search results matching tag: bush lies

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (12)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (32)   

Karl Rove Caught Trying to Rewrite History on the Iraq War

quantumushroom says...

What are Rove's motives now other than selling books no one will read? Beats me.

For conservatives who never opposed the war, for whom Saddam's ouster took a decade too long, there's no "controversy" here. Rove is no longer a govt. employee. He can say whatever, no one is excused from vigilance.

Only for those parroting some of the greatest whoppers (e.g. "Bush lied", Bush knew [or planned] 9-11) of all time, with no interest in national defense, are Turd Blossom's "blame-shifting" remarks relevant or offensive.

If anyone wishes more voters had short memories and no access to google, it's Democrats.

Somebody please tell Countdown to No Ratings.

Ehren Watada refuses to de deployed to Iraq

Doc_M says...

The law of the USA states that all enlists and military officers must follow orders from commanding officers unless those orders go obviously and undoubtedly against the law of the United States. The United States is a sovereign nation and no member of the US citizenry can claim immunity to US law by stating that UN law trumps it. That is the bottom line. The military must respect the law of the USA over all. My understanding is that refusing to deploy is considered conscientious objection and is punishable by dishonorably discharge and revocation of citizenship rights. This is a fair punishment for refusing to meet the needs of the nation on the battlefield in a time of war. His refusal to commit to his obligation could put ground operations, and potentially lives, at risk. He has the right to take a stand and refuse deployment, but for it he must face the legal consequences for that action.

In addition, most people in this country including most of its legislators and supreme court judges do not consider the war to be "illegal" even on international terms. I wish this war would have been delayed longer to reveal more of the truth. I don't support preemption, except under extreme circumstances. It seems worth the sacrifice to let the enemy have at every opportunity to NOT attack. Bush jumped the gun, but I think it would have been ultimately inevitable. I outright do not even begin to believe that it was based on "Bush lies;" that simply implies that far too many members of our government (these are people, folks, not some big-brother secret society like in the movies) are homicidal maniacs bent on murder and destruction. That might happen in the movies and tabloids, but give me a break. On top of that, the UN has repeatedly shown itself to be mostly impotent in any enforcement operation. It never enforces its resolutions, fails to take any sort of stand against anything, and has shown itself to be corrupt even at its highest levels, at least in the case of Kofi. I have little confidence in the UN. It is too easy to play them for fools.
I understand that no one on the sift supports anything remotely defensive of Bush, but people really should consider what they are really saying when they claim Bush "lied" and MEANT to kill multitudes of people. Bush may not be a great president, but insane tyrannical murder? Let's keep our feet on the ground here.

You can say "face it, the war is illegal" all day long, but I can so easily say "face it, the war is legal" and sound just as block-headed. This is a gray-area argument. Let's not attempt to over-simplify. It just makes us look like close-minded zealots determined to scream our so-called "facts" to the hills.

Was Bush Lying - regarding when he knew about 9/11 attack?

BillOreilly says...

" "I invented the internet"
Al Gore
Since he said it maybe he did invent the internet just like Bush lying about when he learned of the attacks?"


Gore was lying! I CREATED THE INTERNET! MUHAHAHA, NOTHING CAN STOP ME NOW! BOW TO MY MAGNIFICENCE, AND TREMBLE AT MY GLOBAL WARMING DEVICE, MY ULEV AUTOMOBILE!!!

Was Bush Lying - regarding when he knew about 9/11 attack?

Was Bush Lying - regarding when he knew about 9/11 attack?

Moore vs Blitzter

Slyrr says...

You kidding? CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, et. al have done little but slam Bush since he was elected - before and after 9/11. They've given screen time to Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls, Michael Moore, anyone they can find who will say the words that their 'reporters' are too gutless to say - 'Bush is Hitler', 'worst economy since the great depression', 'Bush lied, people died', 'no evidence of nukes', 'Karl Rove should be imprisoned w/out trial', 'our soliers are like nazis in their death camps', the list goes on and on. Lapdogs to Bush? I guess that's why Olbermann is demanding their impeachment, and why Dan Rather pushed forged documents to try and destroy Bush during the 04 elections, and how come every time liberals lose, they cry 'voter fraud', but every time they win it's 'the voice of the people'.

What it must be like - to be so blinded by hatred to the exclusion of logic and reason. We all saw what happened when Moore ran into an opposing point of view - he started gnashing his teeth and stamping his feet in rage. Because he THOUGHT these reporters were supposed to be on 'his' side and say nothing against him.

Fact is, this movie Moore made is so wrong in so many instances, that even the 'news' network that wrote glowing reviews for it couldn't believe all his distortions and inaccuracies. I guess Moore is still miffed that his movie is getting the tar beat out of it at the box office. 11th place and going down, down, down....
I'm sure he agrees with free speech - but only the free speech that agrees with his point of view. CNN has just seen an example of how 'free' Moore would like speech to be by trying to stomp on them. Facts and stats that refute Moore need not apply in his brave new world...

Countdown Special Comment: Bush, Cheney Should Resign

Slyrr says...

" Quantum, I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on that particular note? To simply state such an overt opinion and not explain yourself, especially on such an impassioned speech makes it seem as if you did not even fully understand what the speech was about."

This from the same mindset of people who say stuff like "Bush is worse than Hitler", and "Bush lied, people died", "Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen", "Bush stole the election", "Bush did it all to get his oil buddies rich", "Bush is a dumb cowboy"? Pick any 'overt opinion' from the liberal left - they're all the same. Unfounded with no evidence. And then say they don't have to explain themselves because 'everyone knows its true'....?

Idealogues, heal thyselves....

Countdown Special Comment: Bush, Cheney Should Resign

bighead says...

the scooter story has been the bigest crap story i have ever heard. the media has managed to basicly headline a Non sequitur. people hear bush coverd up somthing that lead us to into war. oh ya its because of some cia miscomunication. thats bull shit its like the media wants to equate bush lying or overreacting about weapons of mas destruction (witch in reality caused the shityist us war is 30 years) too a much less of a crime of leaking of information. leak or no leak. bush cronies got what they wanted.no shit there were cover ups?

the us meidia is trying to act like it gives a shit about what the bushys do. ya right.
the media should be reporting more than just this one angle. ok how about bush and a large portion of American are racist pigs. that should get front page.
its ashame that this is as far as it goes too the people of the united states taking responsibility for there governments actions. the media figures it good because the scooter case is a metaphor for the people saying bush is wrong. but the media wants to civilize the story in this clean by the book lawfull way. when in reality these charges associated with the war should be much more horrendous.

Robert Baer on Hardball - Iraq & al Qaeda : No relationship

quantumushroom says...

The Iraq War's Other Front -- My Doctor's Office
By Larry Elder
Thursday, April 5, 2007

The "Bush Lied, People Died" yahoos lurk everywhere. Few can escape them.

Standing at the check-in window of my doctor's office, awaiting my annual prostate exam, I heard a staff member yell out with a smile, "Hi, Mr. Elder. How does it feel to be one of the last guys who supports the war?"

The 20-something-year-old receptionist, who was signing me in, then narrowed her eyes, and the volcano erupted. She tore into an emotional, convoluted, fact-challenged barrage against the president. He lied us into the war, and too many of our soldiers are dying. He's incompetent. He sent young men and women to die for oil and for Halliburton. While he plays commander in chief, the middle class shrinks. He cares only about the rich. His racism showed in his handling of Katrina. Yadda, blah, etc.

I tried to remain calm while considering the source. In general, depending upon the setting, I try to conserve my mood and my energy. But, then there are other times -- and this was one of them.

"You talked about the number of our military personnel who have died in Iraq," I said, "3,500 and counting." "Do you happen to know how many died in World War I?"

"No."

"What about Korea and Vietnam?"

"No."

" What about the Civil War -- both sides?"

"No."

"What about World War II?"

"No."

"We lost over 100,000 in the First World War, with a much smaller population than today. During the Civil War, 600,000 died on both sides, and the population was about 10 percent of today's 300 million. So, adjusted for the population, six million people died during the Civil War."

Soon the other staff members behind the receptionist began to listen, as did the patients sitting in the waiting room.

"By the end of World War II," I continued, "400,000 Americans died. Again, adjusting for today's population, that means nearly 800,000 people -- or less than one half of one percent of those killed so far in Iraq. Of course, every life is precious, but I suggest that before you talk about the 'huge' amount of deaths, you gain some perspective."

"But, what about the lies?" she said.

"Why bother," I said, "maybe my prostate could wait another year. I'll just go down and grab a hamburger."

But I said, "Are you familiar with the Robb-Silberman Commission that concluded the president did not lie about the intelligence on Iraq?"

"No."

"What about the Senate bipartisan panel that concluded the same thing -- that Bush didn't lie?"

"No."

"What about David Kaye?" I said.

"Who?"

"He's the guy Bush sent to Iraq to find stockpiles of WMD. While he didn't find stockpiles of WMD, he spoke of the possibility that Saddam transferred WMD out of the country during the run up of the war. Perhaps more important, he said that no intelligence analyst -- all of whom, by the way, thought Saddam had stockpiles of WMD -- felt pressured to lie simply to provide a motive for Bush to go to war."

"But, we have been in Iraq longer than we fought the whole World War II. This is crazy," the receptionist replied.

"Crazy?" I said, "I know of no stopwatch for war. During the Civil War, both sides expected it to last just a few weeks, no more than a few months. During the Revolutionary War, Gen. George Washington lost battle after battle such that some wanted him replaced by a more competent general. The early years of World War II seemed particularly gloomy, but President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't say, Well, we've been at this for a bit. Let's call it a day and go home.'"

That was too much for a guy sitting in the waiting room, who chimed in, "But the war has made things worse."

So now, I am getting it from all sides.

Turning to the gentleman, I said, "I guess you assume that everything was going swimmingly until Bush stuck a stick into the hornet's nest. Do you remember the 1979 seizure of American hostages, who were held for over 400 days? Do you remember the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia? Do you remember the attack on the Marine barracks during the Reagan Administration, or the attacks on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya? What about the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? Not to mention the attack on 9-11 that killed over 3,000 on U.S. soil. Yeah, if only Bush hadn't ticked off so many people, the Disney Company, by now, would've built a theme park in Pakistan."

And so it went. To paraphrase Osama bin Laden, if we lose the war in Iraq, it will not be lost on the battlefield, but in places like my doctor's office.

"Mr. Elder," said the nurse's assistant, "the doctor will see you now." And not a moment too soon -- for them.

Bush is Boring

9/11: The Conspiracy Files

rickegee says...

Politics has always been about the consolidation of power. I don't believe that it is a historical trend/mistake that we are doomed to repeat; rather, it is just embedded in the DNA of human existence.

I don't think that the BBC chose the most lunatic of the fringe here. All of these men have been making the public relations rounds and likely contacted BBC to advance their viewpoint (no doubt thinking that they would have a more sympathetic source than FauxNews . . .hah suckers)

When you are outside of the mainstream in law or public policy, you must strive put your best case forward and downplay any lunatic fringe that may be attached to your cause. Unfortunately for the 9/11 truth movement, the lunatic fringe is the public face of the movement. It happens.

My objection on a politcal level to providing any sort of traction to 9/11 Truthies is that they are such a wanky, scattered, superfluous movement. They don't confront real and actual structural evils either within this current Administration or within the current relationship between the West and radical or moderate Islam. "Bush Lied, People Died" or "Israel Brought Down the Towers" is more of an obstinate and evasive tactic to confronting these problems. It is the 21st Century version of the Know Nothing Party.

"There are Klingons in the White House" - David Wu

quantumushroom says...

Fake Sulu starts with the same old liberal garbage ("Bush lied") and gets no better.

Instead of taking a swipe at so-called chickenhawks, he should point his uncalibrated phasers of perception at his own party, which actively hates the military and wants us to lose in Iraq.

Marine speaks out about Iraq

winkler1 says...

Enzo, I hear what you're saying. But something is badly broken. Bush lied to the American people and lost their trust. Rumsfeld is incompetent and Bush won't fire him -- it'd be an admission of failure. This is a stubborn inept administration led by chickenhawks.

These guys are going through established procedures.. it's not like they're going AWOL. The system is broken and it's important that everyone speak up and not accept the lies like "stay the course". I'm sure this guy expects his career to be destroyed- at least. Kudos to him for speaking up.

Decoding Republican (chickenhawk) Marketing of Bush

Slyrr says...

"Yeah - we said Bush lied!
I never meant it personally, I just improvised!"

The only 'evidence' of Bush 'lying' about pre-war intelligence came from Joe Wilson. Remember all that? "Plamegate"? One of the many other scandals the left cooked up which they thought would be the issue they would use to get Bush impeached, Karl Rove 'frog-marched' out of the White House, Cheney charged as a criminal, and so on and so on and so on.

And where is Joe Wilson now? Where are the criminal charges the left and the media were so SOOOOO sure would be levelled? All gone. Because it has been proven that Bush didn't lie. He was right. It was Joe Wilson who lied. It has been documented in British Intelligence that Saddam's Iraq DID try to get uranium from Niger.

The simple truth is, the Dems and the lefties were given access to the same pre-war intelligence that Bush had. And they still voted FOR the war. If it was as flimsy as all that, then why did they vote for it? Why won't they publically recant their votes? Why don't they level criminal charges against Bush or impeach him? After all, if you're right, he's a criminal and a war criminal to boot - right?

Again - if you're so sure that Bush lied, the bring forth the evidence. Bring it to your congressman. He's there to represent you - right? To represent your point of view. Bring your evidence to them, and to the media. Lay it all out on the table and then demand that they go in front of those cameras and declare it to the world. No one's going to believe you if you use comic-book characters like Michael Moore. He's too over the top and frankly he's no more trustworthy than Joe Wilson was. You need to get credible people in Congress or the House to take your conspiracy theories and start using them in their debates and campaign appearances.

Go ahead - try it. Get your elected representatives to use your theories and run with them in the upcoming elections.

But you won't do it. Because you know these theories can't be proved. You can stand there and say "Bush lied" all you want. But you know as well as anyone there are perfectly reasoned and logical counters to them. Any debater worth his salt could blow them out of the water.

Which is why, even if you DO take your arguments to your Congressman, they'll ignore it. They wouldn't dare to use that kind of clap-trap in an actual political debate.

Think about it. Have you ever heard your leftie politicians repeat any of the stuff you see on the left-wing blogs? Your bloggers are the ones who supposedly have 'all the answers' - right? So why aren't they using them to recant their votes, demand an immediate withdrawl from Iraq and impeach Bush to boot?

Decoding Republican (chickenhawk) Marketing of Bush

Slyrr says...

Ah how soon we forget. Well, at least some people choose to forget.

When the War on Terror started, Bush went to Congress to ask for funding. With only 1 or 2 exceptions, everyone voted in favor of it. In fact, the 'left' couldn't wait to stampede to the microphones saying how much they agreed with him.

FF to the War in Iraq to topple Saddam. Again, Bush passed resolutions at the U.N. which authorized him to proceed. If they were so dead-set that it was an 'illegal' war, they certainly didn't vote that way. Neither did left-wing politicians in Congress. They all voted to authorize it (with 1 or 2 exceptions), and indeed they wanted TWO debates over the resolution (which they got) so there would be no mistake that they voted in favor of it. One notable vote in the matter was John "F'n" Kerry, who 'voted for it - before he voted against it.'.

FF to Nov. 2005 (just last year). John Murtha, who voted for the war, ran screaming to every camera he could jump in front of that we should leave Iraq. Left-wing politicos had been saying so for months - thinking the war was 'too hard'. They used such rhetoric as "illegal war", "unjustified", "imperialistic", "unauthorized" and so on and so forth, praying to a God they didn't believe in that no one in the country would remember they voted for it in the first place.

If the Dems are so hell-fire sure that the war is wrong, illegal, unjustified and ignoble - why don't they vote to cut off funding? There's all sorts of stuff they could do to sabotage the war - it they REALLY think it's wrong. And you people? Why not write your congressman and demand that they cut off funding for the war? Or demand that we 'bring the boys home'?

Oh yes - Murtha. He was so proud of his new courageous resolve that we must leave Iraq. Finally, the Republican leadership had enough. They introduced a resolution - which would have granted the Dems everything they CLAIMED they wanted. A resolution to withdraw from Iraq. Here was their big chance for the Dems to put their votes where their big mouths were.

The vote came in November 2005. Only THREE Dems voted in favor of the "cut and run" bill. Again - if they are so sure of their position - why won't they vote to quit? Or cut off funding? Or any of the other measures which would bring their 'war is illegal' rhetoric to it's logical conclusion? For that matter - the UN. If they're so sure it's an illegal war - why don't they vote to condemn Bush as a war criminal?

Because that's all they've got - hot air. They know that they themselves voted for the war. They know at the UN they passed the resolutions to authorize it. Because the war was not, is not, and never will be illegal or unauthorized. It was sanctiond by the Dems, the UN, everyone - except the terrorists and Saddam.

Time for another Rush Limbaugh profundity. In a parody of "Do-Run-Run", they wrote a song which outlined the situation so well the Dem's linguini-spined position:

Kennedy: They had a bona-fide and our hearts stood still!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Murtha demanded that we pull out up on capital hill!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, up on capital hill! At hill, we had to vote on a bill!
That's when we ran away! We do run run run, we do run run!
Thanks a lot Murtha!

I know just what you're thinking that we don't have a spine!
We do run run run, we do run run!
I've got one around here somewhere!
Clinton: I loaned out mine!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, we got no spine! That's why we're behind!
And if you stand up to us - we do run run run, we do run run!

Kennedy:
They picked on me at 7 on the network news!
We do run run run run, we do run run!
Called us on the carpet to defend our point of view!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Yeah, we said Bush lied!
I never meant it personally, I just improvised!
I, uh, think it's time to run away again!
We do run run run, we do run run!
Over here - this way! Uh, that's not EXACTLY what I meant!
We're, uh, we're all for the troops!
We, uh, we never said withdraw RIGHT NOW!
Just a timetable! Or an estimated timetable....!



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon