More Lies From The Bush Administration

[bevin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...h_dissenters_wa

Quote:

---

"We welcome a diversity of views at the events," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday, although in fact participants at the events are carefully screened and dissenting voices are rare.

---

[Bravus]

I have to admit, I can't manage to raise enough ire or surprise to even comment anymore... just a shrug...

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I have to admit, I can't manage to raise enough ire or surprise to even comment anymore... just a shrug...

---

Well that's because you are in the wrong place, Bravus...I know a place that will get you a lot of ire when you quote non-republican/conservative views....If you want ire, that is...

[Dr. Shane]

Sounds like they are on the right track. Since they know they are dealing with a liberal sympathetic press, they know they must keep dissenters away. Should dissenters be allowed, the biased press will focus only on the opposing message of the dissenters and not on the President's message.

The fact that Yahoo News sees this as a story tells you they're baised. This is not a new tactic for the Bush Administration. Dissenters have always tried to steal the lime light from Presidents pushing their agenda and Presidents have always sought ways to prevent them from doing so. This is just politics as usual - nothing new.

[Bravus]

Orwell is rolling in his grave.

[Dr. Shane]

Do you think President Wilson didn't do this when pushing the League of Nations? Or what about Franklen Roosevelt and his New Deal? Do you actually belive this is new? This dates back further than Orwell.

Don't be a top. Don't let others spin you.

[Dr. Shane]

I do not try to surpress any speech. Not even when it seems as silly as yours. I just shine the light of reality of things. Do you dislike what Bush is doing? If you do I can respect that opinion. But let's be honest. He isn't the first, won't be the last, and has an understandable reason for doing it.

He isn't touring the country so a bunch of protestors and Bush-haters can get free press. He is trying to push an agenda that he believes is best for the country.

[Neil D]

Yeah, with emphasis on " trying to push an agenda "....The question as to whether it is good for the country is still in debate.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Now what does this article say? [/]

Intelligence-gathering problems persist, commission says

BY DAVID JACKSON

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Not only was the government "dead wrong" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, officials still know "disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors," a special commission warned Thursday.

Moreover, U.S. intelligence agencies remain ill-prepared to confront the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, said the panel appointed by President Bush, urging sweeping changes well beyond those Congress ordered last year.

"There is no more important intelligence mission than understanding the worst weapons that our enemies possess, and how they intend to use them against us," said the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Bush called the findings a "sharp critique" of the nation's spy agencies.

The president, whose 2003 decision to invade Iraq relied on an assessment that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons, vowed Thursday to follow through on the panel's recommendations to better coordinate the varied intelligence agencies.

"The threats today are unprecedented," Bush said at a White House news conference, flanked by the commission's two chairmen. "The lives of our citizens are at stake."

web page

[:"blue"]In other words, it's not Bush's fault. He operated upon faulty intelligence...Then why did Bush say "We know where the weapons of mass destruction are at."? If he didn't know, why did he say he did? He lied to sell us a bill of worthless goods. We never had any business going into Iraq. That is the counterbalanceto the presidential inquiry. [/]

[:"blue"] In case you want more evidence that Bush says that there were WMDS, concider the following [/]

[:"red"] After 9-11 [/]

[:"red"] Nov 2001 [/] Pentagon official Richard Perle: "He has weapons of mass destruction. The lesser risk is in pre-emption. We've got to stop wishing away the problem."

[:"red"] 11 Mar 2002 [/] British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "The threat that Saddam Hussein poses is an issue in its own right, because the reason why the UN Security Council passed these resolutions was precisely because we know the threat that there is from the weapons of mass destruction that he has."

[:"red"] 26 Aug 2002 [/] Vice President Dick Cheney declares: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

[:"red"]4 Sep 2002 [/]Senator Joseph Lieberman declares: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."

[:"red"]18 Sep 2002 [/]Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

[:"red"]19 Sep 2002 [/] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the Senate Armed Services Commitee: "There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few -- but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

[:"red"]24 Sep 2002 [/] British Prime Minister Tony Blair declares: "His weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running... The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

[:"red"] 7 Oct 2002 [/]During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

[:"red"]28 Oct 2002 [/]During a speech at the Riner Steinhoff Soccer Complex in Alamogordo, New Mexico, President George W Bush declares: "He's got weapons of mass destruction. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction."

[:"red"]28 Oct 2002 [/] During a speech at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver, President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

[:"red"] 31 Oct 2002 [/] During a speech at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, President George W Bush declares: "This is a guy who's used weapons of mass destruction. He not only has them, he's used them."

[:"red"]1 Nov 2002 [/] During a speech at the Pease International Tradeport Airport in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, President George W Bush declares: "Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons."

[:"red"]2 Nov 2002 [/] During a speech at the University of South Florida, President George W Bush declares: "He's a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does."

[:"red"]2 Nov 2002 [/]During a speech at the Cobb Galleria Centre in Atlanta, Georgia, President George W Bush declares: "He's a threat to America, he's a threat to our close friends and allies. He's a man who has said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them... Not only does he have weapons of mass destruction, but, incredibly enough, he has used weapons of mass destruction."

[:"red"] 2 Nov 2002 [/]During a speech at the Tri-Cities Regional Tn/Va Airport in Blountville, Tennessee, President George W Bush declares: "He told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction -- 11 years ago he said that. He's got them... We know that this is a man who has chemical weapons, and we know he's used them."

[:"blue"] and there's a wholel l o t more of where he told the USA public that the administration knew where the WMDs were... What is interesting to me is that when a president sells us a lie, and then sends our boys and girls out in harms way, isn't that murder? Should a man be in office for murder? To be consistant, we impeached a man for adultry and lying about it...Shouldn't we do the same to a murderer? [/]

[wicklunds]

I am still wondering if the Dan Rather thing was a total wash. I think that the facts he presented about Bush's phony military career were probably true but since he attacked the current president he was "unpatriotic". Therefore he ought not be able to keep his job. He destroyed his own career by challenging the president's own spurious and lackluster patriotism. Especially considering his involvement with skull and bones which has never publically renounced (to my knowledge) considering his "Christianity". If a person is truly converted, and they have a public record of a sinful past, they ought to make a public confession renouncing the past act if people bring it into question. If he feels it is between himself and God and has truly repented then so be it. But I havent heard a peep about this. This is a serious matter in my opinion. Apparently not to those Christians who put him into office for two consecutive terms. Sickening!! This doesnt make me a liberal in the least though.