| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"RW" |
| Date: |
27 Jan 2007 06:59:14 PM |
| Object: |
George W. Bush Is A Liar |
The Bible says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving,
and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers,
and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Robert
Parry, who broke many of the stories of the Iran Contra Affair back in
the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek, says there is a lot
of documented evidence that President Bush has knowingly and willingly
lied to the American people and Congress throughout his
administration. See http://www.opednews.com/articles/
opedne_robert_p_060414_george_w__bush_is_a_.htm.
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't
think we want a president like that, not even for two years with a now
Democratic controlled Congress. I think impeachment should be brought
back on the table. Because even a lame duck president can still start
wars, and Mr. Bush has already started three of them since he assumed
the presidency over the rightfully elected Al Gore in 2000. Now he's
saying he wants 20,000 more troops in Iraq to "win" that war, whatever
that means. I think he really wants those troops in the area to
threaten Iran and Syria. He is also sending another aircraft carrier
group to the Persian Gulf, which will likely arrive there in late
February. President Nixon lost trust with the American people because
of his lies and was rightfully impeached, and the same should now be
done to President Bush. Blood is on the hands of this administration,
but if we go along with it blood will also be on our hands.
.
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
27 Jan 2007 11:50:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 01:32:35 AM |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
How about that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 07:50:24 AM |
|
|
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 08:02:00 AM |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 09:15:25 AM |
|
|
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and Afghanistan, of
course.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 04:43:20 PM |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I
don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no
reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and Afghanistan, of
course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Did president McKinley say that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoLibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 05:28:24 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I
don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no
reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and Afghanistan, of
course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Try to follow along.
The Global Jihadis moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (et al--but we're
not fighting them et al). If American troops weren't "dying for
nothing" Afghanistan, it follows that they aren't "dying for nothing"
in Iraq.
You said Americans were "dying for nothing."
Dummy.
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Did president McKinley say that?
McKinley never used the internet. Though he prolly used a telephone.
--
NeoLibertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 11:24:24 PM |
|
|
*****, fucking liar.
"NeoLibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170026904.263704.127690@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever. And I
don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no
reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and Afghanistan, of
course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Try to follow along.
The Global Jihadis moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (et al--but we're
not fighting them et al). If American troops weren't "dying for
nothing" Afghanistan, it follows that they aren't "dying for nothing"
in Iraq.
You said Americans were "dying for nothing."
Dummy.
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Did president McKinley say that?
McKinley never used the internet. Though he prolly used a telephone.
--
NeoLibertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
29 Jan 2007 06:46:16 PM |
|
|
In article <45bd850c$0$8939$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
*****, fucking liar.
You'll fit in just fine here at Usenet.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 06:49:49 PM |
|
|
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy
.com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.co
m...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com.
.. >> >> > In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever.
And I >> >> >> don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for
no >> >> reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and
Afghanistan, of course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
nope. War on Terror is war against Al Qaeda. period.
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda.
thus Iraq is not part of the War on Terror.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan,
dummy.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Try to follow along.
The Global Jihadis moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (et al--but we're
not fighting them et al).
only because Bush sent them there unecessarily.
If American troops weren't "dying for
nothing" Afghanistan, it follows that they aren't "dying for nothing"
in Iraq.
WRONG. Iraq was a war of choice - not necessity, thus it remains
illegal and not worthy of support.
no links to Al Qaeda.
You said Americans were "dying for nothing."
in Iraq? - they are.
Dummy.
stop looking in the mirror then!
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Did president McKinley say that?
McKinley never used the internet. Though he prolly used a telephone.
--
NeoLibertarian
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoLibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
29 Jan 2007 06:24:24 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 6:49 pm, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy
.com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.co
m...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com.
.. >> >> > In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left whatsoever.
And I >> >> >> don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for
no >> >> reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and
Afghanistan, of course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
nope. War on Terror is war against Al Qaeda. period.
When did you decide that? Ever since September 20th, 2001. the
administration has said that the war is NOT just about bin Laden, but
about the Global Jihad.
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated."
--George W. Bush
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
September 20, 2001
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda.
Irrelevant, but untrue, anyway. We've already established that the War
on Terror was never the "War Against bin Laden."
But Saddam had links to what you call "al-Qaeda." Much more evidence
has surfaced since the war about these connections, but I suppose you
weren't paying attention.
Maybe you've been too busy agreeing with your puppet masters that
"Bush lied and people died."
Below is a translation from Arabic to English of CMPC-2003-001488
document that was posted on Pentagon Website regarding the pre-war
Iraq documents. (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-
docex.htm#iraq).
Text of the document in English translated from Arabic.
In the Name of God the Merciful
Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Apparatus
To the respectful Mr. M.A.M
Subject: Information
Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see
attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul
Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him
the following:
1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact
with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin
Laden group visited Iraq.
2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin
Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.
3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group
and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that
American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation
with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above
information.
Please view... Yours... With regards
Signature:......, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission
Signature:............."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts
thus Iraq is not part of the War on Terror.
Thus, you're not even close to describing reality.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan,
dummy.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Try to follow along.
The Global Jihadis moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (et al--but we're
not fighting them et al).only because Bush sent them there unecessarily.
If American troops weren't "dying for
nothing" Afghanistan, it follows that they aren't "dying for nothing"
in Iraq.WRONG. Iraq was a war of choice - not necessity, thus it remains
illegal and not worthy of support.
no links to Al Qaeda.
You know what made 9/11 an act of war, as opposed to a magnificent
crime?
HINT: It's not only found in the choice of targets.
Mohammed Atta was on his way to fight the jihad in Chechnya. A chance
meeting with a Salafist cleric on a train led him to Afghanistan and a
meeting with Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden's group, at its zenith, was comprised of only about 3,000
jihadis. Not much of a threat; not much more than a small boy's club
composed of Timothy McVeighs.
But what was discovered in retracing the origins of the 9/11 attacks,
was that the international jihad had managed to connect most of its
thousands of underground networks into a working organism. Jihad
leaders such as bin Laden could tap into this network for specific
operations. And so could terrorist sponsor states such as Iran, Syria
and Iraq.
That's why 9/11 was undoubtedly an act of war.
--
NeoLibertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
29 Jan 2007 11:29:33 PM |
|
|
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:49 pm, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.pro
digy .com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodig
y.co m...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodig
y.com.
.. >> >> > In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left
whatsoever. And I >> >> >> don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths
for no >> >> reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's
archived at Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and
Afghanistan, of course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
nope. War on Terror is war against Al Qaeda. period.
When did you decide that? Ever since September 20th, 2001. the
administration has said that the war is NOT just about bin Laden, but
about the Global Jihad.
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated."
--George W. Bush
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
September 20, 2001
Yep. and thats when I decided the war was against Al Qaeda ONLY. as
soon as we started going after terrorists that had no links to 911 i
stopped supporting this war. for it morphed into a war of idealogy (a
crusade) and not one of pregmatic acheiveable tactics and targets.
We would have been wise to limit the goal - and thus accomplish that
goal.
otherwise to expand it is to make it unwinable. I knew the moron in
cheif had it in his mind that he could take on most of the WORLD and
win over a whole ideology rather than a pragmatic goal of one terrorist
organization.
The moron should have not expanded the goals.
now he not only lost the original goal - AL Qaeda, but all is lost now.
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda.
Irrelevant, but untrue, anyway. We've already established that the
War on Terror was never the "War Against bin Laden."
sadly nearly half of America never bought into the "expanded" war on
terror and were supporting it on condition that we get OBL and Al Qaeda
and not get into pie in the sky Reshaping the Middle East garbage.
But Saddam had links to what you call "al-Qaeda." Much more evidence
has surfaced since the war about these connections, but I suppose you
weren't paying attention.
no links to Saddam's Iraq - only links were to the Kurds in Northern
Iraq. our allies!
Maybe you've been too busy agreeing with your puppet masters that
"Bush lied and people died."
Below is a translation from Arabic to English of CMPC-2003-001488
document that was posted on Pentagon Website regarding the pre-war
Iraq documents. (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-
docex.htm#iraq).
Text of the document in English translated from Arabic.
In the Name of God the Merciful
Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Apparatus
To the respectful Mr. M.A.M
Subject: Information
Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see
attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul
Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him
the following:
1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact
with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin
Laden group visited Iraq.
2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin
Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.
3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group
and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that
American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation
with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the
above information.
Please view... Yours... With regards
Signature:......, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission
Signature:............."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts
thus Iraq is not part of the War on Terror.
Thus, you're not even close to describing reality.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan,
dummy.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
Try to follow along.
The Global Jihadis moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (et al--but
we're not fighting them et al).only because Bush sent them there
unecessarily.
If American troops weren't "dying for
nothing" Afghanistan, it follows that they aren't "dying for
nothing" in Iraq.WRONG. Iraq was a war of choice - not necessity,
thus it remains
illegal and not worthy of support.
no links to Al Qaeda.
You know what made 9/11 an act of war, as opposed to a magnificent
crime?
HINT: It's not only found in the choice of targets.
Mohammed Atta was on his way to fight the jihad in Chechnya. A chance
meeting with a Salafist cleric on a train led him to Afghanistan and
a meeting with Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden's group, at its zenith, was comprised of only about 3,000
jihadis. Not much of a threat; not much more than a small boy's club
composed of Timothy McVeighs.
But what was discovered in retracing the origins of the 9/11 attacks,
was that the international jihad had managed to connect most of its
thousands of underground networks into a working organism. Jihad
leaders such as bin Laden could tap into this network for specific
operations. And so could terrorist sponsor states such as Iran, Syria
and Iraq.
That's why 9/11 was undoubtedly an act of war.
--
NeoLibertarian
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoLibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
29 Jan 2007 11:50:32 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 11:29 pm, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:49 pm, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news.pro
digy .com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodig
y.co m...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodig
y.com.
.. >> >> > In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left
whatsoever. And I >> >> >> don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths
for no >> >> reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's
archived at Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and
Afghanistan, of course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
nope. War on Terror is war against Al Qaeda. period.
When did you decide that? Ever since September 20th, 2001. the
administration has said that the war is NOT just about bin Laden, but
about the Global Jihad.
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated."
--George W. Bush
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
September 20, 2001Yep. and thats when I decided the war was against Al Qaeda ONLY. as
soon as we started going after terrorists that had no links to 911 i
stopped supporting this war. for it morphed into a war of idealogy (a
crusade) and not one of pregmatic acheiveable tactics and targets.
We would have been wise to limit the goal - and thus accomplish that
goal.
otherwise to expand it is to make it unwinable. I knew the moron in
cheif had it in his mind that he could take on most of the WORLD and
win over a whole ideology rather than a pragmatic goal of one terrorist
organization.
The moron should have not expanded the goals.
now he not only lost the original goal - AL Qaeda, but all is lost now.
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda.
Irrelevant, but untrue, anyway. We've already established that the
War on Terror was never the "War Against bin Laden."sadly nearly half of America never bought into the "expanded" war on
terror and were supporting it on condition that we get OBL and Al Qaeda
and not get into pie in the sky Reshaping the Middle East garbage.
But Saddam had links to what you call "al-Qaeda." Much more evidence
has surfaced since the war about these connections, but I suppose you
weren't paying attention.no links to Saddam's Iraq - only links were to the Kurds in Northern
Iraq. our allies!
You're illiterate.
--
NeoLibertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
30 Jan 2007 07:05:09 PM |
|
|
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:29 pm, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:49 pm, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
NeoLibertarian wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:43 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
messagenews:cognac756-5716A7.09080728012007@newsclstr02.news
.pro digy .com...
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.pr
odig y.co m...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.pr
odig y.com.
.. >> >> > In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >>
"RW" <rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To me, President Bush has no credibility left
whatsoever. And I >> >> >> don't
think we want a president like that,
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their
deaths for no >> >> reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years
now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's
archived at Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and
Afghanistan, of course.
I never mentioned Afghanistan. Why are YOU adding that?
War on Terror is a package deal.
nope. War on Terror is war against Al Qaeda. period.
When did you decide that? Ever since September 20th, 2001. the
administration has said that the war is NOT just about bin Laden,
but about the Global Jihad.
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end
there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global
reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
--George W. Bush
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American
People September 20, 2001Yep. and thats when I decided the
war was against Al Qaeda ONLY. as
soon as we started going after terrorists that had no links to 911 i
stopped supporting this war. for it morphed into a war of idealogy
(a crusade) and not one of pregmatic acheiveable tactics and
targets.
We would have been wise to limit the goal - and thus accomplish that
goal.
otherwise to expand it is to make it unwinable. I knew the moron in
cheif had it in his mind that he could take on most of the WORLD and
win over a whole ideology rather than a pragmatic goal of one
terrorist organization.
The moron should have not expanded the goals.
now he not only lost the original goal - AL Qaeda, but all is lost
now.
Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda.
Irrelevant, but untrue, anyway. We've already established that the
War on Terror was never the "War Against bin Laden."sadly nearly
half of America never bought into the "expanded" war on
terror and were supporting it on condition that we get OBL and Al
Qaeda and not get into pie in the sky Reshaping the Middle East
garbage.
But Saddam had links to what you call "al-Qaeda." Much more
evidence has surfaced since the war about these connections, but
I suppose you weren't paying attention.no links to Saddam's Iraq
- only links were to the Kurds in Northern
Iraq. our allies!
You're illiterate.
--
NeoLibertarian
so -in otherwords you have nothing?
not surprised.
keep drinking the neocon kooliad kid.
Jim jones would be proud ;-).
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 10:16:55 AM |
|
|
Neolibertarian wrote:
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article
<1169945954.402239.152040@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> > "RW"
<rogerwbovee@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> To me, President Bush
has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't >> >> think we want
a president like that, >> >
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no
reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and Afghanistan,
of course.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Nobody claimed such WRT Afghanistan - moron.
WE all know the lies were about Iraq and the imaginary WMDs - nothing
to do with Afghanistan which we all supported.
fool.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoLibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 05:20:12 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 10:16 am, "gaffo" <g...@usenet.net> wrote:
Neolibertarian wrote:
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-615906.23431127012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article
<1169945954.402239.152...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> > "RW"
<rogerwbo...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> To me, President Bush
has no credibility left whatsoever. And I don't >> >> think we want
a president like that, >> >
What you mean "we," Paleface?
What liar you thinking you replace him with, anyway?
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no
reason.
President McKinley's been dead over a hundred years now.
When has that ever happened since?
Ladies and gentleman, the deliberate idiot.
The evidence is you're the deliberate idiot. And it's archived at
Google, et al, into perpetuity.
You're referring to your abysmal "opinions" of Iraq and Afghanistan,
of course.
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Nobody claimed such WRT Afghanistan - moron.
WE all know the lies were about Iraq and the imaginary WMDs -
Who told lies about WMD in Iraq???
nothing
to do with Afghanistan which we all supported.
Define "we."
--
NeoLibertarian
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "colp" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 09:51:16 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 4:15 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <45bcacd8$0$24484$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
<snip>
Americans aren't "dying for nothing" in Iraq and Afghanistan, dummy.
Even here at Usenet, saying so doesn't make it so.
Why are Americans dying in Iraq?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hopeful" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
28 Jan 2007 10:47:44 AM |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
You are mistaken about there being no reason for President Bush lying to the
American people and invading Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq to remove a threat
against Israel and to assist the Jews in their dirty little war for land.
Lookup "noble lie" and leo strauss to learn more. The zionists are now
telling Bush to invade Iran and he probably will. The Jews have been scared
of Iran so much so they offered to help Hussein, ... " ... 10. The United
States was anxious to have other countries supply
assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that
Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing
Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the
United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald
Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the
United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq.
The United States agreed. I travelled wtih Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was
present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq
Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the
Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that
he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so. ..." from "teicher
+article1413.htm"
Bush has entered America into the religious war of the Jews and the Jews
have infiltrated the Jesus-jumpers of America, ... " ... Ever since Benjamin
Netanyahu -- Israel's prime minister from 1996 to
1999 -- cultivated ties with U.S. Evangelicals and other Christians during
his tenure, Israeli governments have sought to strengthen relations with the
sector of the Christian world which, for religious reasons, tends to take a
pro-Israeli view of the Arab-Jewish conflict. On Mr. Robertson's website, he
says that God gave this land "to the descendants of Israel," not to
"so-called Palestinians." Older churches, such as Orthodox and Catholic
denominations, have more local Palestinian followers and tend to support
that side of the conflict. ...". A Theme Park for Holyland? Ilene R.
Prusher, csmonitor.com
" ... True, Judaism does not assign the same status to the unborn child as
to life after birth. Thus abortion is always permissible, indeed mandatory,
when the mother's life is threatened. ..." National Review, 7/8/1991. Don
Feder. Also see J J Goldberg's "Jewish Power", pp. 41-42.
"...15. These assassinations constitute a critical challenge from an
unbridled bank of Jewish terrorists to the very effort of United Nations to
achieve, by means of mediation, a peaceful adjustment of the dispute in
Palestine. In a broader sense, they give evidence not only of contempt for
the actions of the Security Council, but also of a cynical disregard for the
United Nations as a whole. It is clearly imperative that urgent measures be
taken to ensue that the aims of the United Nations in Palestine should not
be frustrated by criminal bands or by any individuals or groups who might
hope to profit from acts of such bands." UN S 1018 9/28/1948
President Bush has done more to hurt America than our enemies could ever
hope to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
29 Jan 2007 06:45:38 PM |
|
|
In article
<Ps4vh.477845$Fi1.136046@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"hopeful" <hopetruthpeace@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
You are mistaken about there being no reason for President Bush lying to the
American people and invading Iraq.
I never wrote anything remotely connected to that statement, my little
illiterate friend.
I believe that many lies have been told and not told about the war in
Iraq, and the Shrub has told and not told his share of these.
What you fail to take into account in your paradigm of 'Bush being a
victim of his "NeoCon" handlers' is:
A) Bush is about as far from being a NeoCon President as one could
imagine. And this is the primary reason all the NeoCons are gone, gone,
gone from his administration at this point.
B) If Bush wanted higher prices for oil, he certainly wouldn't have
needed to invade Iraq. Doing nothing at all would have worked far
better--and would have had the added virtue of eliminating him from
blame. He could have, as suggested after OP: EF, thrown back the tide of
the Global Jihad with the fork of high profile Delta Force and joint
CIA-INTERPOL raids.
Great for the papers, like Elliot Ness was in 1930's. And just as
ineffective towards addressing the real problems.
American oil concerns aren't making out like bandits in Iraq. The real
profiteers are Russia, India, Germany and France. And just recently, the
Iraqis have agreed to re-negotiate their pre-war Shared Production
Agreements with the China's CNPC.
C) If, in truth, Bush had lied about American intentions in the Gulf and
Iraq, one would think that he would have produced a scapegoat, and would
have used the media to make his case.
What is most frustrating to the GOPS is that this President has made no
real effort to sell his case to the American people (beyond presenting
it). He has made ZERO effort to head off criticism from the opposition
party.
D) If the party only wanted a script reader--why the ***** would they
chose HIM?
E) If the Shrub were only interested in getting reelected (something
that wasn't in jeopardy UNTIL the invasion), what benefit is there to
continue on with maintaining the Iraq Republic?
It seems to me that his self interest lies elsewhere. And has since his
numbers bottomed out almost a year ago now.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
| User: "mg" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
30 Jan 2007 12:17:29 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 5:45 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article
<Ps4vh.477845$Fi1.136...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"hopeful" <hopetruthpe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-3F6A49.07430628012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <45bc5173$0$28127$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A liar who doesn't lie to send Americans to their deaths for no reason.
You are mistaken about there being no reason for President Bush lying to the
American people and invading Iraq.
I never wrote anything remotely connected to that statement, my little
illiterate friend.
I believe that many lies have been told and not told about the war in
Iraq, and the Shrub has told and not told his share of these.
What you fail to take into account in your paradigm of 'Bush being a
victim of his "NeoCon" handlers' is:
A) Bush is about as far from being a NeoCon President as one could
imagine. And this is the primary reason all the NeoCons are gone, gone,
gone from his administration at this point.
B) If Bush wanted higher prices for oil, he certainly wouldn't have
needed to invade Iraq. Doing nothing at all would have worked far
better--and would have had the added virtue of eliminating him from
blame. He could have, as suggested after OP: EF, thrown back the tide of
the Global Jihad with the fork of high profile Delta Force and joint
CIA-INTERPOL raids.
Great for the papers, like Elliot Ness was in 1930's. And just as
ineffective towards addressing the real problems.
American oil concerns aren't making out like bandits in Iraq. The real
profiteers are Russia, India, Germany and France. And just recently, the
Iraqis have agreed to re-negotiate their pre-war Shared Production
Agreements with the China's CNPC.
C) If, in truth, Bush had lied about American intentions in the Gulf and
Iraq, one would think that he would have produced a scapegoat, and would
have used the media to make his case.
What is most frustrating to the GOPS is that this President has made no
real effort to sell his case to the American people (beyond presenting
it). He has made ZERO effort to head off criticism from the opposition
party.
D) If the party only wanted a script reader--why the ***** would they
chose HIM?
E) If the Shrub were only interested in getting reelected (something
that wasn't in jeopardy UNTIL the invasion), what benefit is there to
continue on with maintaining the Iraq Republic?
It seems to me that his self interest lies elsewhere. And has since his
numbers bottomed out almost a year ago now.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
Bush invaded Iraq primarily for the oil contracts and to win the 2002
mid-term elections. He thought the war would be easy because the
Neocons told him it would be easy and that's what he wanted to hear.
At the time Bush thought he had a win-win situation. If the war went
well and he got the contracts, the oil companies would be able to
restrict production and keep oil prices high. If the war didn't go
quite so well, he would still be able to damage Iraq's infrastructure,
destroy their government and delay oil production for a long time to
come and raise oil prices by making the market jittery.
Where Bush went wrong is that he never thought there would be this
much resistance because the Neocons only fed him the rosy scenario.
Even so, he's still dealing with a win-win scenario and if he attacks
Iran, oil prices and profits could really soar.
I've read a lot of theories and this analysis is the only one that
makes sense and fits the facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
30 Jan 2007 07:45:29 PM |
|
|
In article <1170137849.936719.297350@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bush invaded Iraq primarily for the oil contracts and to win the 2002
mid-term elections.
After OP: Enduring Freedom, he enjoyed 80% approval ratings, and was
able to sustain them for more months than any President in American
history.
Had he shifted to Delta Force strikes against a terrorist here and
there, he would have been protecting his approvals.
There was NO ONE on Pennsylvania Avenue who was telling him that he
could get EVEN BETTER approval ratings. It wouldn't have been possible.
And please show me the oil contracts that he has in his hands. Bush
ain't no Little Red Hen.
It turns out that all those who DIDN'T help build the row boat get to
ride in it anyway.
He thought the war would be easy because the
Neocons told him it would be easy and that's what he wanted to hear.
It was "easy."
His Dad, far more an expert on the political-religious dynamics in Iraq
than any of the idiots who blather on CNN, knew that the tricky fucking
part about invading Iraq would be the Post-Saddam Transition.
The Shrub, himself, had reports on his desk about the last 20 years of
the activities of SCIRI and the Feydayeen who had been formed to fight
them.
The Shrub, himself, knew all about Iran's politcal-religious-financial
interests in Iraq.
Long before he decided to pull the trigger.
At the time Bush thought he had a win-win situation.
It is a win-win situation. Which is why the opposition party is so
vehemently against it. Even when it was forced to go along with it.
The opposition party may not care much for ideals, but they certainly
respect 80% approvals.
If the war went
well and he got the contracts, the oil companies would be able to
restrict production and keep oil prices high. If the war didn't go
quite so well, he would still be able to damage Iraq's infrastructure,
destroy their government and delay oil production for a long time to
come and raise oil prices by making the market jittery.
Had the US not gone into Iraq, the oil prices would rise more than they
have (which here in the US ain't much).
American companies are not the big winners in Iraq. And they CERTAINLY
aren't the long term winners.
And there are more influences on the Shrub than the oil companies (hell
he didn't do much for them--not near as much as he COULD have).
It seems that his self interest is far better served with low oil prices.
Where Bush went wrong is that he never thought there would be this
much resistance because the Neocons only fed him the rosy scenario.
Even so, he's still dealing with a win-win scenario and if he attacks
Iran, oil prices and profits could really soar.
He had the reports on his desk. He had all those dinner conversations
with his dad.
He most likely knew far more than you about the dynamics of Iraq, even
before you could pick it out on a map.
I've read a lot of theories and this analysis is the only one that
makes sense and fits the facts.
Not a shred of it makes any sense whatsoever nor does any of it stand up
to the facts.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
| User: "mg" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
01 Feb 2007 04:18:18 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 6:45 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1170137849.936719.297...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bush invaded Iraq primarily for the oil contracts and to win the 2002
mid-term elections.
After OP: Enduring Freedom, he enjoyed 80% approval ratings, and was
able to sustain them for more months than any President in American
history.
Bush's approval rating was hovering around 55% prior to 9/11.
Afterwards it jumped to about 85%. After that, there's a steady
erosion. Bush didn't get much of a boost from the Afghanistan
invasion, probably because they screwed up and let Osama get away (Nov
2001). In Jan 2002, Bush gave his famous axes of evil speech and began
talking about Iraq and WMDs.
In Jan 2002, the New York Times had 202 articles about bin Laden and
96 articles about Saddam/Iraq. In Oct 2002, they had 102 articles
about bin Laden and 975 about Saddam/Iraq.
In Dec 2001, Bush made 5 references to bin Laden and 1 reference to
Saddam. In Oct 2002;, just before the election, Bush made 1 reference
to Bin Laden and 62 references to Saddam/Iraq. In December, after the
elections, the number of references to Saddam/Iraq had dropped down to
18.
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_thesis.pdf
In the 2002 elections, the Republicans gained 8 seats in the House,
increasing the majority from 9 to 25. In the Senate the Republicans
went from a minority of 49 to a majority of 51.The Republican party
had the Presidency and a majority of both houses for the first time
since 1952. That was the first time since 1902 that the Republican
party had added seats in the House of Representatives in a mid-term
election. If more Democrats had voted against the war resolution,
Republicans would have won even more seats.
The evidence is pretty clear that the propaganda campaign against
Saddam prior to the elections helped the Republicans win in 2002.
. . .
And please show me the oil contracts that he has in his hands. Bush
ain't no Little Red Hen.
"New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
Chris Floyd 08/01/2007
I. Surging Toward the Ultimate Prize
The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in
Iraq is not that he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached
from reality or ill-advised. No, it's that his definition of "victory"
is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the
ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and
online. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any
moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read
this. And the driving force behind his planned "surge" of American
troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now
ripening in his hand.
At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers
is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by
the Bush administration and its UK lackey, the Independent on Sunday
reported. The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry
and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the
world," says the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new
law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil
companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972."
If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should
take effect in March. . ."
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/texte.php?langue=3§ion=BDBF&id=25179
-> It turns out that all those who DIDN'T help build the
-> row boat get to ride in it anyway.
A lot of Iraq has been destroyed since the invasion and a lot of
people have been killed and the row boat was already there. I don't
see where we have helped build much of anything. The oil belongs to
the Iraqi people and it's about all they have and their obviously not
even going to get a chance to vote on it. Considering the government
isn't a real government and the country is under occupation, I don't
understand how these contracts could hold up in an international court
even if they are signed.
These contracts are bad for the Iraqi people and they are bad for
Americans. They'll result in the Iraqi's getting less money and
they'll result in higher gas prices for Americans and if the contracts
are signed, the U.S. military is going to have to stay there
indefinitely to defend the oil companies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
01 Feb 2007 09:15:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1170325098.491538.127380@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:45 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1170137849.936719.297...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bush invaded Iraq primarily for the oil contracts and to win the 2002
mid-term elections.
After OP: Enduring Freedom, he enjoyed 80% approval ratings, and was
able to sustain them for more months than any President in American
history.
Bush's approval rating was hovering around 55% prior to 9/11.
Afterwards it jumped to about 85%. After that, there's a steady
erosion. Bush didn't get much of a boost from the Afghanistan
Operation Enduring Freedom commenced October 7th, 2001.
You can't have it both ways. Op: EF was either a boost or it wasn't.
I'm not clear about the point, anyway.
invasion, probably because they screwed up and let Osama get away (Nov
2001). In Jan 2002, Bush gave his famous axes of evil speech and began
talking about Iraq and WMDs.
American people weren't polling the way you seem to believe. Osama
getting away wasn't thought to be anything more than a temporary setback
at that time.
The Axis of Evil Speech was frank, direct and completely on target.
Which is why it raised such an uproar in the opposition party.
In Jan 2002, the New York Times had 202 articles about bin Laden and
96 articles about Saddam/Iraq. In Oct 2002, they had 102 articles
about bin Laden and 975 about Saddam/Iraq.
In Dec 2001, Bush made 5 references to bin Laden and 1 reference to
Saddam. In Oct 2002;, just before the election, Bush made 1 reference
to Bin Laden and 62 references to Saddam/Iraq. In December, after the
elections, the number of references to Saddam/Iraq had dropped down to
18.
http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_thesis.pdf
In the 2002 elections, the Republicans gained 8 seats in the House,
increasing the majority from 9 to 25. In the Senate the Republicans
went from a minority of 49 to a majority of 51.The Republican party
had the Presidency and a majority of both houses for the first time
since 1952. That was the first time since 1902 that the Republican
party had added seats in the House of Representatives in a mid-term
election. If more Democrats had voted against the war resolution,
Republicans would have won even more seats.
The evidence is pretty clear that the propaganda campaign against
Saddam prior to the elections helped the Republicans win in 2002.
The New York Times is not a propaganda organ for the Republican Party.
Arguments?
Saddam Hussein was the lesser crown of the Triumvirate of Jihad Support
states in the Middle East.
Any War on the Global Jihad would logically address Iraq as a way of
addressing the greater structure.
Your article count is also a classic example of the Fallacy of the
Biased Sample.
Demonization of Saddam Hussein was escalated immensely during the
Clinton Administration, especially after UNSCOM was thrown out of Iraq
in 1998. Bin Laden was able to push him off to page seven, but the story
of Iraq did not begin as you characterize it here.
Not by a long shot.
You knew, for instance, that regime change in Iraq was in the Democrat
Party Platform of 2000?
Acting against Iraq was a positive move to the American people because
Dems and Gops had been demonizing him for over a decade.
Only after Pelosi's consultants told her in 2004 that, if she ever
wanted the Speakership, she'd have to "take down the President"--only
then was the idea of invading Iraq made to seem to be Captain Ahab
Bush's maniacal obsession...alone.
And please show me the oil contracts that he has in his hands. Bush
ain't no Little Red Hen.
"New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
Chris Floyd 08/01/2007
I. Surging Toward the Ultimate Prize
The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in
Iraq is not that he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached
from reality or ill-advised. No, it's that his definition of "victory"
is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the
ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and
online. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any
moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read
this. And the driving force behind his planned "surge" of American
troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now
ripening in his hand.
At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers
is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by
the Bush administration and its UK lackey, the Independent on Sunday
reported. The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry
and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the
world," says the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new
law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil
companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972."
If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should
take effect in March. . ."
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/texte.php?langue=3§ion=BDBF&id=25179
This article is like many hundreds before it, published since the
commencement of Op: IF. The promised juicy oil contracts have failed to
appear in America's hands time and time again. America's oil companies
are not making out like bandits in Iraq.
Besides, America imports most of her oil from Canada.
China's interest in al-Ahdab and al-Halfaya fields (two of the richest
in Iraq) have been revived just this past month. CNPC had pre-war Shared
Production Contracts for these fields (signed under the Ba'athist
regime). Since Op: IF, these SPC's were thought to be nullified. Now, it
seems, China has succeeded in reviving them.
While Iraq and oil can never be separated, America has not profited from
Iraq oil as she's constantly been accused of doing.
But, in the end, America does, indeed, profit from the free flow of oil
to the West. Which is what Op: IF has achieved.
-> It turns out that all those who DIDN'T help build the
-> row boat get to ride in it anyway.
A lot of Iraq has been destroyed since the invasion and a lot of
people have been killed and the row boat was already there. I don't
see where we have helped build much of anything. The oil belongs to
the Iraqi people and it's about all they have and their obviously not
even going to get a chance to vote on it. Considering the government
isn't a real government and the country is under occupation, I don't
understand how these contracts could hold up in an international court
even if they are signed.
These contracts are bad for the Iraqi people and they are bad for
Americans. They'll result in the Iraqi's getting less money and
they'll result in higher gas prices for Americans and if the contracts
are signed, the U.S. military is going to have to stay there
indefinitely to defend the oil companies.
There's not a shred of truth in the either of these two paragraphs.
You've succeeded in completely mischaracterizing the facts, and have
shown an abysmal understanding of pre-war Iraq.
Much has already been accomplished for the Iraqi people.
The only thing preventing even more being done are the "Rejectionists"
in Iraq, and their sponsors (Iran, Syria, and large Jihad support
networks and organizations in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, et al).
/They/ are the enemies of the Iraqi people. And they are the actors
standing in the way of prosperity for the Iraqi people.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Nobody inherits their civilisation.
You always inherit the /ruins/ of your civilisation.
Beginning with yourself."
--Dennis M. Hammes
.
|
|
|
| User: "mg" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
01 Feb 2007 10:20:27 PM |
|
|
On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.. . .
-> It turns out that all those who DIDN'T help build the
-> row boat get to ride in it anyway.
A lot of Iraq has been destroyed since the invasion and a lot of
people have been killed and the row boat was already there. I don't
see where we have helped build much of anything. The oil belongs to
the Iraqi people and it's about all they have and their obviously not
even going to get a chance to vote on it. Considering the government
isn't a real government and the country is under occupation, I don't
understand how these contracts could hold up in an international court
even if they are signed.
These contracts are bad for the Iraqi people and they are bad for
Americans. They'll result in the Iraqi's getting less money and
they'll result in higher gas prices for Americans and if the contracts
are signed, the U.S. military is going to have to stay there
indefinitely to defend the oil companies.
There's not a shred of truth in the either of these two paragraphs.
You've succeeded in completely mischaracterizing the facts, and have
shown an abysmal understanding of pre-war Iraq.
.. . .
"Oil Companies Hold Down Production in Iraq
By John M. Blair
The following is an excerpt from The Control of Oil (New York:
Pantheon, 1977).
In this excerpt, John Blair shows how the US and UK companies held
down
production in their Iraq concessions, in order to maximize their
worldwide profits. In spite of protests from the Iraq government, and
opposition from their French partner, the Anglo-American companies
maintained this policy until nationalization in 1972. In the last part
of this excerpt, we see the active role of the US State Department in
defending the oil companies' interests. . ."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/1976blairoil...
The American people are extremely naive--actually stupid. First they
swallowed the WMD story hook line and sinker and waved the flag and
started calling French fries, freedom fries. Now they have some
fairy-tale delusion that Bush & Cheney and their cronies plan on
getting the contracts and producing a lot of oil and bringing the
prices down. Dream on America. We live in a capitalistic society,
remember? The idea isn't to reduce profits. It's to increase them. If
you want reduced oil production, the oil contracts are the way to get
them. If you want a lot of oil production, allow Iraq to keep control
over its own oil. Their economy has been destroyed. Their
infrastructure has been destroyed. The Iraqis are going to need to be
at high production for a long, long time to come to get back on their
feet.
Just because the American people are stupid when it comes to oil, that
doesn't mean the Iraqi people are. About 76% of them believe the
reason
the U.S. invaded Iraq was "to control Iraqi oil". Do you think George
Bush II is going to give the Iraqi people a chance to vote on the PSA
contracts? If you do, think again. These oil deals are conducted
behind
closed doors. The Iraqi people are not going to see those contracts
and
neither are the American people, at least not until after they are
signed.
Will Rogers, in the 1920s, said we have the best government money can
buy. Now it's 80 years later and 35 to 40 investigators had to work
full time recently just to find out how many politicians Jack Abramoff
had bribed. Does anybody remember Enron and Reliant Energy? While
Bush's crony, Ken Lay, was ripping off California, Bush & Cheney were
busy blaming the victim for the shortages. If you think the U.S.
politicians are corrupt, just try to imagine what's going on in Iraq
right now. It certainly would be interesting to get a list of the new
swiss bank accounts that have been opened by Iraqis in the last 4
years.
What are our soldiers and marines supposed to be fighting for over
there, anyway? Are they fighting for the contracts? Are they fighting
to keep gas prices high at the pump? That's what it looks like to me.
They're not fighting to give Iraqis control over their own oil. That's
for sure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "NeoLibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: George W. Bush Is A Liar |
02 Feb 2007 12:00:13 AM |
|
|
On Feb 1, 10:20 pm, "mg" <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . .
-> It turns out that all those who DIDN'T help build the
-> row boat get to ride in it anyway.
A lot of Iraq has been destroyed since the invasion and a lot of
people have been killed and the row boat was already there. I don't
see where we have helped build much of anything. The oil belongs to
the Iraqi people and it's about all they have and their obviously not
even going to get a chance to vote on it. Considering the government
isn't a real government and the country is under occupation, I don't
understand how these contracts could hold up in an international court
even if they are signed.
These contracts are bad for the Iraqi people and they are bad for
Americans. They'll result in the Iraqi's getting less money and
they'll result in higher gas prices for Americans and if the contracts
are signed, the U.S. military is going to have to stay there
indefinitely to defend the oil companies.
There's not a shred of truth in the either of these two paragraphs.
You've succeeded in completely mischaracterizing the facts, and have
shown an abysmal understanding of pre-war Iraq.
. . .
"Oil Companies Hold Down Production in Iraq
By John M. Blair
The following is an excerpt from The Control of Oil (New York:
Pantheon, 1977).
In this excerpt, John Blair shows how the US and UK companies held
down
production in their Iraq concessions, in order to maximize their
worldwide profits.
You think Saddam was sharing the wealth with the little people?
The American people are extremely naive--actually stupid.
Well, it's prolly the public school system.
First they
swallowed the WMD story hook line and sinker and waved the flag and
started calling French fries, freedom fries. Now they have some
fairy-tale delusion that Bush & Cheney and their cronies plan on
getting the contracts and producing a lot of oil and bringing the
prices down.
The prices are down, dummy. Pump prices are below what they were 10
years ago.
Pst: America imports most of her oil from Canada, unsurprisingly.
Dream on America. We live in a capitalistic society,
remember? The idea isn't to reduce profits. It's to increase them.
Yawell, Wal Mart did this by providing high quality goods at bargain
basement prices.
You hate Wal Ma | | | | | | | | | | | |
