RE: Why would Bush Lie?

RE: Why would Bush Lie? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LaTigresse -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/27/2006 3:41:56 PM)
oh yeah, my fuel and consumables are getting sooooo much cheaper.

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/27/2006 6:00:04 PM)
Is Bush a liar? I haven't heard in this thread one specific example of where he lied. Do I know if he lied? No All I know is that if he told me that it was my turn to go to Iraq I would not only go but probably extend my time there (I love the mideast after having spent 2 1/2 yrs there). Course I would go for Clinton too. That is why I get paid each month since Sep 66. One external example: I hear from other sources that he lied about WMD. Who knows. I have worked in the intelligence community. It is a lot of guess work and putting together jig saw puzzles to come up with conclusions. It is also made up of representatives of all political parties. With that in mind, we have to then know that he specifically knew that there were no WMD in Iraq that he didn't rely upon intelligence reports (regardless of how faulty). I mean who knows - Maybe a bunch of Non-Bush supporters got together and conviced him that there were so he could stay in trouble (conspiracy theory). If Bush has lied so much, why hasn't Clinton or Kennedy moved to impeach him? I don't begin to know. Do you? I read on the thread that Bush took our money from the banks and put it in his pocket (paraphrased). Now that would be a specific enough charge to impeach I am sure. But what I failed to see was specific proof only unproven charges. Now in my opinion (which does not have to be substantiated by fact because opinions are personal feelings) all to many people take their opinion and express it as fact. Then when confronted by their challengers on the facts, choose to smear them. And in my opinion, that is what is occuring here, opinion is being stated as fact, unproven, etc. Might I suggest that if all these "facts" are true, that we prove them to the appropriate authority (the US Congress) so that appropriate action (investigations and impeachment) can be taken.

LotusSong -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/27/2006 7:35:03 PM)
Would you feel better opening an I Love Bush thread?

colchuck69 -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:35:30 AM)
Ken you should no the Republicans control congress and they are not going to let anyone impeach their leader.

colchuck69 -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:43:30 AM)
You better worry about a coup before the next election because if democrats get in there may be an impeachment. Just like Hitler when the parliment burned down and German people allowed all the laws to be enacted to fight communist threat--we got a dictator. Just think the American people (60%) with the spying on them so they can develope calling patterns to catch terrorist! Those same patterns will then be developed to catch enemies of the regime!!

colchuck69 -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:46:41 AM)
60% of americans have no problem with the spying as long as keeps their asses safe!! Like lemmings they are going to turn the country into a police state!!

meatcleaver -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:56:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey One external example: I hear from other sources that he lied about WMD. Who knows. I have worked in the intelligence community. It is a lot of guess work and putting together jig saw puzzles to come up with conclusions. It is also made up of representatives of all political parties. With that in mind, we have to then know that he specifically knew that there were no WMD in Iraq that he didn't rely upon intelligence reports (regardless of how faulty). I mean who knows - Maybe a bunch of Non-Bush supporters got together and conviced him that there were so he could stay in trouble (conspiracy theory). If Bush didn't lie over WMD, the CIA are just a bunch of incompetent buffons and the organisation should be dissolved. Chirac told Blair that WMD are a fantasy, maybe he was guessing or maybe the French intelligence services are just better than the CIA. Blair did all he could to spin what the British intelligence told him into being what he wanted it to be because it came out against his wish to lick Bush's arse. However you look at it, Bush wanted to invade Iraq and he wanted to make the facts and the intelligence fit his view of the world. Bush has consistently made the facts fit his view of the world and that is why he is dangerous. He is incapable of making an objective analysis of international situations because his mind is governed by conservative fundemental christian ideology.

LadyEllen -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 3:03:15 AM)
Politicians always lie - or mislead - or spin; it all amounts to the same thing, that we the electorate are never told the truth. Why do they do it? Because they have to care about what we think in case we vote them out, and sometimes because if they tell us the truth it might give advantage to those who choose enmity towards us, and sometimes because they want to do something which most of us think is daft. The problem they have nowadays is that the information revolution is making it far less easy to do this than in former times - we can get the news from thousands of new channels from almost anywhere in the world instantly and see a different view presented by the thousands of new journalists wandering the world to report for them - email has made government leaks far easier and life for moles much simpler, and the trend towards instant celebrity has made officials less reticent about whistle blowing in their departments. The problem we have now compared to a few decades ago is that the politicians know we know that they are misleading us or withholding from us. This makes it necessary to spin - to present the truth but in a certain way - and also makes it useful to appeal to our baser instincts by referring to God and axes of evil as their inspiration, for example. The next step along the path to protect politicians from the oh so bothersome public is to engineer a situation where there is only truth told to them. But, the real truth is oh so awkward, so maybe it might be best to use (or produce) an actual threat to all of us, boost it to cataclysmic proportions, find a few enemies in the camp and introduce an Act (Bill) or two which puts a curb on what can be reported and how it can be reported, for security reasons. Give that a few years and then step it up gradually, closing down non compliant media until the only newspaper, TV channel and radio is government controlled - vital in order to prevent the security threat from seizing control through the media after all - then we will be in the happy position where all that our politicians say is truth and all that they do is wisdom and benevolence. Personally, I'd rather stick where we're at - we know they know we know they're lying half the time, but we can discuss that fact. E

LotusSong -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 7:38:49 AM)
To be fair, I just set created a thread "George W. Bush Fan Club" so the Bush supporters have their own forum.

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 8:17:17 AM)
Hey Lotus I haven't been to that one thread yet. But what I am waiting for is specifics so that an impeachment process can begin. The one post I did like was that the CIA is a bunch of bafoons. LOL Actually that applies to most of the intelligence community (including the military). In my opinion, You have to be a bafoon of sorts to stake your rep on guess work and not 100% of the facts (remember I said I used to be in the community and I hated having to give opinions as facts). Still waiting for the impeacheable offenses Ken

NorthernGent -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 10:06:32 AM)
KenDckey, In answer to your point that no evidence has been posted of Bush's lies: A document purporting to show that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium for nuclear bombs from Niger was circulated in 2002 as evidence of a serious threat posed by Iraq. After months of failed requests, the International Atomic Energy Agency obtained the Niger documents from the US Government, and within a matter of hours established they were obviously forged and announced this on 7 March 2003, 10 days before the start of the war. The reason this came to light was because the British Government included this document in a dossier on Iraq made public. CIA sources advised Britain to omit the Niger allegations in the dossier but they failed to do so and the lies of the US and British Governments were laid bare for all to see. Regards,

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 12:51:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent KenDckey, In answer to your point that no evidence has been posted of Bush's lies: A document purporting to show that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium for nuclear bombs from Niger was circulated in 2002 as evidence of a serious threat posed by Iraq. After months of failed requests, the International Atomic Energy Agency obtained the Niger documents from the US Government, and within a matter of hours established they were obviously forged and announced this on 7 March 2003, 10 days before the start of the war. The reason this came to light was because the British Government included this document in a dossier on Iraq made public. CIA sources advised Britain to omit the Niger allegations in the dossier but they failed to do so and the lies of the US and British Governments were laid bare for all to see. Regards, Hmmmmmmmmm so the CIA lied to Bush, aparently conviced him that the document was good and the UN was wrong and he took it as gospel. Does that make him a liar? No gullible maybe. But he aparently reported as fact what he had been told was fact. Besides, the best one was the 18 wheelers that were mobile labs. Theoretically possible, but not very probable. To much glassware and sensitive instruments to bounce around like that. I personally didn't believe it, but that was MY OPINION.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 12:58:04 PM)
You only had to have watched Colin Powel's performance at the UN when he was outlining the so called evidence against Iraq that there was a honest man squirming in his chair at having to lie (or spin, which is what political lies are called) for his master.

LaTigresse -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:05:47 PM)
Actually the biggest problem we have is that the media AND the "creative" politicians are such good "spin doctors" and tell the American public what they want to hear versus what they NEED to hear. This creates alot of hubbub over less important issues, gets people all fantatical about their over zealous flag waving and does a fantastic job of smoke screening the really major stuff that no one wants to hear because its uncomfortable, scary and there are no easy answers. In the mean time, the greedy power hungry people that run this country continue on behind the smoke and mirrors with business as usual.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:05:53 PM)
Ken, Well, as the US Government refused to hand over the documents for months I think it is fair to conclude that they knew the documents weren't want they were claimed to be. As head of the US Government it is also fair to conclude that Bush was aware of the source of these documents, the fact they were fake and wanted to protect their 'authenticity' to support the WMDs claim. I'd be lying if I said I understood the relationship between the CIA and the US Government but I'd be surprised if this is a case where the tail wags the dog - is it possible that the CIA dictate to the US Government? Regards Regards.

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:08:02 PM)
Regardless of what Patton said about Americans likeing the Sting of Battle, I think (this is an opinion guys so you can't quote it as fact like I see being done so much), that Powell didn't want us to go for whatever reason including being a soldier (which he was at the time) and not likeing wars. Most of the soldiers that I know (I have known exceptions) don't like war.

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Ken, Well, as the US Government refused to hand over the documents for months I think it is fair to conclude that they knew the documents weren't want they were claimed to be. As head of the US Government it is also fair to conclude that Bush was aware of the source of these documents, the fact they were fake and wanted to protect their 'authenticity' to support the WMDs claim. I'd be lying if I said I understood the relationship between the CIA and the US Government but I'd be surprised if this is a case where the tail wags the dog - is it possible that the CIA dictate to the US Government? Regards Regards. the US Govt and the President are 2 different entities. The President is the chief executive officer of the executive branch of govt which the CIA is in. But that doesn't mean he knows what all is going on because there are literally millions of decisions made daily without his approval. As a former intellegence officer I used to tell my boss regularly - you don't need to know and he would walk away happy. What can't be substantiated one way or the other is did some intelligence officer decide the President had the need to know.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:17:12 PM)
Ken, Hmmm, so it comes down to how much say does Bush have in the running of the US? and if he doesn't have much say does this mean he isn't at the top table when these issues are discussed? I find it very hard to believe that Bush would not be involved in discussions of such a serious nature - even if the final decision is made for him. Regards Regards

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:31:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Erin: The point is that one presumes that while Bush may squander taxpayer money, good will for the U.S. and what was left of an only barely coherent foreign policy; he would not be so callous with the lives of his own daughters. On a certain level it would be interesting to support a draft that allowed for no exceptions to the lottery - you get picked, you go. I think the war in Iraq would then wrap up pretty quickly. Otherwise Bush would be sacrificing his own blood for the benefit of Koch Industries - then again, maybe Bush has a price for that. I disagree with a lottery draft. I think you are picked based upon your being a certain age you go would be better. No exceptions for most disabilities, etc. Then our youth can be trained, educated, and grow up into much better and more informed citizens. Oh and the disabled can replace those in non-combat jobs with restrictions - somewhat like Project 100,000 during Viet Nam

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Ken, Hmmm, so it comes down to how much say does Bush have in the running of the US? and if he doesn't have much say does this mean he isn't at the top table when these issues are discussed? I find it very hard to believe that Bush would not be involved in discussions of such a serious nature - even if the final decision is made for him. Regards Regards I wish it were true that he was involved in all the major discussions of the government, but I don't think it is possible. There are just to many decisions. And I would think he is involved in some of the top level decisions, but not their evolution getting there. That is like when I was involved in developing policy for the mobilization and deployment of the military. The generals generally weren't involved until the very end. And the President never had any input. yet getting our forces from whereever they are to whereever they have to go is pretty important. Do it wrong and it costs lives. Cost lives and the people get reallllllly mad.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875