural selection weeding out the the dumbshits. :)

[gtownspur]

But if you look at it, it would equal out with liberal women aborting Liberal kids.<sarcasm>

[SA210]

Man, it sure is quiet in here......

[zeleni]

I never had sexual relationship with that woman
Bill Clinton

Mission Accomplished
George Bush

You can't handle the truth
Few good men

[SA210]

"I know poor people and what it's like to be poor" -San Antonio, TX 2005 in a forum discussion
Gtownspur


"Homeless people don't recieve any type of government assistance"
-San Antonio, TX 2005 forum discussion
Gtownspur


"Cutting government assistance programs like housing, welfare and foodstamps won't effect the homeless at all" -San Antonio, TX 2005 again, in a public forum
Gtownspur

[SA210]

^^^ considering the above...

"If one is starving and needs change for a burger, i give them what they need."
-San Antonio, TX 2005 yes, in the forum
Gtownspur

[SA210]

On the "poor black man" in America....


"He sleeps around with as many women as he can, and in the process sprouts his seed around the city." -San Antonio 2005 Spurstalk Forum
Gtownspur

[SA210]

on the poor...

"Government programs have not been cut" -San Antonio 12/14/05 Ann Coulter thread
Xrayzebra

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg

[nkdlunch]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg

:lol

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/gwironic.jpg

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_liarliar.jpg

[xrayzebra]

^^Enjoy the Holidays. YOUR government, led by President Bush, will protect you,
in spite of you. And the only people lying are you and the rest of the dimm-o-craps.
What a bunch of sore losers, well, okay, just losers.

[SA210]

^^^^^

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_mantra.jpg

[xrayzebra]

"They don't want men of my age"

damn, that's a shame. Signing up to get killed fighting bogus Repug war would be more evidence of natural selection weeding out the the dumbshits. :)

Gee we are so damn brave when we can hide behind a computer keyboard.
I still wonder if you would say it to my face. What would you give your
life for, Clinton or protecting the terrorist rights. Or just to get Bush out
of office.


I have PM activated, care to email me?

[SA210]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_we-werent-soldiers.jpg

[SA210]

Bump


too important to ignore.

[boutons]

I don't follow the NFL anymore, so I couldn't have named Tungy before today's news.

But as I read the messages of sorrow and sympathy on the forum today, I immediately thought of the 2000+ sets other parents who've had their children lives wasted in Iraq for the lies of the string-pulling, privileged military service evaders dubya/dickhead who started this bullshit war and ran it with stupefying incompetence.

[xrayzebra]

Well for all my fine feathered friends in the forum who hate Bush, you now have
a firm allied.



Hussein: White House 'No. 1 liar in the world'
After day of outbursts, the trial adjourns until January

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The trial of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, which has fallen into a pattern of grim testimony interrupted by theatrical outbursts, adjourned Thursday for more than a month.

The trial resumes on January 24.

On Thursday, as in previous days, testimony about brutal treatment was interrupted by courtroom tirades by Hussein and his half brother.

Hussein charged Thursday that the Bush administration lied when it claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, just at it lied by disputing his claims of being beaten.

"The White House lies once more," Hussein said, "the No. 1 liar in the world. They said in Iraq, there is chemicals, and there is a relation to terrorism, and they announced later we couldn't find any of that in Iraq.

"Also, they said that what Saddam Hussein (said) was not true," he continued in an apparent reference to his claims Wednesday that he and all seven of his codefendants were beaten and tortured by their American captors.

Hussein: 'We don't lie'
"I have documented the injuries I had before three American medical teams," he said.

Hussein later appeared to waver, saying the medical teams numbered "two, for sure, unequivocally." He began to heal after eight months, he said, but bruises remain three years later.

"We don't lie," he said. "The White House lies."

The U.S. State Department and a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said Hussein's claims of beatings and torture were untrue.

Meanwhile, defense attorneys requested that the testimony of prosecution witnesses not be broadcast until all the witnesses have testified, saying they are watching each other's testimonies and repeating them. The court said it would consider that request.

A day of disruptions
Hussein and seven codefendants are charged with crimes against humanity, including the killings of 140 men and boys in the town of Dujail following a failed 1982 assassination attempt against Hussein there.

The trial went into a closed session Thursday at the end of an eventful day in which Hussein and his half brother, Barzan Ibrahim Hassan al-Tikriti repeatedly disrupted the proceedings.

The judge closed the session after Hassan, the former chief of intelligence, asked to speak to him in private. On Wednesday, Hassan said he wanted time to talk to the judge about his health.

Earlier in the day, Hassan launched into long political diatribes, hurling insults at prosecutors, complaining about the conditions of their detention and challenging the legitimacy of the court.

Ranting about the food he is being served, Hassan said a New York Times magazine column mentioned that his ribs are showing because of weight loss.

Hassan also accused prosecutors of being former Baath Party members, implying they should not be leveling accusations against him. The attorneys threatened to walk out and resign from the case.

"This is not justice," Hassan declared. "This is not democracy." Asked to stop by prosecutors, Hassan said, "My talk is strengthening the court, and will give it credibility."

Courtroom fracas
At one point, a fracas erupted among Hassan, Hussein and prosecutors, prompted by Hussein's claim that a guard had been rude to him. "He acted without your orders, so he should be disciplined," Hussein said. "He is a small employee." The guard was removed from the courtroom.

Hussein also challenged the validity of a witness, the first of two to testify Thursday from behind a curtain to protect his identity. The witness said he was 8 years old at the time of the Dujail killings, but testified his father, his three uncles and his grandmother were arrested and imprisoned.

"She complained to us about what had happened to her," he said of his grandmother, who was released after four years. "They used to torture her before her children and they would torture her children before her. She said, 'They tortured us, and we did not know for what reason.' "

Defense attorneys and Hussein complained about the witness because he was a child at the time, was not arrested and did not see any torture or killings personally.

"His testimony is documented and accepted, and he's underage (at the time)?" Hussein asked. "This is something I would like to understand. Is this allowed? Is this permissible?"

Hussein claims he was beaten
On Wednesday, Hussein said his American captors beat him "on every part of my body and marks are still on top of my body and that was done by Americans," Hussein said. "Yes, we were beaten by the Americans, and we were tortured, everyone of us." (Watch Hussein's claim of beatings -- 1:37)

Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Mousawi said he had visited the defendants in their cells and saw no signs of torture.

Christopher Reid, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said none of the defendants has been tortured or beaten.

Also on Wednesday, witness Ali Haj Hussein al-Haydari described more than four years of captivity and torture, and the execution of family members, including several brothers. His brother Hassan, who was among those killed, was one of six men who plotted unsuccessfully to assassinate Hussein.

More than 40 members of his family were taken into custody by government agents. Al-Haydari also talked of "walking through dead bodies" at the headquarters of the Baath Party, the ruling party during Hussein's regime. (Witness recounts seeing abuse, death -- 14:51)

Another witness said he was tortured three times with electric shocks during the initial 17-day period and beaten with cables during the time at Abu Ghraib.

"Even children were beaten with cables," he said. "Children died at Abu Ghraib."

CNN's Aneesh Raman contributed to this report
================================================== =======
Now doesn't that make all of you feel better to be on the same side, of someone
of this fine upstanding individual.

[SA210]

Big Bush Lies: Bush Lies, Then McClellen Lies In Cover-Up Attempt, Jerry Politex


"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act." --Washington Post, Dec. 21, '05.

This is not true. Bush was explaining that there was no difference between wiretaps before the Patriot Act and wiretaps after the Patriot Act: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." This was a lie, given the New York Times story on the subject on Dec. 16 and Bush's admission on December 17: "On Friday, the New York Times revealed that, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop inside the United States without court-approved warrants. The newspaper said thousands of people may have had their phone calls and e-mail monitored as a result. Bush, appearing angry during his radio address, called the program lawful and crucial to safeguarding America from further attacks." --Houston Chronicle.

[RandomGuy]

Gee we are so damn brave when we can hide behind a computer keyboard.
I still wonder if you would say it to my face. What would you give your
life for, Clinton or protecting the terrorist rights. Or just to get Bush out
of office.


I have PM activated, care to email me?

Human rights are human rights. They are in a word, "unalienable".

I would gladly give my life for a moral cause bigger than myself.

If this means giving an occasional homicidal maniac the same rights I would fight for myself or decendants, so be it.

The point in giving "terrorists" rights, and yes, even Saddam Hussein deserves the same rights, is that we are a civilization that respects the rule of law.

Anything less would mean that the people who have given, and who are willing to give "the last full measure of devotion" (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm) have given their that measure for naught.

Turning the clock backwards to a time where the law means nothing, means devolving our society back to one that resembles a developing world dictatorship.

If that is what you are for, you are more than welcome to move to Zimbabwe, I am sure you would be very comfortable with Mugabe's arbitrary style of leadership.

[RandomGuy]

Big Bush Lies: Bush Lies, Then McClellen Lies In Cover-Up Attempt, Jerry Politex


"A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources....At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act." --Washington Post, Dec. 21, '05.

This is not true. Bush was explaining that there was no difference between wiretaps before the Patriot Act and wiretaps after the Patriot Act: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." This was a lie, given the New York Times story on the subject on Dec. 16 and Bush's admission on December 17: "On Friday, the New York Times revealed that, after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop inside the United States without court-approved warrants. The newspaper said thousands of people may have had their phone calls and e-mail monitored as a result. Bush, appearing angry during his radio address, called the program lawful and crucial to safeguarding America from further attacks." --Houston Chronicle.


Just when Bush was recovering some tiny shred of credibility, here comes yet another example of how badly run the government is when the GOP is running things.

[SA210]

The other day, President Bush went on Fox News and lied.



U.S. President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff ``an equal money dispenser'' who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats.
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a ``culture of corruption'' to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that ``Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans,'' said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Jack Abramoff is a central figure in the conservative political machine of the GOP. Republicans are now desperately trying to spread the taint.

Clearly this story could have been even stronger, but at least Bloomberg went to the trouble of gathering the facts and providing their readers with enough information to conclude that the President was intentionally misleading the American people.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBTFEkGJUbSI&refer=us

[Oh, Gee!!]

Gee we are so damn brave when we can hide behind a computer keyboard.
I still wonder if you would say it to my face. What would you give your
life for, Clinton or protecting the terrorist rights. Or just to get Bush out
of office.


I have PM activated, care to email me?


Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Maybe you two should settle this like men at the next GTG. Have Kori set it up.

[SA210]

"Telling outright falsehoods has become old hat for the Bush Administration, hasn't it? I mean, really, we've had a whole load of whoppers lately, but in today's WaPo, Glenn Kessler unloads on the latest "urban legend" to come out of the Preznit's mouth.

It seems the whole "the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak." is nothing but a big, old lie.
The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.

It's kind of tough to blame it on the media when Bin Laden is the one who told the media in the first place that he was using satellite phones, now isn't it?"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122101994.html?sub=AR

[Nbadan]

A Bin Laden satellite phone?

:lol

Yeah, why doesn't Bin Laden just wear a bulleyes for the Predators?

[Oh, Gee!!]

is this the phone?

http://www.oaktreeent.com/web_photos/Telephones/US-West_Old-School_Cell_Phone_Vert_Tan_web.jpg

[SA210]

bump