Dubbyuh's big lie...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<blockquote>Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02</blockquote>

These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.

On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:

<blockquote>C (Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.</blockquote>

Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.

Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.

Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000, while others place them at over 20,000.

How many more must die for a lie?

Citations:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1354084.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
 
Bullypulpit said:
<blockquote>Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02</blockquote>

These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.

On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:

<blockquote>C (Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.</blockquote>

Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.

Obviously, Bush had to resolve that military action was at least an option before he went to Congress to ask for the resolution. I fail to see a smoking gun.

Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.

Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000, while others place them at over 20,000.

How many more must die for a lie?

No one ever thought Saddam was linked to 9/11. But Saddam was linked to terrorists, and those links are well documented.
 
Sir Evil said:
Really Jeff, so you have it in you to go over this for about the milionth time to help the incapacitated? it's so old already! :rolleyes:

i was thinking the same thing....but then i remembered that bully works with the olde and infirm....maybe dementia and alzheimer are contagious
 
Oh geez...again? This is almost as old as....
 

Attachments

  • $pingpong0ct.gif
    $pingpong0ct.gif
    5.5 KB · Views: 134
<blockquote><a href=http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi/2005/05/18#A_Reputation_in_Tat>George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.</a></blockquote>

While I'd like to take credit for writing this, I can't. Props to <a href=http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/roberts.html>Paul Craig Roberts</a> A Reagan Republican with a long and distinguished career. Mr. Roberts has taken a stand in opposition to the war in Iraq from its inception and finds the blindness towards the egregious lies and abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration to be intolerable.

How much longer will we tolerate these lies and abuses? How long before the young men and women who have died for the lies of the Bush administration are vindicated by the impeachment ot this presindent and those who aided him in the formation and implementation of thes ruinous policies? Who much longer wil the blindly devoted supporters of the Bush administration remain blinded? How many more must die for a lie?
 
Don't mind Bully guys. In his ideal world, Saddam Hussein would still be torturing children in front of their parents and George W Bush would be in prison.
 
Bully needs his own column "The Weekly Bedpan". It's full of shit.

Bully. Get over with the Bush Lied thing. It's already a proven failed strategy. Why don't you move on to "the vitues of moderation".
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Bully needs his own column "The Weekly Bedpan". It's full of shit.

Bully. Get over with the Bush Lied thing. It's already a proven failed strategy. Why don't you move on to "the vitues of moderation".

Tch...Tch...Tch...It's only failed in the eyes of Dubbyuh's adoring and slavish supporters. The evidence is there, all it needs is to be acted upon. And when American politics returns to governing from the center, rather than the extremes, then will come the time for the virtues of moderation.
 
theim said:
Don't mind Bully guys. In his ideal world, Saddam Hussein would still be torturing children in front of their parents and George W Bush would be in prison.

That's not the reason given by the administration for the invasion of Iraq, at least until the WMD myth was shot down.

In an ideal world, Dubbyuh would still be in Texas, pumping gas in some dusty, one-stop-light hell-hole and drinking his brains out every night...And the US would never have backed Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran.
 
Sir Evil said:
Really Jeff, so you have it in you to go over this for about the milionth time to help the incapacitated? it's so old already! :rolleyes:

Gotta keep reminding all those Friends O' Dubbyuh who suffer significant short-term memory loss about what really happened. :rolleyes:
 
Paul Craig Roberts if you google him, was blown off by Repubs after Reagan left office and now speaks out against conservatives when he worked for the biggest of them all. His story is purely a case of jealousy and nothing about truth. Nice backup source Bully, a raving green eyed monster.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Tch...Tch...Tch...It's only failed in the eyes of Dubbyuh's adoring and slavish supporters. The evidence is there, all it needs is to be acted upon. ...
Nahhhh Bully it's just plain failed. You can bet your bippy if there was anything "provable"
in this so called "evidence" Mike Moore, George Soros and the entire extreme left wing,
including Holywood, would be all over it. Not to mention Hilary and the Dems in Congress..
It's old and it failed..Give er up.
 
Mr. P said:
Nahhhh Bully it's just plain failed. You can bet your bippy if there was anything "provable"
in this so called "evidence" Mike Moore, George Soros and the entire extreme left wing,
including Holywood, would be all over it. Not to mention Hilary and the Dems in Congress..
It's old and it failed..Give er up.

I can dream...can't I? I fondly hope to see Dubbyuh as the be-atch of a 300lb yard-bull named "Bubbles". Then he'll truly learn what it feels like to get screwed the way he's screwing the country.

As far as the Dems in Congress... John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and and nearly 90 other house members signed a letter to Dubbyuh requesting an explanation of the information releasd in the Downing Street Memo. As usual, the White House is stone-walling. As usual, information which might be detrimental to the Administation is not being adequately reported in the US media.
 
OCA said:
Paul Craig Roberts if you google him, was blown off by Repubs after Reagan left office and now speaks out against conservatives when he worked for the biggest of them all. His story is purely a case of jealousy and nothing about truth. Nice backup source Bully, a raving green eyed monster.

Unable to debate the issue, OCA attmpts to divert attention from the issue by attacking the source. Sadly typical...
 
Bullypulpit said:
Unable to debate the issue, OCA attmpts to divert attention from the issue by attacking the source. Sadly typical...
Bully, you are the expert at attacking the source.... so go F*CK yourself. You're a bore!
 
Sir Evil said:
Ok so the WMD theory was shot down as nothing was found. The intel was received by others, not just this administration.


People like Bully easily forget or choose to ignore the fact WMDs were NEVER the issue - at issue was Saddam's Failure to PROVE he had no WMDs, whether he had them or not was irrelevant.

:)
 
Bullypulpit said:
Tch...Tch...Tch...It's only failed in the eyes of Dubbyuh's adoring and slavish supporters. The evidence is there, all it needs is to be acted upon. And when American politics returns to governing from the center, rather than the extremes, then will come the time for the virtues of moderation.

Bully, you have yet to prove President Bush lied about squat. If you are going to yell he lied, you need some sort of evidence that he lied about something. You have no evidence. If you did you would have presented it by now.
 
Bullypulpit said:
That's not the reason given by the administration for the invasion of Iraq, at least until the WMD myth was shot down.

In an ideal world, Dubbyuh would still be in Texas, pumping gas in some dusty, one-stop-light hell-hole and drinking his brains out every night...And the US would never have backed Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran.

And you know this is a bunch of BS. You know it because we have proved it before. That is one of the multiple reasons the administration used to support the liberation of Iraq. But you want to try to ignore what the President said in the State of the Union and other addresses before the war.

I have to ask. How does it feel to accuse others of lying when the only person lying is you? How do you look at yourself in the mirror?
 
Bullypulpit said:
Unable to debate the issue, OCA attmpts to divert attention from the issue by attacking the source. Sadly typical...

Your such an idiot, the board idiot. You used him as a source, now your source is discredited.

I will debate you factually when you actually have something factual to state.
 

Forum List

Back
Top