Bush Administration Lying To America Again

[Dr. Shane]

Well I don't regret my vote. I voted for him again in 1996. If he hadn't dropped out in August of 1992 he may have become President. At the time Bush the elder was ahead in the polls, Perot was second and Clinton was third.

He claimed he dropped out because of GOP blackmail and I wouldn't put it past the established parties to do something drastic that could change the status quo. I am sure the GOP was happier to see Bill Clinton win than to have had a third-party candidate actually take the White House. Ross Perot was a stand-up guy. It is doubtful he will receive the place in history that he deserves.

[lazarus]

The Bible condemns bearing false witness. what I see from this administraion is just that. There is always some truth to the assertions that were made about WMD.

There was not enough truth to come to the conclusions they came to. So...... things that were possibilities became probabilities, things that were probabilities became certainties.

Rumsfeldt's "We know where they [saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction] are. The're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

The first statement is a certainty but the second statement is so vague as to be ridiculous. North south east west is anywhere and everywhere!

Rumsfeldt later denied that he said this! Its on tape.

This administration knows most of the media does not have the courage to seriously challenge their lied and false assertions so the continue to lie and falsify.

More recently, the administration denied that it had ever been "stay the course" on Iraq but yet the President used that phrase nearly 30 time in speeches.

Again most of the media did not forcefully challenge this LIE!

History is repeating itself with Iran. The US is going to attack Iran.

[Gerr]

I was dubious about the Iraq invasion. I was neither for nor against it.

What if the present charges about Iran turns out to be true?

Gerry

[Bravus]

The charge seems to be that the Iranians are arming those attacking Americans. Perhaps there are Shiites attacking Americans in Iraq in the general melee, but in general the Shiites form the government and the Iraqi police and are the Americans' allies in trying to maintain order. If an Iraqi government stands up and the Americans go home, it will be a Shiite-dominated government and most likely an ally to Shiite Iran. So the best interests of Iran in Iraq are served by piece not war, by setting up stable government and by supporting the army and the police.

Their interests are not served by the insurgency, particularly by its Sunni base, and it makes no sense at all that the Iranians would arm the Sunni, who were and are their enemies. Sunni Saddam prosecuted the Iraq-Iran war against them and oppressed the Shiite majority in Iraq.

The charges just make no sense on their face... so if they are proved to be true I will apologise here with the best will in the world.

[Woody]

Gerry ... You would prefer to have Saddam alive , raping his country's women, and sitting in Kuwait controlling their people and resources? Do you approve of expanding the territory for terrorists to be trained.?

If you oppose the war in Iraq ... then this is what you approve of. The Iraq invasion accomplished a lot of good. And history will bear this out. No war is without fault. War is a mean business but sometimes necessary.

If you want to criticize the effort to establish peace and the effort for nation building ... then feel free to specify criticism for that. But, I fail to see how one can criticize the invasion of Iraq. Would you really want Saddam in Kuwait?

I will point out to you that there was really only one war with Iraq. It was to free Kuwait. When Saddam signed a cease fire to end the war ... He agreed to weapons inspections. When he kicked out the inspectors and refused to disclose Five hundred WMD which we discovered after we invaded ... He was in violation of the cease fire and we had to "continue" the war. One purpose of the war was to keep Kuwait free from the threat of Saddam. Saddam had his chance to come clean and did not. So for the sake of Kuwait and the sake of peace in the region and the world ... the war needed to be taken all the way to Saddam.

Saddam made this happen by not abiding by the cease fire peace terms that he agreed to and that the UN resolutions required of him through 17 separate resolutions.

I fail to see how any one could fault the invasion after so much patience over more than a decade.

[Bravus]

List of oppressive dictators in the world is long. (And republicans or those on the right are all about people doing it for themselves rather than the government doing it for them - except apparently in this instance.) Wake me up when the US gets around to invading Saudi Arabia - or China.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators

[Woody]

Bravus ... Have you ever heard of the Good Sammaratin?

The US does what good it can. But it cannot do as much good as it would like. We do have limited resources. It is time for the rest of the world to assist a little more.

[Bravus]

Mmhmm: I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis are as grateful as the president believes they should be for America's largesse.

[Woody]

Please cite references.

Perhaps you are referring to the Hundreds of Thousands that Saddam gassed.

Perhaps we should ask them how they feel about Saddam.

[there buster]

What a specious argument. That wouldn't pass muster in the sixth grade. No country has unlimited resources, so we couldn't if we wanted to. Sadaam violated for thirteen years a treaty he signed.

Usually, those who make such nonsensical arguments are big on "international law." Precisely what a treaty is. If "international law" -- or any other law-- is to have any meaning, it has to be enforced. The U.S. has done so. Whether it was wise or right would at least be a legitimate argument. The notion that any nation or group of nations can right every wrong is both immature and unbiblical. Serious people don't waste time on such things.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Bible condemns bearing false witness.

Yes it does. Those that accuse President Bush of vaious offenses to the point of even questioning his walk with the Lord would do well to read that portion of the Bible daily.

There simply is no evidence that President Bush intentionally misled the nation. Hilary Clinton also favored the invation after consulting with top security advisors of her husband's administration. Those on the House and Senate Intelligience Committees had the same data the President did - which allows for the check and balance of power.

Even now the President is not saying to what degree the Iranian government is involved. That is simply an unknown.

Quote:

The US is going to attack Iran.

Perhaps a missle or air strike but I even doubt that. I cannot imagine we are going to invade it like we did Iraq.

[bevin]

Quote:

The US does what good it can. But it cannot do as much good as it would like. We do have limited resources. It is time for the rest of the world to assist a little more.

USA foreign policy - especially military intervention - is almost always based solely on self-interest.

In fact the USA is nowhere near the highest amount/GDP giver in the world - and a lot of the "aid" we gave to Iraq has gone into the pockets of USA companies.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

In fact the USA is nowhere near the highest amount/GDP giver in the world

There is a bit of spin in that. Military spending is not counted as forgien aid. This is relevant because the US doesn't give more forgien aid because of its military spending. If we add the amount of money the US spends on its military in places like Germany, Japan, Philipians and its navy on the high seas, our aid/GDP ratio goes up considerably. If we add the money we are spending to free Iraq and Afghanistan, it goes up even more.

[lazarus]

Perhaps a missle or air strike but I even doubt that. I cannot imagine we are going to invade it like we did Iraq.

I don't think there will be a ground invasion. There is no military capacity to do that. The US military is stretched to thin.

A missile/ air strike is an attack by the way. Compared to what Bush has been up to in the last 6 years it may not seem like much but if you are on the wrong end of a missile its a big deal.

An attack on Iran is what his base (neo-cons and right wing Christians) are looking for. If he has any chance of salvaging something from his Presidency he needs to give them what they want.

[Woody]

Laz ... Do you approve of war under any circumstances? If so what circumstances? For instance ... Did you approve of the attack on China by Clinton?

Did you support all of Clinton's wars or none of them. Is this a partisan issue of war support or do you oppose wars in general?

[Bravus]

One day, one day - perhaps in 2150 - it will be possible for Republicans to make an argument without talking about Clinton.

[lazarus]

Laz ... Do you approve of war under any circumstances? If so what circumstances? For instance ... Did you approve of the attack on China by Clinton?

I don't approve of war under any circumstances. In some circumstances war may be unavoidable.

Clinton's attack on China? Hey I missed that one!

Quote:

Did you support all of Clinton's wars or none of them.

I don't know how many wars he had. By the nature of your question it seems like a lot.

There was Somalia....Was that a War?

Air stikes on Ben Laden, were they wars?

I certainly believe intervention was needed in Bosnia. That is one war zone I have actually visited. I went to villages that were devatated by Serbian shelling. The etnic cleansing was systematic and premeditated.

I beleive Clinton should have gone into Rawanda. Would that have been a war I don't know.

[lazarus]

One day, one day - perhaps in 2150 - it will be possible for Republicans to make an argument without talking about Clinton.

I don't think so.

Your forgetting about President Hillary Clinton 2008-2016

President Chelsea Clinton 2030-2038

[Bravus]

[Woody]

Laz ... perhaps you were in space when Clinton tried to bomb Milosovic and instead bombed China. His coordinates were wrong I guess. But then his coordinates have always been wrong. I do believe he apologized to China and paid for the damage. He has had a lot to apologize for.

[David Koot]

Bush may be a cowboy, but Clinton did indeed go a-bumblin' his way and regrettably brought the presidency into a poor light indeed. A very embarrassing time for most of us.

Dave

[lazarus]

Laz ... perhaps you were in space when Clinton tried to bomb Milosovic and instead bombed China. His coordinates were wrong I guess. But then his coordinates have always been wrong. I do believe he apologized to China and paid for the damage. He has had a lot to apologize for.

Lol, Redwood your a funny guy. Although I'm not always sure its intentional.

I suspected that you were talking about the bombing of the embassy (of course it is Chinease territory) Just think how crazy that would have been if he actually hit China itself. That would have been a a few too many zeros in the coordinates I guess.

I dont think that qualifies as a war.

BTW I've never been to space but I wish I had. When Jesus comes I'll get my chance of course.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Clinton tried to bomb Milosovic and instead bombed China.

Now here is a comment as radical to the right as saying Bush lied is radical to the left. Clinton didn't bomb the Chinese embassy or even order it to be bombed. It was a mistake due outdated maps. Mistakes happen in war. Wedding parties have even been bombed by mistake.

[Woody]

Quote:

Clinton tried to bomb Milosovic and instead bombed China.

Now here is a comment as radical to the right as saying Bush lied is radical to the left. Clinton didn't bomb the Chinese embassy or even order it to be bombed. It was a mistake due outdated maps. Mistakes happen in war. Wedding parties have even been bombed by mistake.

Just like Bush is held responsible for things going wrong in Iraq ... likewise it is only FAIR that Clinton be held responsible when HIS wars went wrong. The buck stops here. And that is with the commander in chief.

Read the statement ... "Clinton tried to bomb Milosovic and instead bombed China. " And tell me what is inaccurate about it.

[Woody]

Quote:

Redwood your a funny guy. Although I'm not always sure its intentional.

Well Laz ... I am not going to tip my hat. I will keep you guessing. I prefer to be mysterious.

But ... I will try to provide a challenge for you so you can expand your mind.