Bush Lies

[strandinthewind]

Bush is a FUKCTARD! If his mouth is open, he is lying. I despise him. Though I love the scotties Barney and Ms. Beasley!!!!

I mean think about how much uproar Clinton got for lying about getting head from a fat chick. I think W's lies, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, are far severer than an extra marital affair. But, hey, what do I know?

Interestingly, I think the public will support W because I think the majority of Americans want to see all Middle Easterners dead, which is why most Americans do not care about Iraq or what happens to it or why we went there. Yes, they acknowledge the data was false, but they could care a less, which is frightening to me.

For Bush, Iraq Lies May Cloud Iran Truths

Monday , April 17, 2006
By Martin Frost

OAS_AD('Frame1'); on error resume next plugin=(IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.6")))

Few things are more important to the success of any politician than the perception that his word is good.
During the 26 years that I served as a Congressman from Texas, a number of people supported me even though they did not agree with me on some issues. They would often say they voted for me because my word was good…they knew I was telling them the truth even when we disagreed.
President Bush may well be facing the single most important crisis of his presidency on the issue of potential nuclear weapons for Iran. And he may not enjoy popular support for actions he is considering because many in the public believe his word is not good.
Let’s take a long look at how President Bush has reached this point.
We all know that much of the intelligence he presented to Congress and the country as the rationale for invading Iraq turned out to be false. While this is disturbing to many people, this alone did not put him in his current predicament.
President Bush, in videotaped comments that have been widely broadcast, told the public that we were not spying on Americans without a search warrant. That, of course, turned out to be totally false when the New York Times disclosed that the president had authorized a special program bypassing the law requiring search warrants even in the case of national security.
The president then claimed that such action was justified by his inherent power as commander in chief but the fact remains that he had stated that he was following the Congressional statute when asked specifically about the war on terror.
Then there was the widely publicized presidential statement about the CIA leak investigation when he told the press that he would not tolerate leaking of classified material (the identify of CIA agent Valerie Plame) and would punish anyone found to be involved in such a leak. It turns out that Vice President Cheney and President Bush himself authorized the leaking of previously classified material in an effort to discredit the contention of Plame’s husband former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s that Saddam Hussein had not attempted to buy “yellow cake” from the country of Niger as stated by President Bush.
The Bush administration position was that President Bush specifically declassified portions of a National Intelligent Estimate (NIE) so that Cheney’s former chief of staff could leak the material.
And then there was the report in the April 12 Washington Post that the Bush administration had irrefutable intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have mobile biological weapons labs two days before the president said in 2003 that we had uncovered proof that such labs existed. The White House claims the President had sufficient intelligence to make this claim which they now admit turned out to be false.
There seems to be a pattern here. President Bush has shaded the truth in a way that makes former President Bill Clinton, who has been criticized by both friends and foes for not always being truthful, seem like the most honest man in town.
Why do I raise these issues of presidential credibility at this particular time? It is not to embarrass the president but rather to raise caution flags about what may happen if the president decides to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. Presumably he would seek Congressional concurrence as he and his father both did prior to committing troops against Saddam Hussein. Members of Congress of both parties may be less inclined to accept the president’s word on why such action is necessary given his history of half-truths and misstatements about national security issues in the last five years.
Also, the public may be much more skeptical about what the president says in an effort to justify any potential military action. Polls show that public confidence in the president is at an all-time low and some of this undoubtedly is due to his questionable track record on leveling with the American public.
We want our president to succeed, particularly in matters of national security. A little more truth and a lot less fiction would go a long way toward restoring public confidence that the president’s word is good.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel and is a scholar in residence at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...192069,00.html

[wondergirl9847]

I don't want all Middle Easterners dead. Sure, terrorists need to be dealt with, but so do rapists, murderers and child molesters. It's difficult to know that there are people in the world who want to murder as many Americans as humanly possible.

In the article that Brian posted about the OKC bombing, it said hate groups are rising. That disturbs me because not only do people hate us overseas...we hate our own people.

I know this reads silly, but QUIT HATIN'!!!!

My hope is that the next President will turn things around, but dang, what a job. It will be like someone who works half a day in an office and they totally suck, then, the afternoon person comes in and has to fix everything from the sucky morning person.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bush is a FUKCTARD! If his mouth is open, he is lying. I despise him.

I don't despise him. I am fearful of the fact he's incompetent and relies on his advisors every word. If they told him to nuke North Korea because "they eat small dogs" he would do it. His advisors only look after themselves and the super rich. The average American citizen is not a priority of it's own administration. I think this is one of the main things the United States has in common with Iran, the former regime of Iraq and North Korea too. Bush is weak as a leader and this is why you are seeing so many military situations, his advisors are getting what they want.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I mean think about how much uproar Clinton got for lying about getting head from a fat chick.

And the reason for that is Clinton was a strong leader and the powers that be didn't like it, they wanted to bring him down because he didn't play ball...

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think W's lies, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, are far severer than an extra marital affair. But, hey, what do I know?

Now, now. What were we talking about with "decider" yesterday. W's lies are far more severe..

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, I think the public will support W because I think the majority of Americans want to see all Middle Easterners dead, which is why most Americans do not care about Iraq or what happens to it or why we went there. Yes, they acknowledge the data was false, but they could care a less, which is frightening to me.

Most Middle Easteners want to see America fall because of the aggression and oppression the United States has exerted over the region in the 20th Century. The United States created a situation out of it's own greed and capitalism, the Middle East, quite understandably, reacted. With unfortunately 9/11 (arguably) the biggest example of that. The result is American hate of the Middle East which just helps the US administration in its quest to exert more aggression and oppression (with Iran being the focus right now). Is it any wonder Iran wants nuclear weapons? It's scared of being run into the ground and it's natural resources plundered by the world's biggest bully, The US Government.

[strandinthewind]

The comparative of "severe" is "severer," to wit:

Main Entry: se·vere
Pronunciation: s&-'vir
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): se·ver·er; -est


http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/severe

If you still do not believe me, type "severer" in WordPerfect, Word, etc. and it will recognize it

[madformac]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

I know this reads silly, but QUIT HATIN'!!!!

My hope is that the next President will turn things around, but dang, what a job. It will be like someone who works half a day in an office and they totally suck, then, the afternoon person comes in and has to fix everything from the sucky morning person.

You know, Stalin said if you remove the man you remove the problem.

This certainly worked with JFK. The US launched a full scale assault on Vietnam when LBJ got in, something Kennedy would never have sanctioned. But then again, the Joint Chiefs were the real advisors back then. Their word counted... They got what they wanted, so this remains the same.

But in the modern world, especially in the USA it won't work. Governments don't rely on the call of one man anymore, all they need is his signature. If Bush was stripped of office, assasinated or just came to the end of office it makes no difference. The structure and the people who make the real decisions still remain in power.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The comparative of "severe" is "severer," to wit:

Main Entry: se·vere
Pronunciation: s&-'vir
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): se·ver·er; -est


http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/severe

If you still do not believe me, type "severer" in WordPerfect, Word, etc. and it will recognize it

I'm not disputing the legitimacy of the word, just the context in which it is used. I think it's just a difference in our interpretation of English. An "Americanism" if you will.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by madformac

I'm not disputing the legitimacy of the word, just the context in which it is used. I think it's just a difference in our interpretation of English. An "Americanism" if you will.

I am confused, if I am comparing the severity of W's actions Clinton's actions, wouldn't I use the comparative of severe in that context. I am asking, not being snarky

[madformac]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am confused, if I am comparing the severity of W's actions Clinton's actions, wouldn't I use the comparative of severe in that context. I am asking, not being snarky

No, you are right, it's a perfectly legitimate use of the word "severer". But I would have been given a slap on the wrist and a verbal lecture by my English teacher in school (wayyyyy back ) if I had used it in that way.

There's nothing really technically wrong with it. It just doesn't sit very well in that context. I think it's just the way the English language is used in modern society. It's acceptable but the chaps at Oxford and Cambridge might wince a little. I remember reading a while back that there are over 400 versions of the English language and a third of them originate in the United States. So you could call "American" a collection of diversified English.

[strandinthewind]

I was arguing in front of this Federal Appellate court one time and used "severer" - one of the judges on the panel corrected me. When I replied "the comparative of 'severe' is 'severer'" - he stopped the timing clocks (the red and green lights) and made his clerk haul in the dictionary. Once he looked it up, he said, without comment, please continue counsellor I won the case BTW

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

In the article that Brian posted about the OKC bombing, it said hate groups are rising. That disturbs me because not only do people hate us overseas...we hate our own people.

it is getting worse instead of better.

What isnt suprising me is that Shrub isnt going out of his way of doing anything to help anyone in this country...UNLESS you have oil interests, then you're making a mint! Too bad money will be useless (Except as T.P.) when the nukes start falling out of the sky on us all...At least I will have that to look forward to in the future.

As those Germans in the band Helloween sing, "Save Us"!!!

[madformac]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I was arguing in front of this Federal Appellate court one time and used "severer" - one of the judges on the panel corrected me. When I replied "the comparative of 'severe' is 'severer'" - he stopped the timing clocks (the red and green lights) and made his clerk haul in the dictionary. Once he looked it up, he said, without comment, please continue counsellor I won the case BTW

Ah, so that's why you questioned me! lol.

I wonder whereabouts your judges studied English Language?

I would have probably let it go without consulting the dictionary. I might have frowned a little though!

I would like to go on record that I never stated it was incorrect, merely inappropriate.

p.s. well done on the win!

[madformac]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

it is getting worse instead of better.

What isnt suprising me is that Shrub isnt going out of his way of doing anything to help anyone in this country...

How true Brian...

As I said, the more hate the US administration breeds in America, the more it can legitimise it's overseas interests, especially in calling them "the war on terror". The thing a lot of Americans must realise and few do, is that America started the war many years ago, the extremists are just reactionaries in the worst possible way. They fuel the fire that the United States started.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by madformac

How true Brian...

As I said, the more hate the US administration breeds in America, the more it can legitimise it's overseas interests, especially in calling them "the war on terror". The thing a lot of Americans must realise and few do, is that America started the war many years ago, the extremists are just reactionaries in the worst possible way. They fuel the fire that the United States started.

this day, I quit beliving ANYTHING the US government told us...I will never believe anything those sick f**ks in Washington, DC try to hypnotize us into beliving. What's really sick is that people buy into that crap the same way we Fleetwood Mac fans believe that the setlist of a tour will be full of surprises

Trust me, I am anxiously awaiting the day that Washington DC (And Hollyweird for that matter) get a good ol' tasting of a ICBM w/warhead...But maybe I will luck out an suffer another stroke and bite the dust before then, Saving myself the stress of flicking through the network news asshats who will make Shrub seem like Jesus-Jumped-Up-Christ as he (Once again...BLINDLY I might add) lead us through dark days.

[irishgrl]

Interestingly, I think the public will support W because I think the majority of Americans want to see all Middle Easterners dead, which is why most Americans do not care about Iraq or what happens to it or why we went there. Yes, they acknowledge the data was false, but they could care a less, which is frightening to me.

I think you're wrong about this Jason people are beginning (finally!) to see just how badly they've been bamboozled. I think we'll see a sea change come November.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I think you're wrong about this Jason people are beginning (finally!) to see just how badly they've been bamboozled. I think we'll see a sea change come November.

Well, I hope so. But, I know so many so called conservatives who despise W., but will never vote for anyone resembling a D, because they think all the D's do is give their tax money to the N word and are weak on defense. Sadly, they may never come around. But, I have changed a few

Also, the polls currently indicate the D's could take the House and the Senate. While I am happy the R's may lose it, I am not really in love with the current state of the D party. But, I'll take the D's in charge anyday