Bush Lies?

[HankMorgan]

QUOTE 1
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."

QUOTE 2
"In the four year since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfor, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, thatif left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

QUOTE 3
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he as made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

QUOTE 4
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."

QUOTE 5
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."


All lies of President George Bush? 'Fraid not.

Quote 2 is from Sen. Clinton of New York
Quote 3 is from Rep. Pelosi of California
Quote 4 is from Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger
Quote 5 is from Vice Presiden Al Gore

Quote number 1? That's from President Bill Clinton. I almost didn't
put that in since that man, Bill Clinton, WAS impeached and disbarred
for lying to a grand jury.

Does anyone remember February 1998 with Sandy Berger and Madeleine
Albright on the campus of Ohio State? Quotes 1 and 4 are from that
time. The other quotes from other times.

Whether or not Hussein had weapons of mass destruction hasn't been
established. Yet, the Left is claiming the weapons didn't exist
and then using that current assertion to prove the President lied
in the past. That's following Alice down the rabbit hole.

How do the expect that strategy to work? Do they expect it to carry
them back to power? Do they really think the American voter is THAT
stupid? Democrats are absolutely without shame.

The Democrats were surprised in California and I predict as long as
they remain completely divorced from reality, they will continue to
be surprised.


If you believe President Bush lied about WMD, give my regards to the Mad Hatter and the March Hare.

[elijahcraig]

Blah blah blah—just shut the fuck up.

[BuyOurEverything]

Dude, 'Democrat' and 'left' aren't interchangable.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 01:22 AM
Blah blah blah—just shut the fuck up.
As good as it gets.

[synthesis]

Hussein was an enemy of the bourgeoisie, have no doubt about that. I think your quotes reflect the nature of our two-party-one-class dictatorship far more than they do the character of Clinton or defend the character of Bush.

Why are you jumping at the chance to defend Bush, by the way? Doesn't the Patriot Act offend you, as a Libertarian?

[Alejandro C]

American voters are that stupid.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Alejandro, of course American voters are stupid, they voted in Arnie S for christ sake! LOL

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 02:36 AM
Why are you jumping at the chance to defend Bush, by the way? Doesn't the Patriot Act offend you, as a Libertarian?
Why I am I defending President Bush? He's the best president since I've been alive and I can remember back to Lyndon Johnson. When the jets hit the World Trade Center, he didn't just do the minimum to get elected a second term. He didn't just fire a few submarine lauched cruise missiles at some tents using year old intelligence and call it good. He didn't just make a good attempt to find and bring to justice the people who perpetrated it. He set out to change the world, even if it costs him a second term. George Bush is unmoved by the winds of the polls.

Yes, I am a Libertarian. (I'm flattered you noticed) The Patriot Act does offend me but here are two points. First I don't think the Patriot Act is going anywhere. Everyday in the papers are stories about this town or that county that passed a resolution or even laws against. Nobody wants it, left or right.

Second the Republicans are failing the people in a greater way than the Patriot Act. The job of the Republican Party is to protect the taxpayers, primarily the middle class (the rich don't need protection). The Presidency and both houses of Congress are in Republican hands and federal spending has gone up rapidly not down. It's spending they should have cut and not taxes. Eventually the taxpayers will have to pay with interest on top. Shameful! They risk losing their base.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 03:43 AM
Alejandro, of course American voters are stupid, they voted in Arnie S for christ sake! LOL
ComradeRiley, the American voters threw out a Democrat governor in a long time heavily Democrat state. Yes, they chose Arnie. If your answer to why it happened is the voters are stupid, you will continue to be amazed at the reverses that the Left , Democrats in particular, suffer.

Something's happening here. What is it, ComradeRiley?

[Mad Dinero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 07:43 AM
Alejandro, of course American voters are stupid, they voted in Arnie S for christ sake! LOL
Yeah and Marxists voted for Hitler as president of the Nazis, a socialist organization. (Source: historychannel.com)

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Mad Dinero+Oct 10 2003, 05:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mad Dinero @ Oct 10 2003, 05:06 AM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 07:43 AM
Alejandro, of course American voters are stupid, they voted in Arnie S for christ sake&#33; LOL
Yeah and Marxists voted for Hitler as president of the Nazis, a socialist organization. (Source: historychannel.com) [/b]
Hitler:

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (Hitler hated democracy, by the way, seeing it as an inferior form of government, as the below quote shows)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

Of course, the most telling:

“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”

Hitler was a good ole capitalist, great friends with such American plutocrats as Prescott Bush (Dubya&#39;s grand-daddy) and William Randolph Hearst, one of the premier distributors of anti-socialist propaganda and probably the original media mogul.

[Iepilei]

Vote Republican OR Democrat&#33; Because the world revolves around 2 centrist parties.

[synthesis]

Why I am I defending President Bush? He&#39;s the best president since I&#39;ve been alive and I can remember back to Lyndon Johnson.

Best president? Do you mean economically - socially - or merely for the reason you mentioned below?

If you mean the third choice... that boggles me. Even disregarding the fact that Bush obviously allowed the attacks to occur, and pretending as if they were a legitimate surprise to GW, it&#39;s still not really something to be proud of. Speaking from the point of view of an American centrist, Bush didn&#39;t even take the initiative to prove himself: an opportunity was simply handed to him.


When the jets hit the World Trade Center, he didn&#39;t just do the minimum to get elected a second term. He didn&#39;t just fire a few submarine lauched cruise missiles at some tents using year old intelligence and call it good. He didn&#39;t just make a good attempt to find and bring to justice the people who perpetrated it.



As I said above - wouldn&#39;t any president have done this, given the opportunity to do so? Bush "lucked out" with the 9/11 attacks.



There&#39;s also the obvious factor that Bush allowed the attacks to happen, never mind the whole Caspian Sea oil pipeline issue.


He set out to change the world, even if it costs him a second term.

How, might I ask, did Bush change the world? All I can see of his accomplishments was his undoing the previous work of capitalist imperialism and make up for his antecedents&#39; mistakes by instituting new bourgeois rulers more sympathetic to American capitalism (for the time being) in a grand total of two nations.


George Bush is unmoved by the winds of the polls.

The idea that anyone could find this to be a good thing is nauseating. Essentially, what you just did was put a negative spin on the idea that leaders should serve the people and not the other way around.


The Patriot Act does offend me but here are two points. First I don&#39;t think the Patriot Act is going anywhere. Everyday in the papers are stories about this town or that county that passed a resolution or even laws against. Nobody wants it, left or right.

But Bush instituted it.


Second the Republicans are failing the people in a greater way than the Patriot Act. The job of the Republican Party is to protect the taxpayers, primarily the middle class (the rich don&#39;t need protection).

Of course the Republicans defend the rich. Power goes to those with the cash flow.

Both parties are servants of the bourgeoisie.

[Totalitarian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 06:36 AM
Hussein was an enemy of the bourgeoisie, have no doubt about that.
And more importantly, Hussein was an enemy of the zionists.

[Xprewatik RED]

QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Oct 9 2003, 06:36 AM)
Hussein was an enemy of the bourgeoisie, have no doubt about that.


Hussein was the bourgeousie, he was the ruling elite. You 1st worlders don&#39;t even know the meaning of bourgeousie, not the way my country or the Iraqis expirieced it( I&#39;m not saying America made things better, they made the people&#39;s lives worse)..

[Exploited Class]

I think that Hank Morgans initial post is a deflection post. By showing what the opposition party has said or lied about, it makes then makes it okay for the Bush administration to tell the same lies. If I am a democrat and I try to denounce the Bush administration for telling the exact same lies, I become a hypocrit for defending the party I am a member of.

The big difference here is that the party prior to the Bush administration didn&#39;t act on these lies. They might have made them for political reasons, but they didn&#39;t bomb and occupy a foreign land based on these lies. Another big difference is that not one of these above mentioned lies made it into a State of the Union address watched by all the leaders of the world.


When the jets hit the World Trade Center, he didn&#39;t just do the minimum to get elected a second term. He didn&#39;t just fire a few submarine lauched cruise missiles at some tents using year old intelligence and call it good. He didn&#39;t just make a good attempt to find and bring to justice the people who perpetrated it. He set out to change the world, even if it costs him a second term. George Bush is unmoved by the winds of the polls.
When you are a super power and the only one left, how you react to something is how everybody is going to judge you. When you have the power to do anything, limiting the power to do anything is considered a stronger path to take. I don&#39;t think Clinton could have or should have occupied 2 foreign countries in 2 years over terrorist incidents. He also didn&#39;t weild so much force that a backlash of extreme rifts formed within the international community. he didn&#39;t polerize the whole world.

His reaction to the whole event of 9-11 shows just how immature of a Leader he is. He of course flows with the polls, Americans all over wanted swift justice and didn&#39;t care how it was carried out nor what other people were hurt from other countries for the justice to be carried out. He had an 80% approval rating, so to say he doesn&#39;t listen to the polls is just you repeating something his P.R. people have put out there. Now that his approval rating is dropping, you can probably watch him withdrawl from Iraq, say he will be withdrawing for iraq, or something to that effect. In fact come election time I am almost positive he is going to say that he is going to work to get our fighting boys home within a year or two. Later after re-election he will explain why he can&#39;t fullfill that promise to the American People.

To go against the polls after 9-11 would have been him saying that even though we have the most advance and powerful military in the world, we will not be using it for revenge. We will not be killing more of their innocent than we have lost at home. We will not take innocent lives in payment for the lives we have lost. We will invade 2 countries out of national hype and fear. We will work with our friends in the international community and not go this alone looking like the anger induced cowboys the world views us as.


The Patriot Act does offend me but here are two points. First I don&#39;t think the Patriot Act is going anywhere. Everyday in the papers are stories about this town or that county that passed a resolution or even laws against. Nobody wants it, left or right.
That really should weaken your support for G.W. Bush. he tries to pass something so extreme like that, which is such a bad idea that local agencies are risking condemnation from the Federal government, by going against it. The fact that he would produce something so bad (and before you respond with him not authoring the bill, the GOP did author a majority of it) and not just produce it but also put Ashcroft on tour to drum up support for it, should say something about this President and the Senate.

Now they are trying to produce the second version of the Patriot act.

To say that "Well it looks like people aren&#39;t accepting it and it isn&#39;t going to happen because it is such a bad thing" but not realizing the intentions behind it. Knowing that he was willing to do something that extreme... intentions, intentions, intentions.


The job of the Republican Party is to protect the taxpayers, primarily the middle class (the rich don&#39;t need protection).
There is a big difference between what you want them to be and what they really are, or even what they say they represent. Their actions have always spoken louder than their words. I think you are buying into their Bullshit artistry, why? because you feel that the middle class needs protection, you think this is right and you put the ideals of what you think is important into what they should be doing. They haven&#39;t acted like the party to protect the middle class in a very long time, well before Reagan.

The first goal is to get elected, do that by any means and if that is by selling yourself to the largest target audience possible. For republicans it is to be pro-christian, pro-life and pro-middle class and white.

Who is going to elect a politican that is telling the truth? "I want you people to elect me so I can pass laws that will help the corporations do more, give more money to the rich, raise taxes, increase spending to give the lucrative contracts to big buisnesses, try and remove government jobs and outsource to again, corporations. By the end of all this there will be more unemployment, more work, less free time for you, and less rights for you as individuals"

You know, there are like 10 different auto manufacturers and they all say they have the best car.. somebody isn&#39;t telling the truth. Selling cars is just like selling votes, you lie to get both done.


He set out to change the world, even if it costs him a second term.

There is no doubt that he did change the world, but it was at a much greater cost than a second term.

We will be eating the costs.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Xprewatik [email protected] 12 2003, 03:32 AM
QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Oct 9 2003, 06:36 AM)
Hussein was an enemy of the bourgeoisie, have no doubt about that.


Hussein was the bourgeousie, he was the ruling elite. You 1st worlders don&#39;t even know the meaning of bourgeousie, not the way my country or the Iraqis expirieced it( I&#39;m not saying America made things better, they made the people&#39;s lives worse)..
Well, if you&#39;re going to use bourgeoisie as a synonym of "the ruling class" then yes, Saddam was most certainly a brutal, power-mad dictator who was most notably a capitalist, considering that one of the reasons he was installed was to prevent the Socialists in Iraq from a "complete takeover" (CIA&#39;s words).

But, I was referring to the bourgeoisie of the Western world. Don&#39;t forget that Hussein did nationalize Iraq&#39;s oil industry, seizing it from Western fingers to place into his own pocket.

[HankMorgan]

Exploited, you missed the point of my opening post. My goal wasn&#39;t to show that it&#39;s OK for President Bush to tell the same lies the Democrats told. To date there have been no major WMD finds in Iraq and people are trying say because now we know (as yet unproven) there are no WMD&#39;s in Iraq, then President Bush must have lied in the past. An analogy might make it more clear. Because we now know that disease is caused by germs we can clearly show that a thousand years ago, doctors were lying when they said disease was caused by evil spirits. Do you see what I mean about using knowledge (in this case unproven knowledge at that) obtained in the present to prove someone lied in the past?

That kind of logic is like following Alice down the rabbit hole and all kinds of strange things can be seen in Wonderland. First of all a whole bunch of Democrats suddenly become liars too, the UN was lying when it passed the resolutions concerning Iraq, President Clinton was lying when he offered his hair-brained scheme to bomb Iraq into compliance etc, etc. That&#39;s why I used the quotes from Democrats. That and it was fun to show the obvious lunacy.

My post was not a deflection post. It was meant to show how the Democrats have become so blinded with rage and hatred for President Bush that I really believe they are divorced from reality. It fills me with confidence for a second Bush term.

It hurts me to say this but President Clinton was right when he said we couldn&#39;t allow Hussein to have powerful weapons. His failure wasn&#39;t a lie, in this case, but a failure to act. I think you have miss understood me, EC. I&#39;m not at all saying because President Clinton lied it&#39;s OK for President Bush to tell the same lie.

Another thought on President Clinton and his failure to act. It took two tries to knock down the World Trade Center. The first try came one month and a few days (2/26/1993) after that man, Bill Clinton, took office.

One last thing I couldn&#39;t disagree with you more on, EC. Yes, Americans do want justice. I want justice too but I want something else much, much more. I don&#39;t want there to ever be another day like 9/11/2001. I don&#39;t care if it means remaking the whole Middle East and by all signs, George Bush thinks the same way I do. From the start he has said the war on terror will be long and costly. From the start he said the US will be in Iraq until the job is done. That&#39;s what I want to hear and I believe him. A year from now he won&#39;t have waivered.

It isn&#39;t that President Bush has changed the world. He&#39;s only begun the process of changing the world. It&#39;s only just begun and far from done. It&#39;s up to the American people to see to it that the next President and the next and the next follow through.

[synthesis]

One last thing I couldn&#39;t disagree with you more on, EC. Yes, Americans do want justice. I want justice too but I want something else much, much more. I don&#39;t want there to ever be another day like 9/11/2001.

Then don&#39;t elect Bush. He let it happen.

Oh Lucy&#33; You Gotta Lotta &#39;Splain&#39; To Do&#33; (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html)

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 02:43 AM

One last thing I couldn&#39;t disagree with you more on, EC. Yes, Americans do want justice. I want justice too but I want something else much, much more. I don&#39;t want there to ever be another day like 9/11/2001.

Then don&#39;t elect Bush. He let it happen.

Oh Lucy&#33; You Gotta Lotta &#39;Splain&#39; To Do&#33; (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html)
Yes, from 1/2001 to 9/2001 you can make the case President Bush wasn&#39;t doing anything to prevent the 9/11 attack. In that regard he&#39;s just like all the Presidents before him going back to at least President Carter. Even President Reagan was a failure when it comes to cleaning out the terrorists. President Clinton was the worst of the lot since the first World Trade Center attack occured within the first months of his Presidency and he had nearly eight years to take action to prevent the second attack.

But you&#39;re looking at it all wrong. The current President is the first one to do something about the problem.

[synthesis]

But you&#39;re looking at it all wrong. The current President is the first one to do something about the problem.

But the current President is the first one to have a terrorist attack succeed on American soil.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 03:16 AM

But you&#39;re looking at it all wrong. The current President is the first one to do something about the problem.

But the current President is the first one to have a terrorist attack succeed on American soil.
The rules on scoring terrorist attacks are clear now. The building must actually fall for the attack to be called a success.

It&#39;s late. I look forward to talking to you again on almost any subject.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by HankMorgan+Oct 12 2003, 07:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HankMorgan @ Oct 12 2003, 07:29 AM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 03:16 AM

But you&#39;re looking at it all wrong. The current President is the first one to do something about the problem.

But the current President is the first one to have a terrorist attack succeed on American soil.
The rules on scoring terrorist attacks are clear now. The building must actually fall for the attack to be called a success. [/b]

The rules on scoring terrorist attacks are clear now. The building must actually fall for the attack to be called a success.

By "success" I merely mean that the terrorists would have probably considered the attacks successful.

If an attack attempt doesn&#39;t do what it&#39;s supposed to, but still manages to kill a few people, terrorists would probably consider it a failure, for the most part.

Say terrorists planted a bomb in an airport. They place it in the bathroom. The bomb doesn&#39;t explode the way it&#39;s supposed to, but does unleash a barrage of shrapnel on the people in the bathroom it was planted in. Four people die; 200 people would have died had the bomb worked right.

Terrorists would probably consider that a failure - the end results not worth the trouble of setting up the device.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Totalitarian+Oct 12 2003, 04:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Totalitarian @ Oct 12 2003, 04:20 AM)
[email protected] 9 2003, 06:36 AM
Hussein was an enemy of the bourgeoisie, have no doubt about that.
And more importantly, Hussein was an enemy of the zionists. [/b]
More importantly Hussein was an enemy of everybody except his own specific race. Kurds, Shi&#39;a, Jews were all murdered by that manic, whether they were working class or middle class. Class is imaterial to such men, as long as they are in the top class.

[Iepilei]

(offsubject)

3. No person has the right to the fruits of another&#39;s labor.

You have NO idea how much I think the vast majority of us agree. ;)

(/offsubject)

[synthesis]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Oct 12 2003, 07:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Oct 12 2003, 07:56 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 07:29 AM

[email protected] 12 2003, 03:16 AM

But you&#39;re looking at it all wrong. The current President is the first one to do something about the problem.

But the current President is the first one to have a terrorist attack succeed on American soil.
The rules on scoring terrorist attacks are clear now. The building must actually fall for the attack to be called a success.

The rules on scoring terrorist attacks are clear now. The building must actually fall for the attack to be called a success.

By "success" I merely mean that the terrorists would have probably considered the attacks successful.

If an attack attempt doesn&#39;t do what it&#39;s supposed to, but still manages to kill a few people, terrorists would probably consider it a failure, for the most part.

Say terrorists planted a bomb in an airport. They place it in the bathroom. The bomb doesn&#39;t explode the way it&#39;s supposed to, but does unleash a barrage of shrapnel on the people in the bathroom it was planted in. Four people die; 200 people would have died had the bomb worked right.

Terrorists would probably consider that a failure - the end results not worth the trouble of setting up the device. [/b]
In other words - all actions succeed in something. If you mean to walk down the sidewalk so you can cancel an order at the florist&#39;s, and you trip and fall, making it impossible to cancel the order, would you consider that a success? The florist probably would - he made a sale that he wouldn&#39;t have otherwise.

But you would probably consider yourself to have failed. You failed in some regards and you succeeded in others. Success is subjective.

If a terrorist attack doesn&#39;t accomplish what the terrorists wanted it to, then no, I wouldn&#39;t call it a success.

[Scalawag]

Hitler:

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (Hitler hated democracy, by the way, seeing it as an inferior form of government, as the below quote shows)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

Of course, the most telling:

“We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.?

Hitler was a good ole capitalist, great friends with such American plutocrats as Prescott Bush (Dubya&#39;s grand-daddy) and William Randolph Hearst, one of the premier distributors of anti-socialist propaganda and probably the original media mogul.

Well, I&#39;m no fan of democracy either. It does not improve the social welfare of the people. Most of the time it leads to Fascism.
Ironically, Hitler claimed democracy lead to Communism. Not really. It leads to government run by big business. It leads to all of the things left wingers hate.

For an example, let&#39;s look at Cuba. It&#39;s not a democracy. You can&#39;t oppose Castro. Is that bad? Let&#39;s assume free elections did take place and the opposition won. What would happen? Cuba would turn back into a banana republic. It would be a US puppet. The people would no longer get free education and health care. Instead, the rich would rule Cuba. Is that good news? Not really.

So it&#39;s my opinion that democracy stinks. I don&#39;t want a democracy. I don&#39;t want a nation controlled by big business or feudal landowners.

Now I would like to make some comments about Hitler. Hitler was in favor of Social Darwinism. Basically, its a fucker philosophy. It&#39;s a
"law of the jungle" philosophy. In other words, the strong rule the weak. Now, if the stong would help the weak then Hitler&#39;s philosophy would be OK. However, Hitler&#39;s super Aryan man was only kind to Germans. He was cruel to non-Aryans. In fact, he probably is&#39;nt kind to Germans either. Hitler&#39;s Aryan Super-man was not a Christian Knight. He was a Super - Asshole.

Why was Hitler bad?

1. He was racist

2. He did not show mercy to the weak.

So unless you agree with racism and Social Darwinism then you can conclude Hitler was a very bad man.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

[Sabocat]

Hank,

If there wasn&#39;t direct complicity on the part of GW and his cabinet for the Trade Center attacks, then why is he stalling and refusing to release information regarding intelligence and information gathered regarding the hijackings/attacks? They&#39;re on the verge of subpoenaing them all.

Aren&#39;t you the least bit curious or concerned about that information? I would suggest he has something to hide.