| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Doug Bashford" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2004 01:01:03 AM |
| Object: |
Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
Bush Claims Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said "numerous
contacts" between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified
the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.
"There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
and al-Qaeda," Bush told reporters after meeting
with his Cabinet at the White House...
A panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reported
yesterday that meetings or contacts between the former
Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden
didn't lead to a collaborative relationship.
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
"Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said when asked about the report.
"He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction
against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy
of the United States of America, just like al- Qaeda. He was a threat
because he had terrorist connections."...
.........
DimBulb Bush STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
====Google:
Iraq bomb toll rises
The Age, Australia - 40 minutes ago
.... The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship
between Iraq and al-Qaeda ...
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
Cheney insists on Saddam-Qaeda link - Independent Online
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
White House sticks to its guns about Al-Qaida-Iraq links - Minneapolis
Star Tribune (subscription)
Islam Online
Bush defends his credibility on Iraq-al-Qaida - Newsday
Dallas Morning News (subscription) - New York Times - and more »
Foreign policy becoming a voting issue
Pioneer Press (Subscription), MN - 3 hours ago
.... Item: From President Bush on Thursday: "The reason I keep
insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and
al-Qaida, because there was a ...
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
Whitehouse.gov (press release) - 12 hours ago
.... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a
relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because
there was a relationship between Iraq ...
===========
If we were going to invade a
sovereign nation because of
their support for
Al-Qaeda--don't you think Saudi
Arabia might have been a better choice?
News results for
"and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against"
today's top stories
Iraq & al Qaeda - National Review Online - 16 hours ago
Commission rules out Iraq, al-Qaeda link - ABC Online
- 18 hours ago
CNN.com - 9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes - Jun ...
.... No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation. The panel said it
found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States.". ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/ - 53k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
.... fruition. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and
al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,"
the report said. ...
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5442262 - 25k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
Hidey-Bunker STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
He hopes YOU stay just as confused.
Good guys don't attack first.
Good guys are brave, and stand fast for their values.
Good guys accept the *resposibility* of being good.
Punks shoot first.
VOTE REPUBLICAN!
.
|
|
| User: "Walt" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
29 Jun 2004 02:09:27 PM |
|
|
"Doug Bashford" <see.my.sig@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10d508os4hiah47@corp.supernews.com...
Bush Claims Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said "numerous
contacts" between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified
the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.
"There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
and al-Qaeda," Bush told reporters after meeting
with his Cabinet at the White House...
A panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reported
yesterday that meetings or contacts between the former
Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden
didn't lead to a collaborative relationship.
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
The 9-11 panel investigated the 9-11 attack and that alone. There is no
references to any issues outside of the 9-11 attacks. There never was any
claim that there was a direct link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings. There is evidence that meeting took place
between high ranking Iraqi military / secret police and Al'Queda members.
The administration never made or inferred any direct link between Husein and
Al'queda, but the liberal media keeps on trying to ***** the American
public into believing that the administration made a connection that was
never there.
"Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said when asked about the report.
"He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction
against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy
of the United States of America, just like al- Qaeda. He was a threat
because he had terrorist connections."...
........
DimBulb Bush STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
====Google:
Iraq bomb toll rises
The Age, Australia - 40 minutes ago
... The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship
between Iraq and al-Qaeda ...
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
No matter how many times you say it out of context, the statement still
refers only to the 9-11 atacks on US soil. The Bush haters would still like
you to believe that 9-11 was the instigation of us hammering Husein but in
reality 9-11 was the straw that broke the camels back. After umteen years of
the UN telling Husein to "Stop or I'll tell you to Stop again!" finally
there was an administration in place that didn't quite give a ***** what the
UN wanted but instead did what was best for the Iraqi people and the rest of
the world.
Cheney insists on Saddam-Qaeda link - Independent Online
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
White House sticks to its guns about Al-Qaida-Iraq links - Minneapolis
Star Tribune (subscription)
Islam Online
Bush defends his credibility on Iraq-al-Qaida - Newsday
What the liberal left interipts as Bush "defending his credibility" was
actuall Bush telling them "this is the way it is."
Dallas Morning News (subscription) - New York Times - and more »
Foreign policy becoming a voting issue
Pioneer Press (Subscription), MN - 3 hours ago
... Item: From President Bush on Thursday: "The reason I keep
insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and
al-Qaida, because there was a ...
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
Whitehouse.gov (press release) - 12 hours ago
... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a
relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because
there was a relationship between Iraq ...
===========
If we were going to invade a
sovereign nation because of
their support for
Al-Qaeda--don't you think Saudi
Arabia might have been a better choice?
News results for
"and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against"
today's top stories
Iraq & al Qaeda - National Review Online - 16 hours ago
Commission rules out Iraq, al-Qaeda link - ABC Online
- 18 hours ago
CNN.com - 9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes - Jun ...
... No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation. The panel said it
found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States.". ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/ - 53k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
... fruition. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and
al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,"
the report said. ...
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5442262 - 25k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
Hidey-Bunker STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
He hopes YOU stay just as confused.
Good guys don't attack first.
Good guys are brave, and stand fast for their values.
Good guys accept the *resposibility* of being good.
Good guys actuall don't shoot first. But there is just so much a good guy is
going to take before he strikes back. I bet you would still like us to
believ that the US / Allied attack on Iraq was a preemptive strike!
Punks shoot first.
VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Yes by all means, please do Vote Republican.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. D. Pook" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
29 Jun 2004 02:12:11 PM |
|
|
Just like Bubba Clinton told us that Kosovo was a threat to American
interests.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
29 Jun 2004 02:17:45 PM |
|
|
"Walt" <jwilliames@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:H7jEc.18858$bs4.15387@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
The 9-11 panel investigated the 9-11 attack and that alone.
False.
There is no references to any issues outside of the 9-11 attacks.
False. The 911 commission references everything from airport security to
CIA/FBI communications to Al Queda operations around the globe.
There never was any claim that there was a direct link between Husein and
the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was a definite connection
between Hussein and 911. See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
There is evidence that meeting took place between high ranking Iraqi
military / secret police and Al'Queda members.
There is evidence (on film) that Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein,
and the Bush administration met with members of the Taliban.
The administration never made or inferred any direct link between Husein
and Al'queda
*****.
but the liberal media keeps on trying to ***** the American public into
believing that the administration made a connection that was
never there.
Members of the Bush administration are quoted over and over and over again
in their own words making that connection. To deny this is out of the range
of "spin" and into the realm of mental illness.
--
-Mr. N
*************************
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush, April 9, 1999
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
29 Jun 2004 03:03:26 PM |
|
|
Mr. N wrote:
Members of the Bush administration are quoted over and over and over again
in their own words making that connection. To deny this is out of the range
of "spin" and into the realm of mental illness.
Well put. I have quite a bit more understanding for why the
multinational oil cartels and Cayman Islands based companies (such as
Halliburton) are great advocates of the current administration. They're
obviously striking paydirt. It may be unethical, greedy, immoral, at
times illegal. But there remains a certain demonic logic to it.
But for the average Joe on the street to live in such a deep state of
denial is despicable. What's he getting out of the bargain? Like a dog
who enjoys being whipped or something, he's angry when someone wants to
take the whip out of master's hands. There is a pathological denial, a
vampiric carnivorous bent, and rejection of science and the written
record that has somehow gone from mental illness to a legitimate
political stance. It speaks volumes about cultural pathologies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 01:44:26 PM |
|
|
There never was any claim that there was a direct
link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was
a definite connection between Hussein and 911.
See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
There is evidence that meeting took place between high ranking
Iraqi military / secret police and Al'Queda members.
There is evidence (on film) that Donald Rumsfeld met with
Saddam Hussein,
and the Bush administration met with members of the Taliban.
In <cbshuk$70q$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:03:26 -0500, Paul Bramscher said about:
Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****"
Mr. N wrote:
Members of the Bush administration
are quoted over and over and over again
in their own words making that connection.
To deny this is out of the range
of "spin" and into the realm of mental illness.
Well put. I have quite a bit more understanding for why the
multinational oil cartels and Cayman
Islands based companies (such as Halliburton) are great
advocates of the current administration. They're obviously
striking paydirt. It may be unethical, greedy, immoral, at
times illegal.
But there remains a certain demonic logic to it.
But for the average Joe on the street
to live in such a deep state of denial is despicable.
What's he getting out of the bargain? Like a dog
who enjoys being whipped or something,
he's angry when someone wants to take the whip out of
master's hands. There is a pathological denial, a
vampiric carnivorous bent, and rejection of science and the written
record that has somehow gone from mental illness to a legitimate
political stance. It speaks volumes about cultural pathologies.
gasp.
**legitimate** political stance!??
It's a free country I guess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan K. Lindsay-ONeal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 04:00:08 PM |
|
|
"Doug Bashford" <playing@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10egd18jathop33@corp.supernews.com...
There never was any claim that there was a direct
link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was
a definite connection between Hussein and 911.
See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
Michael Moore? If he's your man, you're sucking on one flabby *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Galehouse" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 04:02:45 PM |
|
|
"Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal" <allan@utopia.net> wrote in message
news:2LmdnfN69PdK8nXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Doug Bashford" <playing@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10egd18jathop33@corp.supernews.com...
There never was any claim that there was a direct
link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was
a definite connection between Hussein and 911.
See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
Michael Moore? If he's your man, you're sucking on one flabby *****.
What does his ***** have to do with the corrupt Bush administration? Oh yeah!
It doesn't, but since you don't have anything else, why not resort to fat
and ***** jokes, right? You're a fukcing asswipe, Allan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Allan K. Lindsay-ONeal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
05 Jul 2004 04:06:01 PM |
|
|
"David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vf_Fc.13920$2T2.528@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal" <allan@utopia.net> wrote in message
news:2LmdnfN69PdK8nXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Doug Bashford" <playing@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10egd18jathop33@corp.supernews.com...
There never was any claim that there was a direct
link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was
a definite connection between Hussein and 911.
See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
Michael Moore? If he's your man, you're sucking on one flabby *****.
What does his ***** have to do with the corrupt Bush administration? Oh
yeah!
It doesn't, but since you don't have anything else, why not resort to fat
and ***** jokes, right? You're a fukcing asswipe, Allan.
Gee, Dave: I used sexual imagery since that's what folks with your mind set
are more comfortable with. It looks like my point hit home, eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Galehouse" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
05 Jul 2004 04:50:09 PM |
|
|
"Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal" <allan@utopia.net> wrote in message
news:WdqdnZFS8sQlX3TdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
"David Galehouse" <AndyG@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Vf_Fc.13920$2T2.528@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Allan K. Lindsay-O'Neal" <allan@utopia.net> wrote in message
news:2LmdnfN69PdK8nXd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Doug Bashford" <playing@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10egd18jathop33@corp.supernews.com...
There never was any claim that there was a direct
link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was
a definite connection between Hussein and 911.
See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
Michael Moore? If he's your man, you're sucking on one flabby *****.
What does his ***** have to do with the corrupt Bush administration? Oh
yeah!
It doesn't, but since you don't have anything else, why not resort to
fat
and ***** jokes, right? You're a fukcing asswipe, Allan.
Gee, Dave: I used sexual imagery since that's what folks with your mind
set
are more comfortable with. It looks like my point hit home, eh?
Nope. All I did was point out your feckless response. You used sexual
imagery for your own unknown reasons and attempting to project your problems
onto others does not change that. You had no point with which to hit "home"
or anywhere else. You are free to try to explain what point you had in mind
when you posted, "Michael Moore? If he's your man, you're sucking on one
flabby *****."
Please explain what the point was, Allan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 02:56:24 PM |
|
|
Doug Bashford wrote:
There never was any claim that there was a direct
link between Husein and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was
a definite connection between Hussein and 911.
See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see her say the
words.
You mean her words; "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what
happened on 9/11"?
The entire quote should have been, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between
Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was
somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about
what caused 9/11, it is the rise of the ideologies of hatred that lead
people to drive airplanes into buildings into New York."
Much different than what Moore shows in his film.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 04:25:28 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Doug Bashford wrote:
There never was any claim that there was a direct link between Husein
and the terrorists that
carried out the 9-11 bombings.
False. Condoleeza Rice said outright that there was a definite
connection between Hussein and 911. See Fahrenheit 911 and you'll see
her say the
words.
You mean her words; "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what
happened on 9/11"?
The entire quote should have been, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between
Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was
somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about
what caused 9/11, it is the rise of the ideologies of hatred that lead
people to drive airplanes into buildings into New York."
Much different than what Moore shows in his film.
What's the point in citing a technicality? Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld
have used "terrorism" and "Iraq" in the same sentence or paragraph
probably thousands of times collectively -- the association has succeeded.
The majority of Americans think that the 9/11 terrorists were aided by
Iraq, and that they were actually Iraqi (rather than mostly Saudi). The
administration has done scant little to really address terrorism,
sources of American hatred, and socio-economic injustices. Indeed,
they've only thrown fuel to the fire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 07:32:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004, Paul Bramscher said about:
Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Doug Bashford wrote:
..................snip
You mean her words; "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what
happened on 9/11"?
The entire quote should have been, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between
Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was
somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about
what caused 9/11, it is the rise of the ideologies of hatred that lead
people to drive airplanes into buildings into New York."
Much different than what Moore shows in his film.
What's the point in citing a technicality?
Yep.
*********Lie: to intentionally decieve.*************
It's kinda funny seeing all the Bushies now squealing
"that depends what the definition of is is"
aint it? I hear irony is beyond them.
These whackos now pretend (please don't tell me
they actually believe it, for that would indeed
be worse than Cultural Pathologies, but mass insanity)
that the Iraqii invasion was not given as the al
Qaeda-9/11 link, and WMD.
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have used "terrorism" and
"Iraq" in the same sentence or paragraph probably thousands
of times collectively -- the association has succeeded.
Indeed.
*********Lie: to intentionally decieve.*************
And because thier words were so carefully minced,
we know it was intentional.
The majority of Americans think that
the 9/11 terrorists were aided by
Iraq, and that they were actually
Iraqi (rather than mostly Saudi).
Bingo. And this was NOT the case right after 9-11.
But I understand why the mindless rah rah Bushies
fight so hard to maintain this illusion.
Check out this chart from the May'04 PIPA survey:
http://enviro.topcities.com/BeatBush/PIPA2.gif
this one aint bad either, on WMD:
http://enviro.topcities.com/BeatBush/PIPA3.gif
From
POLL May'04 PIPA SURVEY -- Americans Still STOOPID
Americans Continue to Believe
Iraq Supported Al Qaeda, & Had WMD
This survey and analysis suggests voters will change
if they are re-educated. Along with some political cartoons,
charts, and facts, we present a strategy for doing so.
http://enviro.topcities.com/BeatBush/toBeatBush.html
The administration has done scant little
to really address terrorism, sources of American hatred,
and socio-economic injustices. Indeed,
they've only thrown fuel to the fire.
Bush played right into bin Laden's hands.
We all saw it comming. Since before Sep 25, 2002.
Check it out....It's even FUNNYier now!
Sep 25, 2002 cartoon:
http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438
Sep 25, 2002
"Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq
The administration has done scant little
to really address terrorism, sources of American hatred,
address terrorism?? What a novel idea!
Like this?
http://enviro.topcities.com/Kindergarten/WARSEEDS.gif
or this?
http://enviro.topcities.com/Kindergarten/new_Recruiting_Poster.gif
from:
Everything we need to know about Iraq,
we learned in kindergarten.
A satirical, highly illustrated very short story.
http://enviro.topcities.com/Kindergarten/index.html
--Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
05 Jul 2004 11:23:44 AM |
|
|
Doug Bashford wrote:
<snippage>
These whackos now pretend (please don't tell me
they actually believe it, for that would indeed
be worse than Cultural Pathologies, but mass insanity)
that the Iraqii invasion was not given as the al
Qaeda-9/11 link, and WMD.
Insanity must play some role, the question is how large. Whether it's a
small piece of out-of-control mental machinery, or the primary
directive. Because citing technicalities, in spite of Bush's lie to
associate Iraq with purchasing uranium from Africa, constant associate
of Iraq with terrorism, leaking CIA operatives in retalliation to
critics of his policies, willingness to ignore the UN on matters of war,
no bid contracts to former employers of the VP, etc. -- if Bush-lites
still cling to the denial, it can't possibly be mere loyalty and wishful
thinking. They've gone over the edge.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I fully understand why billionaires, persons
heavily invested in the arms and energy industries, mercenaries, and
other assorted vultures favor Bush. There's a diabolical logic among
pirates. Use whatever pretext exists (or manufacture one) to wage a
preemptive war, then profit on the suffering. So I understand why a
shadowy manager of an oil cartel rationally (although demonically)
prefers Bush. But I don't see what's in it for Bush-lite. Probably
just a vent for bullying, a vent for the angry (and helpless feeling)
white middle-aged man in the 'burbs, and a feeling that doing something
-- anything, even the wrong thing -- is better than doing nothing.
Plus, it gives the media something with which to distract ourselves from
problems here at home. Health care, jobs, civil liberties, education,
poverty, homelessness, etc. Bush "solved" all of these problems. He
utterly diverted media and national attention away from them. Out of
sight, out of mind.
Disappointingly, democrats have done little in response. They've not
drawn up an impeachment, they've barely squeaked. It's becoming clear
to me to which beat they march to.
Bush played right into bin Laden's hands.
We all saw it comming. Since before Sep 25, 2002.
Check it out....It's even FUNNYier now!
Sep 25, 2002 cartoon:
http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438
Sep 25, 2002
"Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq
I believe, however ironically, that it works both ways. Bush and Osama
clearly gained from each other. Although the CIA tracked, communicated
with, and aided Osama in the wars against the Soviets, although we have
far more sensitive means of electronic espionage available today, Osama
has supposedly slipped through every net. I simply don't buy this.
Either he'll be brought out and paraded around just as Bush needs a
boost to his polls, or else the underlying truth is much more sinister.
As Michael Moore points out in Fahrenheit 9/11, there's a connection
between Bush and the Saudis. And as Gore Vidal hints at in his essay
"Enemy Within", and as we witnessed a lie in the Tonkin Gulf in '64,
there are historical precedents for creating false pretexts to lead us
into war.
So the question, I believe, is whether Bush (or his shadowy supporters
in the oil/energy/arms/drugs business) did not actively aid bin Laden
long after the Soviet-Afghan wars, up to and including the 9/11 event.
Sounds too terrible to even ask, but it seems to fit the facts pretty
well, as well as to explain the distortions, torture and lies of the
past 3 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
05 Jul 2004 07:50:03 PM |
|
|
In <ccbvag$ej1$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004, Paul Bramscher said about:
Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies
Doug Bashford wrote:
<snippage>
These whackos now pretend (please don't tell me
they actually believe it, for that would indeed
be worse than Cultural Pathologies, but mass insanity)
that the Iraqii invasion was not given as the al
Qaeda-9/11 link, and WMD.
Insanity must play some role, the question is how large. Whether it's a
small piece of out-of-control mental machinery, or the primary
directive.
One pollster (PIPA?) called it cognitive dissonence, lossely,
the inability to admit they've been conned.
I like this term:
Ego-dystonic refers to conditions that the person finds
unpleasant, or inconsistent with his or her picture of
himself or herself.
...Now if "himself or herself" idendtifies with a cause...
Because citing technicalities, in spite of Bush's lie to
associate Iraq with purchasing uranium from Africa, constant associate
of Iraq with terrorism, leaking CIA operatives in retalliation to
critics of his policies, willingness to ignore the UN on matters of war,
no bid contracts to former employers of the VP, etc.
-- if Bush-lites still cling to the denial, it
can't possibly be mere loyalty and wishful
thinking. They've gone over the edge.
I suspect normal people are more crazy than you
give us credit for. Rational thinking may not
be normal. ...In part due to our poor education
and miseducation.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I fully understand why billionaires, persons
heavily invested in the arms and energy industries, mercenaries, and
other assorted vultures favor Bush. There's a diabolical logic among
pirates. Use whatever pretext exists (or manufacture one) to wage a
preemptive war, then profit on the suffering. So I understand why a
shadowy manager of an oil cartel rationally (although demonically)
prefers Bush. But I don't see what's in it for Bush-lite. Probably
just a vent for bullying, a vent for the angry (and helpless feeling)
white middle-aged man in the 'burbs, and a feeling that doing something
-- anything, even the wrong thing -- is better than doing nothing.
Yes, the doggie instincts gone wild, with encouragement
from their rulers. The idea of rulers rather than public
servants is a fascist mindset.
Limbaugh &Co adds the joiner and cluby social needs,
along with a worldview the exhausted employee can grasp,
complete with superiority, invincibility, and comfyness.
It's all about feelsgoodism. Like a lynchmob high.
Plus, it gives the media something with which to distract ourselves from
problems here at home. Health care, jobs, civil liberties, education,
poverty, homelessness, etc. Bush "solved" all of these problems. He
utterly diverted media and national attention away from them. Out of
sight, out of mind.
Disappointingly, democrats have done little in response. They've not
drawn up an impeachment,
Powerless, I think.
they've barely squeaked. It's becoming clear
to me to which beat they march to.
It's pretty bad.
Bush played right into bin Laden's hands.
We all saw it comming. Since before Sep 25, 2002.
Check it out....It's even FUNNYier now!
Sep 25, 2002 cartoon:
http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438
Sep 25, 2002
"Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq
I believe, however ironically, that it works both ways. Bush and Osama
clearly gained from each other.
Although the CIA tracked, communicated with, and aided Osama in
the wars against the Soviets,
We may have created him and his training camps.
Kissinger has proudly boasted of that.
although we have far more sensitive means
of electronic espionage available today, Osama
has supposedly slipped through every net. I simply don't buy this.
I do.
Either he'll be brought out and paraded around just as Bush needs a
boost to his polls, or else the underlying truth is much more sinister.
As Michael Moore points out in Fahrenheit 9/11, there's a connection
between Bush and the Saudis. And as Gore Vidal hints at in his essay
"Enemy Within", and as we witnessed a lie in the Tonkin Gulf in '64,
there are historical precedents for creating false pretexts to lead us
into war.
So the question, I believe, is whether Bush (or his shadowy supporters
in the oil/energy/arms/drugs business) did not actively aid bin Laden
long after the Soviet-Afghan wars, up to and including the 9/11 event.
I think that's too far fetched.
Yes, PNAC wanted a new "pearl Harbor."
But creating one is too wild.
They aren't that good as crooks, too likely
to be discovered.
Sounds too terrible to even ask, but it seems to fit the facts pretty
well, as well as to explain the distortions, torture and lies of the
past 3 years.
So do 100 other scenarios. Go with the
hard evidence. Forget dreaming up any of
a zillion what-ifs. That's unscientific.
In my mind, to search for the Why is is always
futile, nobody is a mind-reader.
Judge them for the crimes, not the whys.
That's all we need to hang them. The evidence.
BushCo seems to think otherwise, however.
--Doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
06 Jul 2004 10:36:30 AM |
|
|
Doug Bashford wrote:
<snippage>
I like this term:
Ego-dystonic refers to conditions that the person finds
unpleasant, or inconsistent with his or her picture of
himself or herself.
..Now if "himself or herself" idendtifies with a cause...
That's reasonable. I think what we're seeing is a denial mechanism on
steroids. Denial can be like an opiate, perhaps presenting the most
blissful way out of a socio-moral quagmire.
Religion is probably the way that many people enter into
denial-as-a-way-of-life. Most world's religions have a variant of the
Golden Rule (do unto others as you wish them to do unto you) in its
scriptures. This is great. But since humans are often weak, they quite
often fail at this ideal. What's the response? Pray, justify, deny,
keep doing it as a hypocrite? I think very few people are willing to
immediately admit their mistakes, improve, and make socio-economic
ammends. Denial-hypocrisy is so much simpler, a well-trodden path.
So the question, I believe, is whether Bush (or his shadowy supporters
in the oil/energy/arms/drugs business) did not actively aid bin Laden
long after the Soviet-Afghan wars, up to and including the 9/11 event.
I think that's too far fetched.
Yes, PNAC wanted a new "pearl Harbor."
But creating one is too wild.
They aren't that good as crooks, too likely
to be discovered.
I agree and disagree. But look at the '00 elections. Clearly
corrupted, and pulled off without a hitch. I think a couple things are
going on here. They give the illusion of being bumbling idiots, but
there's a diabolical intelligence at work -- much more shrewd than we
are led to believe. Also, it's possible that neither Bush/Cheney has
anything to do with 9/11, but shadowy supporters of them (either
American, Saudi, Israeli or something else, nationality is not so
important as is motive and interest in regional domination and oil) had
something to do with it.
What did bin Laden get out of 9/11? Nothing, so far as I can tell. No
follow-up attacks, no territory claimed, no sustained damage to the US
economy, zilch. So what possessed him? Had we "won", what would have
been the fruits of victory? None, really.
Sounds too terrible to even ask, but it seems to fit the facts pretty
well, as well as to explain the distortions, torture and lies of the
past 3 years.
So do 100 other scenarios. Go with the
hard evidence. Forget dreaming up any of
a zillion what-ifs. That's unscientific.
I'd voice a very sober caution -- which separates a conspiracy-theory
nutcase from a detective, scientist, paleontologist or archaeologist:
absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence.
There are lacunae or missing pieces in the record, and it is counter to
science and reason to offer a 100% solution with only partial evidence.
So some scenario and model building is not only fully warranted, but
also quite scientific.
Looking at who's most benefitted from the 9/11 attacks, and who was most
eager to associate them with invading Iraq, is not merely one of many
equally valid scenarios. The first step any good detective takes in
solving a mystery is to look for motive and capacity to carry it out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fresno Farms" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
07 Jul 2004 09:58:58 PM |
|
|
Re: "Bush Is Playing into Bin Laden's Hands"
I said this a year or more ago that Bush was Osama's puppet.
I've been saying it longer. Neener neener.
Check it out....It's even FUNNYier now!
cartoon
http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438
Sep 25, 2002
"Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq
...or is it a really really a pitiful commentary
on STOOOOOOPID Americans ? ?
=====================
Bush Is Playing into Bin Laden's Hands
Julian Borger, The Guardian Unlimited, June 19, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1242639,00.html
WASHINGTON -- A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a
bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing
that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an
"avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into
Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out
next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush
administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that
the Iraq invasion has made America safer.
In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as
"Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused
organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would
"inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.
He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his..........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fresno Farms" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
07 Jul 2004 09:57:09 PM |
|
|
Paul Bramscher:
What did bin Laden get out of 9/11?
Tons. Read his 1998 fatwa.
Besides that, Bush turned him into a world power. This and
Bush's silly actions in Iraq has many implications, including
recruits, which is HUGE.
Nothing, so far as I can tell. No
follow-up attacks, no territory claimed, no sustained damage to the US
economy, zilch.
Your thinking is Bush-like, old fashioned. This really is a new
kind of war. All of the above is obsolete. Fatwa. Jihad. PR.
So what possessed him? Had we "won", what would have
been the fruits of victory? None, really.
Sounds too terrible to even ask, but it seems to fit the facts pretty
well, as well as to explain the distortions, torture and lies of the
past 3 years.
So do 100 other scenarios. Go with the
hard evidence. Forget dreaming up any of
a zillion what-ifs. That's unscientific.
I'd voice a very sober caution -- which separates a conspiracy-theory
nutcase from a detective, scientist,
From science? In this case, a fasifiable hypothesis.
Evidence. What-ifs are only dis-respected seeds without the
follow up. Scienc is unfair in this regard. Thus you carry the
burden of proof. You, for the moment, don't even own a
fasifiable hypothesis, much less, hard evidence.
paleontologist or archaeologist:
absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence.
In logic, true, but in the method of science, absence of evidence
means hooey, balony, better luck next time. Science will ignore
you until you meet these rigourous and biased specifications.
There are lacunae or missing pieces in the record, and it is counter to
science and reason to offer a 100% solution with only partial evidence.
True, a rigourously tested, unfalsified falsifiable hypothesis is
often upgraded to theory, as Theory of Reletivity, Evolution,
etc. The base is the falsifiable hypothesis. What's yours?
So some scenario and model building is not only fully warranted, but
also quite scientific.
Looking at who's most benefitted from the 9/11 attacks, and who was most
eager to associate them with invading Iraq, is not merely one of many
equally valid scenarios. The first step any good detective takes in
solving a mystery is to look for motive and capacity to carry it out.
Also an important consideration is the cost-benifit analisis of
success, and of failure. What they get caught? Read his 1998
fatwa. Stop thinking WWII. Check this:
http://enviro.topcities.com/Chomsky03_CLIP-A-Hard-Choice.mp3
100K from:
http://enviro.topcities.com/Chomsky_mp3s.html
...and I presume you are familirr with PNAC.
If all this doesn't answer your questions, then go fer it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
09 Jul 2004 06:34:40 PM |
|
|
Fresno Farms wrote:
Paul Bramscher:
What did bin Laden get out of 9/11?
Tons. Read his 1998 fatwa.
Besides that, Bush turned him into a world power. This and
Bush's silly actions in Iraq has many implications, including
recruits, which is HUGE.
bin Laden a world power? Where is he? How can a supposed world power
remain invisible to our intelligence networks, communications
eavesdropping capacities, our spy satellites? bin Laden is either dead,
we're protecting him, or else he'll be paraded around as a prize when
Bush needs a final election boost. Or perhaps there will be some
election hanky-panky that we'll blame on him, as reason to invade some
other unrelated country with large natural reserves?
For a world power, bin Laden is awfully quiet and invisible.
Your thinking is Bush-like, old fashioned. This really is a new
kind of war. All of the above is obsolete. Fatwa. Jihad. PR.
Bush like? I'm on the opposite side in every spectrum from the man.
From science? In this case, a fasifiable hypothesis.
Evidence. What-ifs are only dis-respected seeds without the
follow up. Scienc is unfair in this regard. Thus you carry the
burden of proof. You, for the moment, don't even own a
fasifiable hypothesis, much less, hard evidence.
Facts:
1. The CIA actively aided bin Laden in the wars against the Soviets in
Afghanistan. They obviously had intel, active communications, and
provided money, arms, additional intelligence or all of the above in
support of bin Laden's activities.
2. The war on Iraq is not at all related to Al-Quaeda or bin Laden, yet
administration officials have used Iraq, terrorism and 9/11 in the same
sentence countless times. The majority of Americans believe a link
exists where none does.
3. Iraq happens to have among the largest oil reserves in the world.
The present administration is comprised of many persons with private
wealth derived from oil.
4. No-bid contracts were granted to Halliburton, Cheney's former
company, in probably the most extreme example of cronyism and conflict
of interest in recent American history. They also over-charged us, and
are largely based in the tax-free Cayman Islands.
5. The war on Iraq has been a boon to the mercenary outfits and defense
contractors who've been great supporters of the present administration.
6. Bush refused to go public or under oath against an independent 9/11
commission. For that matter, he named the existing commission himself.
7. The bin Laden family was allowed to fly out of the US even while the
vast bulk of aircraft were grounded by the FAA in the days after 9/11.
8. We've never put public pressure on the Saudis to provide information
on Osama's whereabouts, entertained the idea of invading Saudi Arabia
instead of Iraq (after all, most of the 9/11 terrorists as well as bin
Laden himself were Saudi).
You draw your own hypothesis. I've drawn mine. And you needn't lecture
me on the falsifiability of hypotheses. I'm a big fan of Karl Popper.
If you want hard evidence, demand that the current administration cough
up details on their closed-door energy policy, face inquiry on 9/11
under oath, and answer to the irregularities I post above.
If they cannot -- as they have not -- they are obviously hiding
something awfully embarassing.
You're a cop. Someone is at the wheel when the car crashes. There's a
stink of alcohol. The driver refuses to be tested or answer questions.
Does that mean you let him go? You can't postulate that some booze
was involved because you can't use a breathalizer?
Give me a break. It's odd that "I don't recall" worked so well for
Reagan in Iran-Contra (Bush Sr. lied about being out of the loop and was
never forced to testify, just as his son weaseled out of oath as well).
People who won't talk obviously are hiding something. There's your
falsifiable evidence. Resisting speaking under oath, failing to allow a
fully independent commission, or disclosing details of closed-door
energy policies suggest a tremendous amount of damning evidence. We
need to get it out there, then we can falsify a damning hypothesis. Or
perhaps see if it withstands the influx of new data.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pinnush" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush, Bushies, and Cultural Pathologies |
04 Jul 2004 05:33:14 PM |
|
|
Welcome to the Female Superior Culture, whats in it for lower class males?
But for the average Joe on the street
to live in such a deep state of denial is despicable.
What's he getting out of the bargain? Like a dog
who enjoys being whipped or something,
he's angry when someone wants to take the whip out of
master's hands. There is a pathological denial, a
vampiric carnivorous bent, and rejection of science and the written
record that has somehow gone from mental illness to a legitimate
political stance. It speaks volumes about cultural pathologies.
gasp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
18 Jun 2004 01:56:46 AM |
|
|
"Doug Bashford" <see.my.sig@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10d508os4hiah47@corp.supernews.com...
Bush Claims Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said "numerous
contacts" between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified
the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the (either/both)
dishonest and incompetent press?
After yesterday and todays headlines claiming the 9/11
commission said one thing, but the Democratic and
Republican members came out today and said, 'No, we
what we said it consistent with everything the President
said -- Sodamn and Al Qaeda were linked, we just don't
have evidence that Sodamn participated in 9/11."
It really isn't that hard if you just LISTEN to what is really
said and just use some common sense: The WORST terrorist
IN IRAQ is Zarqawi and he is Al Qaeda -- wounded in
Afghanistan he fled TO IRAQ under the protection of Sodamn
and his sons, getting medical treatment in the ELITE Baathist
hospital -- denied to ordinary Iraqis and run by Uday.
He was a go between with Ansar Al Islam -- connect to both
Sodamn and Al Qaeda. He was implicated in various other
attacks on the US, such as the one againt US diplomats in
Jordan WHILE he was being PROTECTED BY Sodamn.
Also in RISIN attacks in Britain.
Sodamn gave money to suicide bombers -- and bragged about
it. Sodamn had a TRAINING CAMP that supported terrorists
just south of Baghdad -- complete with airliner for practicing
hijackings.
It could not have been for practicing against them since their
airline hadn't flown in 10 years.
Of course Sodamn was connected to Al Qaeda in specific,
and international terrorists in general.
Everyone KNOWS that. It hasn't even been in question for
years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
18 Jun 2004 04:14:56 AM |
|
|
Herb Martin said about:
Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****"
"Doug Bashford" wrote
Bush Claims Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said "numerous
contacts" between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified
the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the (either/both)
dishonest and incompetent press?
This isn't the press:
A panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reported
yesterday that meetings or contacts between the former
Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden
didn't lead to a collaborative relationship.
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
After yesterday and todays headlines claiming the 9/11
"Claiming"!!?? Huh? What are ya? A fruitcake?
After yesterday and todays headlines claiming the 9/11
commission said one thing, but the Democratic and
Republican members came out today and said, 'No, we
what we said it consistent with everything the President
said -- Sodamn and Al Qaeda were linked, we just don't
have evidence that Sodamn participated in 9/11."
I think you are lying.
Citation please.
"'No, we what we said it consistent with everything
the President said"
They are saying Bush lied to them.
And they believed him, because he is
after all tho focii of all US intel.
They never expected him to lie about it.
He's our president.
Take Rep Waxman for example.
He, like so many others, believed Bush, and
voted to invade.
When he found out that Bush had been playing
them for fools, Waxman got so angry, he came out with
his government data base of 237 Bush lies.
That ain't flip-flopping, my friend. That's
called getting even.
U.S. Government report: IRAQ ON THE RECORD
....In various file formats: .html, .rtf .txt.
"The report and an accompanying database identify
237 specific misleading statements by the five officials."
http://enviro.topcities.com/Bush/iraq-on-the-record-full_downloads.html
It really isn't that hard if you just LISTEN to what is really
said and just use some common sense:
You are a victim of your own mind filters, son.
Try to think objectivly. You know?...as in calm?
When the best evidence you Bushies can come up with
is that a terrorist had his leg amputated in Iraq,
it gets down right laughable. US doctors also
treated wounded terrorsts. Should Canada invade
the US for doctors acting like doctors?...for Americans
acting like civilized human beings?
You guys are pathetic.
The WORST terrorist
IN IRAQ is Zarqawi and he is Al Qaeda -- wounded in
Afghanistan he fled TO IRAQ under the protection of Sodamn
and his sons,
There is no evidence Saddam even knew he was there.
There is no evidence of anything other than medical
tratment...to amputate his leg. For that you would
invade a nation and kill 1000 US troops!?
You guys are pathetic.
You guys need brain transplants. But I doubt
Iraq would take you.
getting medical treatment in the ELITE Baathist
hospital -- denied to ordinary Iraqis and run by Uday.
My my, yap up those doggie instincts.
It's all you guys have.
Hate, fear, and feelsgoodism.
yap yap yap. Hide in a bunker.
Yap yap yap, vote for someone to protect
you, hysterically shreik like little girls:
EEEK! KILL The BIG BAD SPIDER !!! <<<<<
He was a go between with Ansar Al Islam -- connect to both
Sodamn and Al Qaeda. He was implicated in various other
attacks on the US, such as the one againt US diplomats in
Jordan WHILE he was being PROTECTED BY Sodamn.
He is indeed an *****. So what.
Grow up, girly. Deal with it. Try to
think rationally now and then. Try to
pretend this isn't about Ra-Ra ballgame
team spirit no matter what, but about putting
American morals and values first. Try to
put America first now and then. Trry to
think like a patriot rather than a Ra-Ra girly.
Also in RISIN attacks in Britain.
Sodamn gave money to suicide bombers -- and bragged about
it. Sodamn had a TRAINING CAMP that supported terrorists
just south of Baghdad -- complete with airliner for practicing
hijackings.
Salmon Pac? The Area 51, Roswell New Mexico for
Iraq conspiracy nuts?
L A U G H ! ! !
Thanks for playing.
Next!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
04 Jul 2004 01:32:05 PM |
|
|
In <OmwAc.1453$M96.383@fe2.texas.rr.com>
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:56:46 GMT, Herb Martin said about:
Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****"
"Doug Bashford" wrote in message
news:10d508os4hiah47@corp.supernews.com...
Bush Claims Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said "numerous
contacts" between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified
the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the (either/both)
dishonest and incompetent press?
After yesterday and todays headlines claiming the 9/11
commission said one thing, but the Democratic and
Republican members came out today and said, 'No, we
what we said it consistent with everything the President
said -- Sodamn and Al Qaeda were linked, we just don't
have evidence that Sodamn participated in 9/11."
It really isn't that hard if you just LISTEN to what is really
said and just use some common sense: The WORST terrorist
IN IRAQ is Zarqawi and he is Al Qaeda
"I don't know if I should say this or not, but I
suppose I can. It appears that Zarqawi, may very well
not have sworn allegiance to UBL -- maybe because he
disagrees with them on something, maybe because he
wants to be the man himself...therefore, someone
could legitimately say he's not al Qaeda."
--Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon, June 17, 2004
Cool. And ya know Rummy was sweating bricks to
admit that, so we know what "It appears that Zarqawi,
may very well not have..." means.
It means "we have hard evidence...."
-- wounded in
Afghanistan he fled TO IRAQ under the protection of Sodamn
and his sons, getting medical treatment in the ELITE Baathist
hospital -- denied to ordinary Iraqis and run by Uday.
He was a go between with Ansar Al Islam -- connect to both
Sodamn and Al Qaeda. He was implicated in various other
attacks on the US, such as the one againt US diplomats in
Jordan WHILE he was being PROTECTED BY Sodamn.
................
Everyone KNOWS that. It hasn't even been in question for
years.
laugh
Herb Martin, you guys are laughable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SmoggyGoo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
04 Jul 2004 01:24:38 PM |
|
|
What lies? Just because you and your band of thugs on the left say there
lies means there lies? I don't think so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jingo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
04 Jul 2004 05:24:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:24:38 GMT, "SmoggyGoo" <SG@earthlink.com>
wrote:
What lies? Just because you and your band of thugs on the left say there
lies means there lies? I don't think so.
I just love it when they beg to be schooled:
***
Bush Lies, Media Swallows
Eric Alterman, The Nation, November 7, 2002
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=alterman
he more things change... Roughly ten years ago, I celebrated the
criminal indictment of Elliott Abrams for lying to Congress by writing
an Op-Ed in the New York Times on the increasing acceptance of
official deception. (I was just starting my dissertation on the topic
back then.) The piece got bogged down, however, when an editor refused
to allow me even to imply that then-President Bush was also lying to
the country. I noted that such reticence made the entire exercise feel
a bit absurd. He did not dispute this point but explained that Times
policy simply would not allow it. I asked for a compromise. I was
offered the following: "Either take it out and a million people will
read you tomorrow, or leave it in and send it around to your friends."
(It was a better line before e-mail.) Anyway, I took it out, but I
think it was the last time I've appeared on that page.
President Bush is a liar. There, I said it, but most of the mainstream
media won't. Liberal pundits Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman and Richard
Cohen have addressed the issue on the Op-Ed pages, but almost all news
pages and network broadcasts pretend not to notice. In the one
significant effort by a national daily to deal with Bush's consistent
pattern of mendacity, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank could not
bring himself (or was not allowed) to utter the crucial words.
Instead, readers were treated to such complicated linguistic
circumlocutions as: Bush's statements represented "embroidering key
assertions" and were clearly "dubious, if not wrong." The President's
"rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy," he has "taken some
liberties," "omitted qualifiers" and "simply outpace[d] the facts."
But "Bush lied"? Never.
Ben Bradlee explains, "Even the very best newspapers have never
learned how to handle public figures who lie with a straight face. No
editor would dare print this version of Nixon's first comments on
Watergate for instance. 'The Watergate break-in involved matters of
national security, President Nixon told a national TV audience last
night, and for that reason he would be unable to comment on the
bizarre burglary. That is a lie.'"
Part of the reason is deference to the office and the belief that the
American public will not accept a mere reporter calling the President
a liar. Part of the reason is the culture of Washington--where it is
somehow worse to call a person a liar in public than to be one. A
final reason is political. Some reporters are just political activists
with columns who prefer useful lies to the truth. For instance, Robert
Novak once told me that he "admired" Elliott Abrams for lying to him
in a television interview about illegal US acts of war against
Nicaragua because he agreed with the cause.
Let us note, moreover, that Bradlee's observation, offered in 1997,
did not apply to President Clinton. Reporters were positively eager to
call Clinton a liar, although his lies were about private matters
about which many of us, including many reporters, lie all the time.
"I'd like to be able to tell my children, 'You should tell the
truth,'" Stuart Taylor Jr. of the National Journal said on Meet the
Press. "I'd like to be able to tell them, 'You should respect the
President.' And I'd like to be able to tell them both things at the
same time." David Gergen, who had worked for both Ronald Reagan and
Richard Nixon as well as Clinton and therefore could not claim to be a
stranger to official dishonesty, decried what he termed "the deep and
searing violation [that] took place when he not only lied to the
country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them." Chris Matthews
kvetched, "Clinton lies knowing that you know he's lying. It's brutal
and it subjugates the person who's being lied to. I resent deeply
being constantly lied to." George Will, a frequent apologist for the
lies of Reagan and now Bush, went so far as to insist that Clinton's
"calculated, sustained lying has involved an extraordinarily
corrupting assault on language, which is the uniquely human capacity
that makes persuasion, and hence popular government, possible."
George W. Bush does not lie about sex, I suppose--merely about war and
peace. Most particularly he has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear
capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities. Take a look
at Milbank's gingerly worded page-one October 22 Post story if you
doubt me. To cite just two particularly egregious examples, Bush tried
to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of
unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the
United States." Previously he insisted that a report by the
International Atomic Energy Agency revealed the Iraqis to be "six
months away from developing a weapon." Both of these statements are
false, but they are working. Nearly three-quarters of Americans
surveyed think that Saddam is currently helping Al Qaeda; 71 percent
think it is likely he was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.
What I want to know is why this kind of lying is apparently OK. Isn't
it worse to refer "repeatedly to intelligence...that remains largely
unverified"--as the Wall Street Journal puts it--in order to trick the
nation into war, as Bush and other top US officials have done, than to
lie about a *****? Isn't it worse to put "pressure...on the
intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates," as USA Today
worded its report? Isn't it more damaging to offer "cooked
information," in the words of the CIA's former chief of
counterterrorism, when you are asking young men and women to die for
your lies? Don't we revile Lyndon Johnson for having done just that
with his dishonest Gulf of Tonkin resolution?
Here's Bradlee again: "Just think for a minute how history might have
changed if Americans had known then that their leaders felt the war
was going to hell in a handbasket. In the next seven years, thousands
of American lives and more thousands of Asian lives would have been
saved. The country might never have lost faith in its leaders."
Reporters and editors who "protect" their readers and viewers from the
truth about Bush's lies are doing the nation--and ultimately George W.
Bush--no favors. Take a look at the names at that long black wall on
the Mall. Consider the tragic legacy of LBJ's failed presidency. Ask
yourself just who is being served when the media allow Bush to lie,
repeatedly, with impunity, in order to take the nation into war.
--Eric Alterman currently writes the "Stop the Presses" media column
for The Nation and the "Altercation" web log
(www.altercation.msnbc.com) for MSNBC.com. In recent years, he has
been a contributing editor to, or columnist for: Worth, Rolling Stone,
Elle, Mother Jones, World Policy Journal and the Sunday Express
(London). His Sound & Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy (1992
2000), won the 1992 George Orwell Award and his It Ain't No Sin to be
Glad You're Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen (1999, 2001), won
the 1999 Stephen Crane Literary Award.
***
"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace
that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now
about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."
--William F. Buckley Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/29/politics/29buckley.html?pagewanted=2&hp
.
|
|
|
| User: "SmoggyGoo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
05 Jul 2004 09:47:50 AM |
|
|
Not one lie in this article. Only opinions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZW" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
05 Jul 2004 05:25:19 PM |
|
|
"SmoggyGoo" <SG@earthlink.com> wrote in message news:<qSdGc.23445$IX4.2095631@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Not one lie in this article. Only opinions.
Who gives a ***** what Bush says or does anyway, the guy is a fanatic,
a misleader, a real moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Nisarel" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL Confuses "THREAT" with "*****" |
18 Jun 2004 08:16:36 AM |
|
|
Bjórrúnar skaltu Herb Martin rista --
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the
(either/both) dishonest and incompetent press?
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the dishonest and
incompetent Bush Administration?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL equates "BASHFORD" with "*****" |
18 Jun 2004 01:58:07 AM |
|
|
PLONK!!
"Doug Bashford" <see.my.sig@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:10d508os4hiah47@corp.supernews.com...
Bush Claims Iraq Posed Threat Because of Terror Link
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said "numerous
contacts" between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network justified
the U.S.-led war on Saddam Hussein's regime.
"There was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam
and al-Qaeda," Bush told reporters after meeting
with his Cabinet at the White House...
A panel investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks reported
yesterday that meetings or contacts between the former
Iraqi dictator and al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden
didn't lead to a collaborative relationship.
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
"Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said when asked about the report.
"He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction
against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy
of the United States of America, just like al- Qaeda. He was a threat
because he had terrorist connections."...
........
DimBulb Bush STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
====Google:
Iraq bomb toll rises
The Age, Australia - 40 minutes ago
... The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship
between Iraq and al-Qaeda ...
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
Cheney insists on Saddam-Qaeda link - Independent Online
** There's "no credible evidence that Iraq
** and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
** United States," the panel said.
White House sticks to its guns about Al-Qaida-Iraq links - Minneapolis
Star Tribune (subscription)
Islam Online
Bush defends his credibility on Iraq-al-Qaida - Newsday
Dallas Morning News (subscription) - New York Times - and more »
Foreign policy becoming a voting issue
Pioneer Press (Subscription), MN - 3 hours ago
... Item: From President Bush on Thursday: "The reason I keep
insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and
al-Qaida, because there was a ...
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
Whitehouse.gov (press release) - 12 hours ago
... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a
relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because
there was a relationship between Iraq ...
===========
If we were going to invade a
sovereign nation because of
their support for
Al-Qaeda--don't you think Saudi
Arabia might have been a better choice?
News results for
"and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against"
today's top stories
Iraq & al Qaeda - National Review Online - 16 hours ago
Commission rules out Iraq, al-Qaeda link - ABC Online
- 18 hours ago
CNN.com - 9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes - Jun ...
... No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation. The panel said it
found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States.". ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/ - 53k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
... fruition. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and
al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,"
the report said. ...
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5442262 - 25k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
Hidey-Bunker STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
He hopes YOU stay just as confused.
Good guys don't attack first.
Good guys are brave, and stand fast for their values.
Good guys accept the *resposibility* of being good.
Punks shoot first.
VOTE REPUBLICAN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL equates "BASHFORD" with "*****" |
18 Jun 2004 02:47:00 AM |
|
|
"Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net> wrote in message
news:3owAc.1244$bn7.948@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
PLONK!!
It works much better if you stick your fingers in your ears and say loudly
"LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA-LA-LA".
--
-My Real Name
______________
Proud of America
Ashamed of Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug Bashford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush STILL equates "BASHFORD" with "*****" |
18 Jun 2004 04:27:27 AM |
|
|
Re: Bush STILL equates "BASHFORD" with "*****"
"Buck" <Buck@Buckarooville.CowTown.Net> wrote in message
news:3owAc.1244$bn7.948@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
PLONK!!
It works much better if you stick your fingers in your ears and say loudly
"LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA-LA-LA".
______________
Proud of America
Ashamed of Bush
Remarks by the President After Meeting with His Cabinet
Whitehouse.gov (press release) - 12 hours ago
.... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a
relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because
there was a relationship between Iraq ...
===========
If we were going to invade a
sovereign nation because of
their support for
Al-Qaeda--don't you think Saudi
Arabia might have been a better choice?
News results for
"and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against"
today's top stories
Iraq & al Qaeda - National Review Online - 16 hours ago
Commission rules out Iraq, al-Qaeda link - ABC Online
- 18 hours ago
CNN.com - 9/11 panel: Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes - Jun ...
.... No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation. The panel said it
found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States.". ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/ - 53k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
.... fruition. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and
al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States,"
the report said. ...
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5442262 - 25k
Top News Article | Reuters.com
Hidey-Bunker STILL Confuses "threat" with "*****"
He hopes YOU stay just as confused.
Good guys don't attack first.
Good guys are brave, and stand fast for their values.
Good guys accept the *resposibility* of being good.
Punks shoot first.
VOTE REPUBLICAN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
