• bloc said on Jul 17, 2007....

  he's a transparent liar. 

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2007....

  Here's another example. This example and your post show how politicians, and Bush in specific, will use words without any consideration for what they actually mean.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2007....

  o, i dunno, bloc. i think he honestly believed that at the time. i just think that like others, he believes that the ends justify the means.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2007....

  @sw
  you lost me. Were you referring to my link? I'm not sure what you think he believed at what time.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2007....

  i was referring to your first comment, compared to the transcript LJ posted.
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Jul 17, 2007....

  SW, my honest guess is that GW has very few real beliefs of his own. He is a classic case of a trust-fund kid put into a position of power so as to be easily manipulated by those behind him. That statement from the debate is an exemplar of saying what the conservative base believed so that he would appear to be a thoughtful and careful (read, conservative) politician. Deep down, i don't think he believes that he's lying. I think he believes that he's just doing his job to persuade the American public to go along with whatever his administration (i.e., Cheney et al)) wants to do. All his life he has been the popular, well-connected front-man in every position he has held as an adult. Why would we think that this latest resumé item (2000 - 2008, Leader of the Free World) would be any different?

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2007....

  i prefer not to ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity. :>
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2007....

  If it were mere stupidity I would have expected him to repent on at least one of his major screw ups. For example, after abu grhaib even a stupid person would have held someone higher than a low level soldier responsible. 

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2007....

  you're assuming he's smart enough to recognize just how colossally bad that was.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2007....

  in terms of PR or in terms of morality? ;)

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2007....

  flip a coin, bloc. :>
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2007....

  Well, if it's PR you concede that he's malicious ;)

• silverwhisper said on Jul 17, 2007....

  haven't i been saying for weeks that i hear the imperial march now & again when i read one of your blog entries about him? :>
  
  ed

• lioneljay said on Jul 17, 2007....

  SW, I've been hearing that theme since late 2001. I'm f***ing sick of hearing it, in fact.

• kelly said on Jul 21, 2007....

  "i prefer not to ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity. :>"
  
  
  No, it's malice.  Rove has been working on his master plan for years.  George may in fact be fairly stupid, but when you think about Rove planning everything behind the scenes you might come to the conclusion that very little has been left to the chance ramblings of our Village Idiot in Chief.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 21, 2007....

  kelly, i don't blame bush for being an idiot. i blame rove and others for taking advantage of that fact.
  
  ed

• kelly said on Jul 21, 2007....

  Well, that's my point, basically.  Rove has orchestrated so much of this from the very beginning.  He didn't take advantage so much as he created the situation.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 21, 2007....

  Just thought I'd give you guys some info you seem to be missing:  On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by a radical Islamic group.

  There, just thought I'd update you on this fact. 

  Here's another fact: President Bush Didn't Lie!  If he did, then everyone did.

• kelly said on Jul 21, 2007....

  "Just thought I'd give you guys some info you seem to be missing:  On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by a radical Islamic group."
  
  
  Yep.  A bunch of Saudi Arabian terrorists.  So we promptly invaded Afghanistan because supposedly that's where bin Laden's gang was.  Bush never addressed the fact that most of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 were Saudis.  In fact, on the day of 9/11 when you nor I could fly anywhere there were several jets going around the country collecting Bushes Saudi pals for a clean getaway.
  
  
  Then for no apparent good reason we invaded Iraq.  We still don't know why we're in Iraq.  Yes, the whole upper echelon of the Bush admnistration lied to our faces.  And now Afghanistan is starting to backslide.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 21, 2007....

  15 of the 19 were Saudis, 2 United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese.  Doesn't the 9/11 commision report say Al Qaeda carried out the attacks? 

  Does any of this conspiracy jargon make any logical sense?  President Bush gets the Saudis to plan and execute 9/11?  Is this shit for real?

  "Then for no apparent good reason we invaded Iraq.  We still don't know why we're in Iraq."

  WMD's, Brutal repression, enforce UN regulations, piss bleeding heart Liberals off, are reasons we went into Iraq.  Does that help?

  V-

• kelly said on Jul 22, 2007....

  "Does any of this conspiracy jargon make any logical sense?  President Bush gets the Saudis to plan and execute 9/11?  Is this shit for real?"
  
  
  I never said anything about a conspiracy.  I was only alluding to the fact that we attacked two countries that had little to do with who actually attacked us.  Why do you suppose that is?
  
  
  "WMD's, Brutal repression, enforce UN regulations, piss bleeding heart Liberals off, are reasons we went into Iraq.  Does that help?"
  
  
  No WMDs.  Perhaps you haven't heard.
  
  
  Since when does a Republican care about brutal repression?  Oh, when it's in their best interests to.  I forgot.
  
  
  When does a Republican care about the UN?!  Oh, when it's in their best interests to.  I forgot.
  
  
  If King George went to war just to piss off "bleeding heart" liberals then he is seriously pathological.  Personally, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  But I do identify with them more than conservatives since they do, in fact, have hearts.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 22, 2007....

  "I never said anything about a conspiracy.  I was only alluding to the fact that we attacked two countries that had little to do with who actually attacked us.  Why do you suppose that is?"

  So then we should have attacked Saudi's?  We went into Afghanistan to take down the Taliban, the groups responsible for 9/11.  We took them out of power.  We went into Iraq to enforce UN resolutions.  I think if 9/11 never happened we would have still went into Iraq.  12 years of santions and resolutions was turning that country into a haven for starvation and terrorists with a "Hitler" at the helm.

  There was WMD's, just because we can't find them is completly irrelevant.  Saddam was supposed to account for his large stockpile of WMD's or face military actions.  This was a part of the ceasefire after the first Gulf War.  He could have stopped this war and still be in power if he wanted. 

  The "bleeding heart Liberal" comment was neocon humor, sorry. 

  Where on Earth does this hatrid of Republicans come from?  It is very unhealthy.

• kelly said on Jul 22, 2007....

  "12 years of santions and resolutions was turning that country into a haven for starvation and terrorists with a "Hitler" at the helm."
  
  
  It's nice to hear a hard core right-winger admit that sanctions don't work.
  
  
  "There was WMD's, just because we can't find them is completly irrelevant."
  
  
  I think the same argument works for UFOs, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster.
  
  
  "Where on Earth does this hatrid of Republicans come from?  It is very unhealthy."
  
  
  It comes from watching them support in every way possible a president that is determined to subvert the constitution by allowing spying on Americans, making use of secret government, allowing torture to occur, suspending habeas corpus and plunging our country deep into debt for a war that has--at best--dubious reasons for having been waged, not to mention a heightened level of cronyism and corruption.
  
  
  What's more unhealthy, allowing abusive politicians to ruin the country or speaking out about it?
  
  
  "We went into Iraq to enforce UN resolutions."
  
  
  Once again with the jokes, eh?  Republicans HATE the UN.  Why would they care at all if UN resolutions were enforced?  You can't have it both ways.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 23, 2007....

  Once again you can preach this garbage you just can't prove it.

  Give it up for free speech. 

  And it wasn't (for the zillionth time) just the Republicans who agreed with going into Iraq.  Do you really wanna get me started on the UN?

   

• silverwhisper said on Jul 23, 2007....

  smb, i'm just curious. what news sources do you use?
  
  ed

• kelly said on Aug 12, 2007....

  " Do you really wanna get me started on the UN?"
  
  
  Yes, actually I do.  I would like to hear the justification for using UN resolutions as a means of justifying war at the same time that you preach getting the US out of the UN.  

• bloc said on Aug 12, 2007....

  
  "There was WMD's, just because we can't find them is completly irrelevant"
  
  
  LOL, let me quote you. You can say this garbage, you just can't prove it. I know I know you use "faith based" metrics for waging war. LOL

• stopmediabias said on Aug 12, 2007....

  Bloc- You  must admit the the anti-Bush media jumped right on that one.  Saddam used WMD's on Iran and his own people.  We had intelligence that showed numerous places where they were.  Saddam was such a meglomaniac he never imagined we would actually attack him, especially after Clinton's rule by polls.  It is obvious he either moved them to another country or buried them in the desert.  The media speculates over and over about Presidents Bush's foreign policy but never poses what I just said as a possibility.  How many times have you heard a liberal say "There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush lied!"  This is such a lie and they know it.  Once again, we went into Iraq because Saddam didn't follow the UN ceasefire, the location of the WMD's is irrelevant, if Saddam had disclosed and destroyed them he would still be in power torturing and murdering people.

  Kelly-we should have taken out Saddam in 1991, but the UN stepped in with a ceasefire that said: disarm, disclose, or face military action.  Both Democrats and Republicans all had the same information and voted the same way except when actual war (which is hell) broke out, Democrats cannot stomach war so they all courted the far-left and played the "Blame George" game.  George Bush will go down as one of the greatest and most important Presidents in history because he showed that the UN is all talk and is only good for humanitarian stuff.  France and the others agreed to the ceasefire but when Saddam did what he usually did and crapped all over it while corrupting the Oil for Food program, they did the same thing the Democrats did, cry about Bush the war-monger.  Now we got these stupid conspiracy theories about war for oil, revenge, Haliburton,- you guys need to read more books.

• bloc said on Aug 12, 2007....

  "Saddam used WMD's on Iran and his own people."
  
  Yes, and he did it with our help in the case of Iran. Also, is it really fair to say "his own people". He used it on the opposing religious faction. It's like saying early american's used small pox against their own people (when they gave small pox blankets to the indians).
  
  "It is obvious he either moved them to another country or buried them in the desert."
  
  Actually the inspectors had a pretty good idea of the weapons that he had and are pretty sure he destroyed most of them.
  
  "There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush lied!" This is such a lie and they know it."
  
  I think you misunderstand what people are saying here. They aren't saying that he never had WMD (that would be a lie). They are saying that he didn't have them at the time we invaded and WMD is the primary reason Bush gave for invading. Remember the Powell speech at the UN? It turns out that it was all untrue and Powell and his staff pretty much admit that at this point.
  
  "but the UN stepped in with a ceasefire that said: disarm, disclose, or face military action."
  
  This is true and saddam had agreed to disclose before we invaded. Maybe we should all read the account of the head weapon inspector?

• stopmediabias said on Aug 15, 2007....

  Bloc- your killing me, what are you building a case for?  Did you agree with Iraq war when we went in?  I ask this because the war was voted on. 

  "There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush lied!" This is such a lie and they know it."
  
  I think you misunderstand what people are saying here. They aren't saying that he never had WMD (that would be a lie).

  This right here!  My quote above is exactly what the elite media has regurgitated over and over.  My quote doesn't say : "There were no WMD's when we invaded."  or "There was at one time, but now there is no WMD's"  the statement is very clear.   Even the revised statements are false because somewhere out there either buried in the desert or in Syria there are still weapons that we knew about that are among the missing.

  "This is true and saddam had agreed to disclose before we invaded. Maybe we should all read the account of the head weapon inspector?"

  Are you serious?  Saddam agreed? 

• bloc said on Aug 15, 2007....

  The media is not saying that he never had WMD. You're hearing what you want to hear and not what is said. People with a brain know that when someone says "there were no wmd" that the "when we invaded" qualification is implicit. 
  
  
  "Are you serious? Saddam agreed? "

  
  

  http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/
  

• stopmediabias said on Aug 16, 2007....

   I know you know what I'm talking about so I won't try to continue with the WMD's.

  And when you say Saddam agreed, you actually saying a murderous, sadistic, madman agreed.  Had Saddam ever lied in the last 12 years of his life?  Yes his life, if it wasn't for President Bush and our Congress Saddam would still be alive.

  Didn't a judge say that Saddam was responsible in some part for 9/11?

  Didn't Paul Bremer say anyone who thinks there is no link between Saddam and Al Qlqeda is just plain wrong.

  Wasn't it documented that in line for Saddam's thrown was his two equally murderous son's?

  What about the munitions of mustard gas found buried after the invasion?

  Why are all Liberals on the wrong side?

• bloc said on Aug 16, 2007....

  What's wrong is ignoring reality and cherry picking a few random out of context ideas that fit what you want to believe. 
  
  
  there was no link between saddam and 9/11 nor are your other points valid. 
  
  

• bloc said on Aug 16, 2007....

  here is Bush clearly refuting two of your points. He says that iraq did not have any wmd and that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
  
  
  

• bloc said on Aug 16, 2007....

  Here is Cheney saying that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Aug 18, 2007....

  Dodge the questions, it just proves my point.  Cherrypicking!  What exactly are the two clips above?  Did Saddam Hussein sit down with a bunch of wierdos and come up with plan to kill 3,000 people on 9/11?  No.  Did he create, assist, enable, make worse, etc. etc. an environment that lead to 9/11?  Yes.

   

• lioneljay said on Aug 18, 2007....

  SMB, by your logic ("create, assist, enable, make worse, etc. an environment that led to 9/11) we could just as easily accuse our own government of equal culpability. The attacks of 9/11 were not the work of the Iraqi government. The only ties that Hussein had to the jihadist movement were minor and primarily self-congratulatory (the infamous practice of giving money to the families of suicide bombers was essentially a PR ploy).
  
  Clearly you bought into the prevarication and obfuscation campaign that was used to, in part, sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people and now you're either unable to see that this is so or you're too embarrassed about having been hoodwinked that you won't admit it.

• bloc said on Aug 18, 2007....

  we had more ties to the people that attacked us on 9/11 than saddam. 
  
  
  Notice how I pointed out a clearly false statement made by smb, and I used Bush and Cheney as the sources, and he can't admit to making a false statement. This is his usual m.o. I call it the "cluster fuck" technique. 
  
  
  You throw out as much nonsense as you can in a big cluster. Then if someone tries to look at any point in detail the cluster fucker will throw out even more bullshit that usually is not related in anyway to the original cluster fuck.

• stopmediabias said on Aug 18, 2007....

  Lionjay-anyone who says America did something to deserve 9/11 in my view is a fucking moron.  You've shown clearly that you out of touch with reality by playing down Saddam's actions in regards to terrorism.  I think you need to do a lot more research.  Clearly all the cowardly liberals who are screaming anti-war voted for the same "prevarication and obfuscation," wow, stretching the vocab to the limits there, be careful.   

  Bloc-"This is his usual m.o. I call it the "cluster fuck" technique. " Shut up, did you answer any of my questions?  No!  You came up with two very shallow examples.  Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein SPECIFICALLY, had nothing to do with 9/11.  The WMD's thing is a media farce, President Bush agreed that the large stockpiles were not found in Iraq.  But lets see, a bunch of radical muslims who have been saying for years they are going to kill us all, and Saddam and his crews spoke the same language, lets put two and two together. 

  Quotes from my own posts:

  <Here's a quote from Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum quoting a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department unit:

  "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."   >
   
  <Next a quote from Charles Duelfer, who testified to the Senate Arms Service Committee on Iraq's WMD's:

   

  ".....a sizeable portion of the illicit revenues generated under the Oil for Food program went to the Military Industrial Commission (the government-run military-industrial establishment).  The funding for this organization, which had a responsibility for many of the past WMD programs went from approximately $7.8 million in 1998 to $350 million in 2001.  During this period of the growing resource availability, many military programs were carried out, including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council.">

   

  <In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, families for victims George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas sued Baathist Iraq and the Taliban for damages.  Here is a quote from Federal Judge Harold Baer Jr., a Clinton appointee: 

   

  "I conclude that the plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to Bin laden and Al Qaeda." >

   

  < In the liberation of Iraq, coalition forces shut down three separate terrorist training camps.  One of these located 15 miles from Baghdad.  These camps were training terrorists for urban assaults, airline and train attacks, and were used for "exporting terrorism to the whole world," as stated by an Iraqi defector.  The fact that Iraq offered training to terrorists has been confirmed by dissidents, journalists, and even weapons inspect>

   

  <The language in resolution 114 is not vague as to our intentions with Iraq.  Everyone had the same information and it wasn't just about WMDs.  In the following six points I summarized (with conservative embellishment) our reasons for going into Iraq according to the Resolution.

     

  1.  After the liberation of Kuwait the United Nations sponsored a cease-fire agreement in which Iraq agreed to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs that International Weapons Inspectors, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors confirmed existed.

   

  2.  Iraq obviously made a mockery of the cease-fire agreement and in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq under Saddam Hussein and his son's were a threat to the U.S. and the world along with being a threat to peace and security in the Persian Gulf Region. 

   

  3.  The continued violation of U.N. resolutions including and brutal repression of the people of Iraq and a demonstration of willingness to use WMD's as shown in the past constitutes a threat to the U.S. and the world.

   

  4.  The September 11Th attacks showed that international terrorist organizations demonstrated a willingness and capability of acquiring and using WMD's.  Iraq aided and harbored terrorists, and possessed weapons that could easily be given to these and other terrorists.  If some radically religious group can convince a bunch of people to high-jack planes and fly them into skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and the White House what do you think they would do with a nuke, or a couple of bombs armed with Saran gas?

   

  5.  Resolutions made by the U.N. were consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1). The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that: "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."  

   

  6.  The United States is determined to fighting terrorism around the world and Iraq's use and continuing to posses WMD's, it's link to terrorist organizations, it's brutal repression of it's people, it's violations of cease-fire agreements, and it's violations of numerous U.N. resolutions constitute a national security threat to the world and in the context of the war on terror make the United States and the world obligated to take military actions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein.>

   

   There are numerous reasons why we went in to Iraq, all of them legit.  The problem is Liberals cannot stomach war.  You guys know it was the right thing to do and you know the world is better, but by admiting that, ouch!  2008 is just fading away everytime we succeed more in Iraq.  How does it feel to be on the wrong side every time.  Think about it, America wins-liberals lose, Al Qaeda wins-liberals win, hmmm, you guys should examine exactly where your loyalty lies.

   

   

   
   

• silverwhisper said on Aug 19, 2007....

  heh...smb's gone hannity!
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Aug 19, 2007....

  silver-hey that's a compliment :)

• bloc said on Aug 19, 2007....

  "But lets see, a bunch of radical muslims who have been saying for years they are going to kill us all, and Saddam and his crews spoke the same language, lets put two and two together."
  
  Wow, this is amazing. So speaking the same language makes Iraq what? Should we invade every country that speaks the same language as the terrorists?
  
  Here's how you cherry pick. One judge, in the heat of the moment after 9/11, said that saddam supplied support to al qaeda. Everyone else, including Bush and Cheney, now say the opposite. Are you saying that you agree with this sole judge and against everyone else including Bush and Cheney?
  
  As for the weapons they found, they were so old that they couldn't kill anyone unless you drank them. Does old mustard gas justify a war?
  
  See, this is my point and an example of the "cluster fuck" technique. You aren't really making any points, you're just throwing out as much bullshit as you can in the hopes that you'll confuse someone enough that they want see the situation for what it is. What point are you trying to make when you say they found "degraded" chemical weapons?

• silverwhisper said on Aug 19, 2007....

  smb: no, it really isn't, sir, but i figured i could at least be civil.
  
  ed

• stopmediabias said on Aug 20, 2007....

  Bloc-head, I'm starting to wonder if you brain is working.  Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy (by his own admission) of the United States, just exactly like Al Qaeda. 

  You say the actual weapons we found, after "THERE WERE NO WMD'S FOUND!" has been plastered all over the world, the weapons we found were two old.  The agreement to keep us from kicking the crap out of Saddam in 1991 was account for and destroy, not hide and bury.

  You say I am not making any points, I clearly made my points as to why we went into Iraq, it wasn't just for WMD's.  And I really don't exactly know what we are debating here.  Democrats and Republicans voted for the same war and you guys seem to want to throw it all on President Bush.  I think you guys need to grow up and get over this obession you have with our President.

  You know we are going to succeed in Iraq, the news is starting to trickle out.  All of the Bush-Bashing and lieing has done you guys not a single bit a good and it will show when you spanked in 2008.

• bloc said on Aug 20, 2007....

  The Bush administration said that he was an imminent threat. Buried weapons that even the Iraqi's had forgotten about, are not the WMD used to justify this war. If you want to use those unusable weapons to justify this war then go right ahead. Good luck maintaining your credibility. 
  
  
  The idea that Democrats are equally as responsible is silly. This is Bush's war, the democrats are responsible for voting for it, but we never would have gone if it weren't for Bush pushing it. 
  
  Here is a good read for anyone that is wondering how things are going in Iraq.

• javadewd said on Sep 07, 2009....

  
  Love... Exciting and new... Come aboard... We're expecting you!
  OBAMA!! Taking this country straight to hell...
  OBAMA!! Is that the communists that I smell...?
  
  Hey, speaking of transparency in a president. Doesn't this jackass czar remind you of an episode of Herman's Head or what?
  

• bloc said on Sep 08, 2009....

  Obama refused to propose a single payer government health system, he is probably going to push a private system over a government option. This is the opposite of communism. Obama is trying to save capitalism as we need to do. Capitalism is not dog-eat-dog anything goes corporatism. Adam smith advocated an important role for government in a well functioning capitalist system and that's what we liberals want, including Obama. 

• javadewd said on Sep 08, 2009....

  HA HA HA HA HA!!!
  
  I laughed so hard, I threw up a little in my mouth, bloc. Man, just when I think that you have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever, you make a funny!
  
  HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Comment on "My, how things can change in politics!"

Currently tagged	George W Bush hypocrite war military nation-building bush politics iraq 9/11 Van Jones racism communist Obama (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously