Proof of bush lying abound Iraq

bocybo · Apr 17, 2004, 04:10 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aq_bush_war_dc

Falstaff · Apr 17, 2004, 04:20 AM

this thread should be called proof of people lying about Bush abounds...

zerodamage · Apr 17, 2004, 04:21 AM

If the war plan request was made before 9-11 I could see a problem but not on the date specified. Iraq was mentioned during his campaign as well. Plus, this is a book and not confirmed.

And if the last book is any sign of how fiction is being substituted for facts to make sales is any sign, then this book and its "facts" mean nothing.

zerodamage · Apr 17, 2004, 04:35 AM

Actually, this is what I find most interesting right now.

http://www.drudgereport.com/rc8r.htm

zerodamage · Apr 17, 2004, 04:51 AM

This is also very interesting. Actually has to do with the so called bi-partisian 9-11 committee.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6438

Here is a snippet:

Quote:

Those families were also calling for Gorelick to be called before the committee to explain her role in devising a legal impediment that contributed to the intelligence and law enforcement failures to combat and prevent terrorist acts.

But according to former Clinton staffers, it's doubtful Gorelick will budge. "She's on that commission for a reason, and it isn't because of her brilliant legal mind," says a former DNC and Clinton White House staffer. "She's there to make sure Bush and his team look as bad as possible and to protect the Clintons and Reno."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...6/120748.shtml

It never ends with politics.

bird chest · Apr 17, 2004, 05:03 AM

I really don't care if bush drew up plans before september 11th to attack Iraq. Why? Because he put in his official statement of his stances that he would fix the problem in Iraq. You hope for the best and plan for the worst.

~~Luck~~ · Apr 18, 2004, 04:35 AM

Bush makes me sick.

I honestly think if he's elected again, that we'll end up having a Civil War.

zerodamage · Apr 18, 2004, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luck
Bush makes me sick.

I honestly think if he's elected again, that we'll end up having a Civil War.

Maybe if Kerry is elected and he decides to raise taxes again and again after the people have said NO to raising taxes.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Apr 18, 2004, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luck
Bush makes me sick.

I honestly think if he's elected again, that we'll end up having a Civil War.

if kerry's elected were screwed

Guidoo · Apr 18, 2004, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
if kerry's elected were screwed

We already are.....lol

And Zero try watching /reading some ultra right-wing material....you really are becoming far to liberal.

Guido

p0rChM0nK3y · Apr 18, 2004, 05:52 AM

It's sad that a man like Joe Lieberman can only get 10% of the vote in today's modern democratic party. I didn't vote for Bush the first time, but i feel very strong about WWIII (call it what you like, we are in a world war.) This war was brought to us, we did not ask to be in it. After 9/11, ANY country that supports terrorism, in my opinion, must be taken off the face of this earth.

This is why I will be voting for Bush.

~~bluelight~~ · Apr 18, 2004, 09:23 AM

There is no WW3

It was ....invented by ......Nero`s advisors in order to make money for their buddies.

Nero bought the idea since he felt it made him look cool.

Nero himself isnt capable of figuring out where he parked the car last time.

Bluelight

~~Luck~~ · Apr 18, 2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
There is no WW3

It was ....invented by ......Nero`s advisors in order to make money for their buddies.

Nero bought the idea since he felt it made him look cool.

Nero himself isnt capable of figuring out where he parked the car last time.

Bluelight

AHAHAH

bocybo · Apr 18, 2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Neon_Cowboy
if kerry's elected were screwed

Oh yeah, we would be much better off if Bush gets re-elected, what with our decreasing freedoms(call them what you will, they still meet the definition of freedoms even if you disagree with them, seperation of church and state anyone?), as well as going to war every chance we get...

zerodamage · Apr 18, 2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by p0rChM0nK3y
It's sad that a man like Joe Lieberman can only get 10% of the vote in today's modern democratic party. I didn't vote for Bush the first time, but i feel very strong about WWIII (call it what you like, we are in a world war.) This war was brought to us, we did not ask to be in it. After 9/11, ANY country that supports terrorism, in my opinion, must be taken off the face of this earth.

This is why I will be voting for Bush.

Lieberman dispite his flipflopping on many issues back in 2000 would have made the best Democratic candidate. At least when it comes to national security and just common sense. I am still urked about his belief that all violent video games should be outlawed.

bird chest · Apr 18, 2004, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bocybo
Oh yeah, we would be much better off if Bush gets re-elected, what with our decreasing freedoms(call them what you will, they still meet the definition of freedoms even if you disagree with them, seperation of church and state anyone?), as well as going to war every chance we get...

How are we losing seperation of church and state?

Guidoo · Apr 18, 2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zerodamage
Lieberman dispite his flipflopping on many issues back in 2000 would have made the best Democratic candidate. At least when it comes to national security and just common sense. I am still urked about his belief that all violent video games should be outlawed.

Zero....I think every politician has performed some flip-flops in their time.

Flip-flop anyone ?

An interesting article. The last 3 lines of the last page contain a qoute

Quote:

The only perfectly consistent man, Aldous Huxley mordantly noted, is a dead one, and we've yet to elect one of those.

That quote isn't exactly true. Before John Ashcroft became Attorney General, he was beaten by a dead man in a US Senate election.

Bird......how are we losing seperation of church and state ?? Think for a moment...President Bush
has stated that he favors a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Since there are some churches that perform gay marriages (a small minority) would this not be a governmental intrusion into freedom of religion ??

Guido

ToshiroOC · Apr 18, 2004, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guidoo
Bird......how are we losing seperation of church and state ?? Think for a moment...President Bush
has stated that he favors a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Since there are some churches that perform gay marriages (a small minority) would this not be a governmental intrusion into freedom of religion ??

Guido

Those marriages from those churches are not legal marriages insofar as they do not gett he same benefits as legally married couples, just the same as any gay marriage so far.

For problems with separation of church and state, look no further than Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Guidoo · Apr 19, 2004, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
Those marriages from those churches are not legal marriages insofar as they do not gett he same benefits as legally married couples, just the same as any gay marriage so far.

For problems with separation of church and state, look no further than Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Thankfully (former) Chief Justice Roy Moore was not on the US Supreme Court but on the Alabama State Supreme Court. One of his supporters Bill Pryor (then Attorney General of Alabama) who prior to the ruling by US Federal Circuit Court ordering the removal of the stone monument of "the Ten Commandments" openly supported having the monument there. Bill Pryor has now been appointed as a Federal Appeals Court judge by President Bush.His appointment was not approved by the Senate but was enacted during congressional recess.Some Democrats had threatened a filibster, but I wonder if some middle-of-the road Republicans would have supported his nomination.

In fairness to Judge Pryor when the order to remove the monument came down from federal court he complied with the ruling, odering Chief Justice Roy Moore to have it removed. Pryor's earlier support does concern me though. Will his religious ideology influence his decisions ?

Guido

bird chest · Apr 20, 2004, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guidoo
Bird......how are we losing seperation of church and state ?? Think for a moment...President Bush
has stated that he favors a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. Since there are some churches that perform gay marriages (a small minority) would this not be a governmental intrusion into freedom of religion ??Guido

Tell me you are kidding right? There is no ban against getting religiously married if you are gay. The gov. just will not recognize it as legal!!! However the amendment does allow for civil union. And this would never have been taken away from the states if dome mayors and retarded judicial system did not screw it up. Cause I really wish it was up to the state but stupid courts are screwing things up so what do you expect when the state gov pisses people off they go to federal government.

bird chest · Apr 20, 2004, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guidoo
Thankfully (former) Chief Justice Roy Moore was not on the US Supreme Court but on the Alabama State Supreme Court. One of his supporters Bill Pryor (then Attorney General of Alabama) who prior to the ruling by US Federal Circuit Court ordering the removal of the stone monument of "the Ten Commandments" openly supported having the monument there. Bill Pryor has now been appointed as a Federal Appeals Court judge by President Bush.His appointment was not approved by the Senate but was enacted during congressional recess.Some Democrats had threatened a filibster, but I wonder if some middle-of-the road Republicans would have supported his nomination.

In fairness to Judge Pryor when the order to remove the monument came down from federal court he complied with the ruling, odering Chief Justice Roy Moore to have it removed. Pryor's earlier support does concern me though. Will his religious ideology influence his decisions ?

Guido

Well these crap judiciaries would not be getting put in if senate would respect the presidents right to put in good judiciaries of there party. Instead we get some weak judges. I think the entire judicial system needs to be worked out.

Falstaff · Apr 21, 2004, 01:52 AM

Saddam bribed the most powerful people in the world, the very people that objected to the Gulf War, recieved billions from Iraqs former dictator. People object to war because it is immoral, but all wars can be deemed immoral, it is a hell of thing to conquer nations, but it has been done before. Bush has been accused of being over his head in matters of diplomacy, but he didnt get one goddam dime from Hussien. People can easily criticise anyone that doesnt meet their own narrow minded expectations, or wax philisophically about the pros and cons of fighting a sustained action. Either way, it is a losing proposition. Now the truth is coming out, members of the UN that objected to conflict with IRAQ were on his payroll. Who really suffers? Our young men and women fighting in IRAQ because Russia and France and Germany wouldnt grab a pair that God gave them and act courageously, no the kept taking all the Dinars they could. I had to laugh when I heard the French had raised their threat level even higher from vigilence to proactive intervention if terrorists are suspected to be hiding in France. In fact they are, so what is the next level? Surrender? and then Capitulation?. I knew that the French were in Iraq before the first Gulf War, and they profited from it, as well as the Russians. Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, had knowlege and accepted bribes from the most dispicable leader in the Middle East. This will blow the lid off what we know about the Gulf War, and as far as I am concerned regardless of what others think, Bullocks on the notion that Bush is the criminal here....noooooooo....the Bloody French and Russians....

Guidoo · Apr 21, 2004, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
Tell me you are kidding right? There is no ban against getting religiously married if you are gay. The gov. just will not recognize it as legal!!! However the amendment does allow for civil union. And this would never have been taken away from the states if dome mayors and retarded judicial system did not screw it up. Cause I really wish it was up to the state but stupid courts are screwing things up so what do you expect when the state gov pisses people off they go to federal government.

The US govt doesn't recognize gay marriageas as "legal" now. Also the federal govt hasn't "taken away" anything...yet. As for the "dumb mayors" ..I admire their strength of conviction (or is it a political ploy) ..but disagree with their actions. As for the judicial system....yes I agree it is far from perfect. It always seems to really hack off large segments of the population. But then the judicial system often finds itself the center of controversy, rendering decisions involving civil rights, abortion, the rights of the accussed and even federal elections.
But how would you fix it ?? Would justices have to pass some sort of "morals" test ? or perhaps some other kind of test, and who would decide what this test is.

The reason President Bush found he needed to circumvent the Senate is similar to the reason former President Clinton did the same. The political opposition in the Senate can make it nearly impossible for a nominee to be seated as a judge. The Republicans try to shoot down anyone they see as too liberal and the Democrats do the same to conservatives. This doesn't happen all the time. If it did there would never be anyone seated on the bench.

Guido

jwoc · Apr 21, 2004, 02:33 AM

Bocybo....what do you mean by "seperation of church and state"? You're not one of those that believe it's some where in the constitution I hope. Last I heard our government wasn't demanding we join or be a member of any particular church. I believe we still have that freedom.

" A Society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will loose both, and deserve neither".

-Thomas Jefferson

bocybo · Apr 21, 2004, 02:37 AM

Well, I was primarily(being the key word here) refering to bush's decision to outlaw gay/lesbian marriage(of not legally recognize it rather). after all, this beleif comes from the bible...I see no other reason to make it illegal...

digerati · Apr 21, 2004, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bocybo
Well, I was primarily(being the key word here) refering to bush's decision to outlaw gay/lesbian marriage(of not legally recognize it rather). after all, this beleif comes from the bible...I see no other reason to make it illegal...

The bible calls for punishment of homosexuals, so I doubt he's making a biblical decision. Anyways he can't "outlaw" it himself, so relax.

Falstaff · Apr 21, 2004, 04:09 AM

homosexual marriage is a marriage of convience to meet the needs of those live for the day.
heterosexual marriage is a union for the future.
Gay marriage is about meeting immediate needs, a civil union to imply a social contract.
I am against gay marriage, it serves no purpose except to meet the needs of a few individuals, and it cannot be a normal enviornment for a child.

digerati · Apr 21, 2004, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
and it cannot be a normal enviornment for a child.

Oh please. Like many heterosexual marraiges provide a normal enviornment, I know my parents sure as hell didn't provide me with a normal enviornment.

bird chest · Apr 21, 2004, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ^_^
Oh please. Like many heterosexual marraiges provide a normal enviornment, I know my parents sure as hell didn't provide me with a normal enviornment.

Oh please? Could you imagine if you had two of your dad raising you???? How much better would that be?

digerati · Apr 21, 2004, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
Oh please? Could you imagine if you had two of your dad raising you???? How much better would that be?

I wasn't aware homosexuals were drug addicted gay bashing nigger hating shovenistic pigs who tried to force religious beliefs upon me. And that's just a starting point =P

Apr 17, 2004, 04:10 AM	#1
bocybo DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 89 Rep Power: 0	Proof of bush lying abound Iraq http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aq_bush_war_dc __________________ Barton 2500 @ 11.0x215 Epox 8RDA+ 1GB Corsair PC3200 ATI Radeon 9800 Pro @ 420/380 SB Audigy Lite-on 52x32x52 Maxtor 120GB ATA133

Apr 17, 2004, 04:20 AM	#2
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	this thread should be called proof of people lying about Bush abounds... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Apr 18, 2004, 05:52 AM	#11
p0rChM0nK3y DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Oceanside, CA Posts: 179 Rep Power: 0	It's sad that a man like Joe Lieberman can only get 10% of the vote in today's modern democratic party. I didn't vote for Bush the first time, but i feel very strong about WWIII (call it what you like, we are in a world war.) This war was brought to us, we did not ask to be in it. After 9/11, ANY country that supports terrorism, in my opinion, must be taken off the face of this earth. This is why I will be voting for Bush. __________________ Intel Pentium 4c 2.6 @ 3.1ghz (27c idle, 34c load) Asus P4P800 Corsair XMS 2x512mb DDR400 Maxtor MaXline III 250gb SATA150 Plextor DVD-RW PX-716A Samsung Syncmaster 17" Antec Sonata II w/ Antec SmartPower 2.0 Windows XP Pro

Apr 21, 2004, 01:52 AM	#22
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Saddam bribed the most powerful people in the world, the very people that objected to the Gulf War, recieved billions from Iraqs former dictator. People object to war because it is immoral, but all wars can be deemed immoral, it is a hell of thing to conquer nations, but it has been done before. Bush has been accused of being over his head in matters of diplomacy, but he didnt get one goddam dime from Hussien. People can easily criticise anyone that doesnt meet their own narrow minded expectations, or wax philisophically about the pros and cons of fighting a sustained action. Either way, it is a losing proposition. Now the truth is coming out, members of the UN that objected to conflict with IRAQ were on his payroll. Who really suffers? Our young men and women fighting in IRAQ because Russia and France and Germany wouldnt grab a pair that God gave them and act courageously, no the kept taking all the Dinars they could. I had to laugh when I heard the French had raised their threat level even higher from vigilence to proactive intervention if terrorists are suspected to be hiding in France. In fact they are, so what is the next level? Surrender? and then Capitulation?. I knew that the French were in Iraq before the first Gulf War, and they profited from it, as well as the Russians. Chirac, Putin, Schroeder, had knowlege and accepted bribes from the most dispicable leader in the Middle East. This will blow the lid off what we know about the Gulf War, and as far as I am concerned regardless of what others think, Bullocks on the notion that Bush is the criminal here....noooooooo....the Bloody French and Russians.... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Apr 21, 2004, 02:37 AM	Thread Starter #25
bocybo DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 89 Rep Power: 0	Well, I was primarily(being the key word here) refering to bush's decision to outlaw gay/lesbian marriage(of not legally recognize it rather). after all, this beleif comes from the bible...I see no other reason to make it illegal... __________________ Barton 2500 @ 11.0x215 Epox 8RDA+ 1GB Corsair PC3200 ATI Radeon 9800 Pro @ 420/380 SB Audigy Lite-on 52x32x52 Maxtor 120GB ATA133

Apr 17, 2004, 04:21 AM	#3
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	If the war plan request was made before 9-11 I could see a problem but not on the date specified. Iraq was mentioned during his campaign as well. Plus, this is a book and not confirmed. And if the last book is any sign of how fiction is being substituted for facts to make sales is any sign, then this book and its "facts" mean nothing.

Apr 17, 2004, 04:35 AM	#4
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Actually, this is what I find most interesting right now. http://www.drudgereport.com/rc8r.htm

Apr 17, 2004, 05:03 AM	#6
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	I really don't care if bush drew up plans before september 11th to attack Iraq. Why? Because he put in his official statement of his stances that he would fix the problem in Iraq. You hope for the best and plan for the worst.

Apr 18, 2004, 04:35 AM	#7
~~Luck~~ I like to whinge Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 820 Rep Power: 0	Bush makes me sick. I honestly think if he's elected again, that we'll end up having a Civil War.

Apr 18, 2004, 09:23 AM	#12
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	There is no WW3 It was ....invented by ......Nero`s advisors in order to make money for their buddies. Nero bought the idea since he felt it made him look cool. Nero himself isnt capable of figuring out where he parked the car last time. Bluelight

Apr 21, 2004, 02:33 AM	#24
jwoc DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 7 Rep Power: 0	Bocybo....what do you mean by "seperation of church and state"? You're not one of those that believe it's some where in the constitution I hope. Last I heard our government wasn't demanding we join or be a member of any particular church. I believe we still have that freedom. " A Society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will loose both, and deserve neither". -Thomas Jefferson

Apr 21, 2004, 04:09 AM	#27
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	homosexual marriage is a marriage of convience to meet the needs of those live for the day. heterosexual marriage is a union for the future. Gay marriage is about meeting immediate needs, a civil union to imply a social contract. I am against gay marriage, it serves no purpose except to meet the needs of a few individuals, and it cannot be a normal enviornment for a child. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."