Bfgrn
New member
OK, I apologize. Now I never called for Chis Lee to resign, so your claim I am a hack is unfounded...
You're up
Weiner: Yeah, it was my wiener!
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
OK, I apologize. Now I never called for Chis Lee to resign, so your claim I am a hack is unfounded...
You're up
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Thanks... but sorry, you're still a partisan hack. Why else would you have brought George W. Bush into this?
Bfgrn
New member
Right. Civil and stuff. Clearly you are a model of decorum.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Why did you bring George W. Bush into this? How is he relevant?
Well, since he's a person that has never Tweeted any pictures of himself anywhere clearly he belongs in a conversation about Tweeting.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
True. And when a politician makes a decision based on information that turns out to be incorrect, any Republicans who went along with it are automatically liars, while any Democrats (such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) were merely deceived. That's supposedly how "Bush lied and people died."
Bfgrn
New member
Because Bush didn't make a decision based on anything but cooked intel and lies. Bush did lie and over one hundred thousand people died.
Here is his first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill:
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq
CBS News
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
Because Bush didn't make a decision based on anything but cooked intel and lies. Bush did lie and over one hundred thousand people died.
Here is his first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill:
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq
CBS News
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."
That's interesting. Bill Clinton seemed convinced that Saddam was developing chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons:
Perhaps you could enlighten me on how Governor Bush managed to cook up this false intel, even deceiving the President of the United States, Bill Clinton? There are plenty of reasons to oppose the Bush Presidency and the war in Iraq; wild accusations are wholly unnecessary. "Bush lied and people died" makes a great slogan for immature students to shout at a left-wing rally, but it has no basis in reality.
Seriously, grow the fuck up.
Bfgrn
New member
Did Clinton invade Iraq? I just gave you REALITY. Plenty of it. Can you READ?
You said "George W. Bush, whom I neither voted for nor supported. How pathetic."
Well you just DID. How pathetic. And you are either a liar or you need to grow a brain, which is it???
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
You stated that President Bush went to war with Iraq based on cooked intel. Yet, Clinton voiced the same concerns as Bush during his presidency. So who cooked up the false intel about weapons of mass destruction? Clinton? And no Democrats bear any responsibility for voting to authorize force against Iraq?
My refusal to lie about Bush doesn't mean I support him. It just means I value the truth. I voted third-party in 2004 and I've been critical of the war in Iraq since day one.
Bfgrn
New member
Do you live on THIS planet?
Cooked
31:46 - 2 years ago
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Pentagon and witnessed first-hand how a controversial intelligence operation was set up after 9/11, gives an insider’s account of how neoconservative Defense Department officials selected and manipulated intelligence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq. This video was recorded in January of 2004. This footage is from the DVD "HIJACKING CATASTROPHE: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire," produced by the Media Education Foundation. Tags: Karen Kwiatkowski Iraq 911 9/11 intelligence faulty false Dick Cheney George Bush Donald Rumsfeld Condi Rice OSP
Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion
Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
January 24, 2008
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Because Bush didn't make a decision based on anything but cooked intel and lies. Bush did lie and over one hundred thousand people died.
Here is his first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill:
Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq
CBS News
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.
"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."
Yeah, that came out with his book, http://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255453
Annie
Not So Junior Member
No, you gave quotes from a book where the man was looking to make money. He was a sleeze, so are you.
Bfgrn
New member
The typical right wing ignorance line...he wrote a book for money. Any excuse to suck the dick of your despot war criminal BOOOOOOOOOOSH
The 'sleaze' was in the White House.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
So says those that make money off of the causes they 'served.'
Bfgrn
New member
Hey Annie, in the 60 Minutes interview Paul O'Neill adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book. And he also revealed Donald Rumsfeld warned O'Neill not to do this book. So O'Neill took no money and was warned not to do the book. Now what is your excuse to suck Bush's dick?
W
WinterBorn
Guest
His actions showed he is willing to break sacred oaths, lie to the public, and is only sorry that he got caught.
That is certainly relevant to his job, in which he swore an oath, is expected (naive of us, yes) to tell us the truth, and should be honest in his dealings.
No, he needs to go.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
WTF??? "Anthony Weiner is as honest as the day is long where it matters..." So now we accept the selectively honest??
W
WinterBorn
Guest
He stood up and took a vow when he got married. He broke that vow repeatedly. He lied when confronted with his indiscretion. Both of those speak volumes about his honesty and character. He obviously is willing to break his vows to his wife, so why not to his country?