Another Bush Lie

“As unlikely as it seems now, the hot political topic in the seemingly distant summer before Sept. 11, 2001, was the debate over what course President Bush would take in funding embryonic stem cell research.

After a prolonged deliberation, the president announced his decision is a rare prime-time address to the nation. He offered a compromise. Mr. Bush would not permit federal money to be used for research on new lines of stem lines, but would for existing lines.

"As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist," he said. "They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research."

Just one problem. It wasn't true that there were more 60 stem cell lines that could be used for ongoing research.

Many scientists immediately expressed doubts and protests. Those doubts were recently and definitively reconfirmed by the Council on Bioethics, the panel created by Mr. Bush in that same August 2001 speech.

"By September of 2003, slightly over two years after the enactment of the funding policy, twelve of the eligible lines had become available to federally funded researchers," the Council concluded. This isn't a narrow discrepancy: 12, not 60.

The hot political controversy in the not-so-distant winter of 2003 was whether the U.S. should invade Iraq.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, the president said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Just one problem. It wasn't true. These are the famous "16 words" the White House has since been forced to retract.

See a pattern?

From stem cells to weapons of mass destruction, this administration has what might sympathetically be called credibility issues.

All presidents, all administrations, all politicians, all columnists and, indeed, all people selectively pick and chose facts and figures to win arguments.

What's different is that the Bush administration stands accused of politicizing and bullying processes of the government that are designed to be above the fray of partisanship and ideology, such as intelligence gathering and science policy-making. Put bluntly: they don't much care about facts, science and truth.

Obviously, the great crisis of the Bush presidency has been over just this --the charge that it corrupted intelligence and the intelligence process to make a dishonest case for war in Iraq.

Much further from the headlines, similar charges have been brought against the way the agencies and advisory boards of this administration make science policy. When the policy is, say, whether the government will fund the embryonic stem cell research thought to have great potential for treating Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, juvenile diabetes and spinal cord injuries, the stakes are rather high.

The seriousness of the charges increased last month when the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report called, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science." A statement signed by 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, accompanied the report.

The report reached several striking conclusions. First, "There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies." Second, "There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter the administration's political agenda." Third, "There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

The administration's point man for responding, science adviser John Marburger, has not disputed the accuracy of the specific examples cited in the report. He admits there is a "perception" problem, but says there is no systematic or sinister policy at work.

But combined with a report by Democrats on the House Committee on Reform, there is a long roster of administration meddling, censoring and fabricating.

The flap that got the most attention was global warming. Candidate and President Bush thought the science behind climate change was shaky, putting him at odds with 99.9 percent of the world's scientists. In the summer of 2001, he pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions. After that -- only after that -- he ordered the National Academy of Sciences to review the state of climate change science. It concluded that global climate was indeed changing because of man-made factors. Too late: policy before science.

From HIV/AIDS research to mercury emissions to abstinence education, instances of scientific shenanigans abound. I'll give two more quick, lesser known examples.

From November 2002 through March 2003, the National Cancer Institute's Web site posted information that suggested there was a connection between having an abortion and getting breast cancer, a connection that has long been definitively refuted.

The political context here is that anti-abortion activists had been pushing for laws requiring doctors to counsel patients about this alleged risk. So the nation's premier clearinghouse of cancer science was putting out junk science and scare propaganda. After a flurry of congressional pique, the NCI convened a three-day conference of experts and pulled the erroneous information on March 21.

The government often relies on counsel from appointed advisory committees on technical science and health issues. One of them is the Center for Disease Control's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention.

The committee was considering setting more stringent standards of permissible blood levels for lead in children because of new evidence that even lower levels could be harmful.

A few weeks before the scheduled meeting, the CDC's controlling cabinet agency, HHS, bumped from the committee a pediatrician and researcher who had served for four years and two new nominees selected by CDC. In their place, HHS nominated three people with ties to the lead and paint industry. One of them wanted to raise permissible lead levels to two-and-a-half times what they were set at in the 1970's. All three are now on the committee.

The problem will continue. Since the UCS report was written, two more controversies emerged. In one, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson admitted, "there was a mistake made" when his department altered a report documenting racial and ethnic disparities in health care to put a more upbeat face on it, papering over the original conclusion that minorities "tend to be in poorer health than other Americans."

In the other, two members of the President's Council on Bioethics who supported research on stem cells and therapeutic cloning, and thus were in the minority, were pulled off the panel, one by choice, one not. People whose views will put them firmly into the panel's majority will replace them.

None of this will come as a great surprise in light of what we now know about how the administration manipulated intelligence about Iraq. But it is chilling to realize that the arrogance and deception that went into the most important action of the Bush presidency also infect their system down to obscure science boards and policies.

Certain functions of government, much like the judicial system, are supposed to be insulated to as much as possible from partisanship and politics. This administration seems to have a pervasive and profound scorn for that idea. In its place, it has an abiding confidence in its own righteousness. And in this, President Bush leads by example.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editoral Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.”

“BUSH THREATENED TO FIRE OFFICIAL FOR TELLING THE TRUTH

During this time of record deficits, President Bush promised the country
that his drug-industry backed Medicare bill would cost $395 billion. (1) But
just weeks after he signed the bill into law, his own budget office admitted
that the bill would actually cost well over $500 billion. (2) And today a
new report shows that the President knew that the bill cost more than he had
claimed, and yet he deliberately hid the information from the public until
the legislation was already signed into law.

As revealed in an exclusive Knight-Ridder report, the White House threatened
to fire its own top Medicare actuary "if he told lawmakers about a series of
Bush administration cost estimates" that priced the bill at more than $500
billion. (3) At the time, conservative Republicans had "vowed to vote
against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400 billion." This
means that the president deliberately misled members of his own party on
behalf of the pharmaceutical industry that pushed the bill and has been a
top contributor to his campaign. (4) As Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) said, "I
think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered" voting for the bill
had they not been deliberately misled by the White House.

At Knight-Ridder's website you can see the full text of the 6/26/03 email
that Medicare's top actuary Richard S. Foster sent to colleagues informing
them of the White House threat. (5)

Sources:
1. "Federal Deficit Hits Record $374B", CBS News, 10/20/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1514893&l=21882.
2. "Medicare drug plan balloons", Washington Times, 01/29/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1514893&l=21883.
3. "Bush administration ordered Medicare plan cost estimates withheld",
Knight Ridder, 03/11/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1514893&l=21884
es/printstory.jsp.
4. Open Secrets.Org,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1514893&l=21885.
5. "E-mail from Richard S. Foster, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services", Knight Ridder, 03/11/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1514893&l=21886.”

“I saw that on the news also, laqtis. Just goes to show again how inherently evil this administration is.”

“From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4275-2004Apr11.html

President Bush said yesterday that a memo he received a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not contain enough specific threat information to prevent the hijackings and "said nothing about an attack on America."


The memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"was about nothing else! http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/”

“Bush: . . . Had I known there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack. I would have done everything I can. My job is to protect the American people. And I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally . . . That's what the PDB request was.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4101-2004Apr11.html



• The CIA now says that a controversial August 2001 briefing summarizing potential attacks on the United States by al Qaeda was not requested by President Bush, as Rice and others had long claimed. The Aug. 6, 2001, document, known as the President's Daily Brief, has been the focus of intense scrutiny because it reported that Osama bin Laden advocated airplane hijackings, that al Qaeda supporters were in the United States and that the group was planning attacks here.

After the highly classified document's existence was first revealed in news reports in May 2002 , Rice held a news conference in which she suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer. But Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic commission member, disclosed at the hearing yesterday that the CIA informed the panel last week that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22231-2004Mar24_2.html”

“Jeez, are you crazy dude. The title says "U.S." in it, not America! The memo obvoiusly said something "historical" about an attack on the U.S., but nothing about America. Please, quit picking on our brilliant president!”

“Violin
You might want to check the second part of your post, Ben-Veniste admitted during Condoleezza Rice's testimony that the information was requested by the president.

"Testimony of Condoleezza Rice Before 9/11 Commission

Published: April 8, 2004

(Page 12 of 36)


BEN-VENISTE. I want to ask you some questions about the Aug. 6, 2001, P.D.B. We had been advised in writing by the C.I.A. on March 19, 2004, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. was prepared and self-generated by a C.I.A. employee. Following Director Tenet's testimony on March 26 before us, the C.I.A. clarified its version of events saying that questions by the president prompted them to prepare the Aug. 6 P.D.B. You have said to us in our meeting together earlier, in February, that the president directed the C.I.A. to prepare the Aug. 6 P.D.B. ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=12&ei=5006&en=01f04754583e19d9&ex=1082174400&partner=ALTAVISTA1”

“Presidential: "I understand Al Queda is a threat to our securities overseas, and Sec. Tenant has briefed me on the severeity of that threat. I need to know if there is any possibility of an attack here."

Bush-like: "What's a terrorist? That damned kid that I was coloring with today asked me a question about it, and I didn't know what to say!"

"questions by the president prompted them to prepare the Aug. 6 P.D.B."

Which of the choices above is more probable?”

“WASHINGTON — The White House again Friday denied it had advance knowledge that a Sept. 11-style attack was coming, though it acknowledged it knew Usama bin Laden was bent on attacking the United States.



"The president was aware that bin Laden, of course, as previous administrations have well known, that bin Laden was determined to strike the United States. In fact, the label on the president's (presidential daily briefing) was 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States,'" White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Friday.

Indeed, Fox News has reported many examples of "missed leads" that the Bush administration was given prior to Sept. 11.

Among those examples:

– The Italian government shared "general" information of possible attacks in March 2001 based on bugs in apartments in Milan.

– An Iranian in custody in New York City told local police last May of a plot to attack the World Trade Center.

– German intelligence alerted the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI-6 intelligence service, Israel's Mossad in June 2001 that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American and Israeli interests.

– Pakistanis were taken into custody June 4 in the Cayman Islands after they were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City; they were questioned and released, and the information was forwarded to U.S. intelligence.

– Indian intelligence shared "general" information in July 2001.

– In July and August, British intelligence shared "general" information that it had learned through surveillance of Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi Arabian dissident who has publicly acknowledged being a bin Laden operative. Fawwaz, suspected of participating in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya, was arrested after Sept. 11.

– Based on its own intelligence, the Israeli government provided "general" information to the United States in the second week of August that an Al Qaeda attack was imminent.

– French intelligence echoed the "general" information in the final week of August.

– Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets.

– Millennium bomber Ahmad Ressam testified in closed and open court trials relating to his Dec. 1999 arrest for trying to bring bomb-making materials across the Canadian border that attack plans, including hijackings and attacks on New York City targets, were ongoing.

– An Islamic terrorist conspiracy was uncovered in 1996 in the Philippines to hijack a dozen airplanes and fly them into CIA headquarters and other buildings. Among the discoveries was a plot for a "bojinka" – a big bang. The information was discovered on a computer and noted in the 1997 trial of Ramzi Yousef, one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

– U.S. investigators confirmed in October that a 29-year-old Iranian in custody in Germany's Langenhagen prison last year made phone calls to U.S. police from his deportation cell that an attack on the World Trade Center was imminent in "the days before the attack." The warning was considered the threat of a madman.

– In October, U.S. government officials confirmed that India's intelligence agency had information before the attacks that two Islamist radicals with ties to Usama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House. India's information was not provided to U.S. intelligence until Sept. 13.




Sources have also told Fox News that the memo from the FBI Phoenix office about Arabs training in U.S. flight schools never reached headquarters because FBI counterterrorism officials were overwhelmed by the bombing of the USS Cole. The memo ended up "sitting on a shelf," according to sources.

The sources also said officials were too overwhelmed with intelligence information to tap Zaccarias Moussaoui, who was taken into custody in August, after a Minnesota flight school reported that the alleged 20th hijacker of Sept.11 was interested in learning how to fly, but not take-off and land.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, experts have predicted that the next worldwide scourge would be terrorism. There are literally dozens of reports, studies and court cases in which hijackings, including those that would end up with crashes into buildings were discussed.

In 1999, the Federal Research Division at the Library of Congress published its own report entitled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?" which described that "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to Al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House."”

“sorry guys.....STEEEEEEERIKE THREEEEE!

this stories gonna be forgotten in a week.

you know why? cuz it's STOOOOOPID!
even stupid people can see that it's completely baseless to say that we knew when, where, with what we were gonna get hit. rediculous and the dems looked soo stupid and desperate in the hearings. the pundants on tv grasping onto tiny shreds of nothing that may possibly be turned against bush.

what a waste of time and money. all that, just to try to score a few points. america wont buy it cuz its WAY too weak.

move on guys, what's next?


OH, I GOT ONE! how bout.........BUSH INVENTED CIGGARETTES IN ORDER TO KILL POOR CHILDREN?

discuss....”

“"OH, I GOT ONE! how bout.........BUSH INVENTED CIGGARETTES IN ORDER TO KILL POOR CHILDREN?"

How the hell are poor children gonna aford $4 a pack dewd? Bush was spending too much time getting the blacks hooked on crack to worry about kids smokin'.”

“I got one, how about "Bush didn't have specific enough warning that cigarettes could kill children."

"Had I known that a child would have smoked a cigarette on a specific day, I would have stopped them."”

“Bush found a way to make not one, not two, but three factual errors in a single 15-word sentence, which must be something of a world indoor record. Bush said it is still possible that inspectors will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm," he said, referring to Libya's WMD disclosures last month.

The White House, according to Reuters, said the accurate figure was 23.6 metric tons or 26 tons, not 50. The stuff was found at various locations, not at a turkey farm. And there was no mustard gas on the farm at all, but unfilled chemical munitions.

Other than that, the sentence was spot on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15952-2004Apr15.html”

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday he "answered every question" posed to him by the 9/11 commission during what was described as an extraordinary session at the White House with the panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.



The president dismissed suggestions that he appeared before the panel with Cheney to coordinate stories.

"If we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place," Bush said. "We answered all their questions."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/29/bush.911.commission/index.html


Except that Bush didn't want to meet with them. Only under extreme pressure did he agree, and with many restrictions such as no record of what was said.”

“"A year ago I did give the speech from the carrier saying we had achieved an important objective, accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

"And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq."

- George double-ewe Bush”

“LMAO!”

“V - Send that to the Kery peeps and tell'em to run with it!”

“

CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush took a spill during a Saturday afternoon bike ride on his ranch, suffering bruises and cuts that were visible later on his face just two days before he was to deliver a major prime-time speech on his Iraq policy.

The president was nearing the end of a 17-mile ride on his mountain bike, accompanied by a Secret Service agent, a military aide and his personal physician, Richard Tubb, who treated him at the scene, said White House spokesman Trent Duffy.

"It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose," Duffy said. "You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."




May 22: 0"

May 21: 0"

May 20: 0"

May 19: 0"

May 18: 0"

May 17: 0"

May 16: 0"

May 15: 0"

May 14: 0.03"




Props to kos”

“whadda pussie (french for #&%!$)”

“He should quit eating pretzels while riding.”

“From Bush's remarks in the Rose Garden, June 1, 2004:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly --

THE PRESIDENT: Chalabi?

Q: Yes, with Chalabi.

THE PRESIDENT: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.

----------------------------------


From Meet the Press, Feb.13, 2004:

Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

----------------------------------


From a transcript of the president's discussion with the reporters on the plane, November 27, 2003:

THE PRESIDENT: I did see Chalabi. I met with -- well, let's see, I had the dinner, you saw that. I wasn't sure how long you were there, you probably timed it, but an hour or so -- are these the times? Oh, these are the people there.

I shook a lot of hands, saw a lot of kids, took a lot of pictures, served a lot of food and we moved on to see four members of the Governing Council -- the names are here. Talibani is the head of it right now, so he was the main spokesman. But Chalabi was there, as was Dr. Khuzaii, who had come to the Oval Office, I don't know if you all were in the pool that day, but she was there -- she was there with him, and one other fellow, and I had a good talk with them.”

“To be fair, this may or may not be a lie. I guess it all depends on what your definition of ‘extensive’ is.
;)”

“It is somewhat reminiscent of that "Ken Lay who?" routine. It's a kind of controversy-induced amnesia.

As the song says.... "Nobody knows you when you're down and out"”

“If Ken Lay was Clinton's friend, he would've pardoned him when he left office like he did all the other criminals. I don't tink Bush will pardon Lay when he leaves office in 2008.”

“Bush will be the one needing a pardon, LOL”

“You mean 2004, but we'll see...”

“THE PRESIDENT: My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders.

-----------------------------------

(Monica Lewinsky): He had this big 50th birthday party at Radio City Music Hall and there was a cocktail reception and at the -- when he came to do the rope line and he -- after he greeted me and talked to me, he was talking to a whole bunch of people in and around my area ...

... I had my back to him and I just kind of put -- put my hand behind me and touched him.

(PROSECUTOR): Touched him in the crotch area?

(Monica Lewinsky): Yes.”

“Think Georgie copped a feel?”

“"c'mon chalabi, squeal like a pig for me."

"WEEEEEE"”

“"I Never Had Sexual Relations With That Man, Mr. Chalabi!"

-- GWB


(famous last words, LOL --- he got #&%!$ed but he didn't get kissed)”

“No kidding with the Kenneth Lay flashback.



by kos
Wed Jun 2nd, 2004 at 17:56:02 EDT

Boy, in a moment reminiscent of 1984, Bush says we never had a problem with France. Really.
President Bush said he was never angry with France over its refusal to back the U.S.-led war in Iraq, as both countries sought to play down past tensions ahead of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings.
"I was never angry with the French. France is a long-term ally," Bush told the weekly Paris Match in an interview due to be published on Thursday.

So I guess we can call them "French Fries" again, huh?
The only question left is whether this is another Bush flip flop, or just a run-of-the-mill Bush lie?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/6/2/17562/93795”

“PARIS - President George W. Bush said he was never angry with France over its refusal to back the United States-led war in Iraq, as both countries sought to play down past tensions ahead of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings.

"I was never angry with the French. France is a long-term ally," Bush told the weekly Paris Match in an interview due to be published on Thursday.

Bush, who barred Chirac from his ranch in Texas last year, even indicated he was now ready to host the French leader.

"If he wants to come and see some cows, he is welcome. He can come and see some cows," he said.”

“The Plain Truth

Published: June 17, 2004 NY Times

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.”

“See Dr Justin Frank's, "Bush is a paranoid, sadistic meglomaniac" story.”

“Hey, what ever happened to that touted "major Spring offensive", where we had surrounded the "number 2"?

Oh, that's right, Bush and Cheney were going to testify, that's right.”

“I have been listening to this on the talk show news here in Memphis for the past two days.

So, it appears there is no connection with Al Qaeda and no WMD.






So, somebody remind me what the "good reason" for being there is.”

“The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding.

-Bush abord the USS Abraham Lincoln

Mission Accomplished.”

“Guffaw!!!”

“Hmmm,,,I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

The President's comments at the "Mission Accomplished" gala, don't seem to fit the facts.”

“"The President's comments at the "Mission Accomplished" gala, don't seem to fit the facts......"

Thus, the mistrust of teh American people toward this Admin. '


Hey, I somewhat buy into Mutt's theory of our actions; going one further and agruing that this is indead fact, this Admin has bumpled it's way through this. Much more woulda come to pass, if we did not shoot ourselves in the the foriegn policy foot.

Now, we not only have to over come the Arab street, we must over some teh English street, German street, Spainish street, French street, eastern Europe has a whole street, Russian street, etc.

For as much good this action might have in the outcome, it has set us back 50 years in foreign relations.

This will compound if Bush is re-elected. At the end of the next four years, it'll just be us against the world.”

“Last year when questioning the need for and the rationale for the war on Iraq a frequent answer from Dubya supporters was, "Have you forgotten about 9/11?".”

“Bush & Cheney are a couple of freakin' psychos. Drop-kick their asses back to Wherever.”

“So, somebody remind me what the "good reason" for being there is."
chili36

In a word: Daddy!”

“From May 20, 2004:

Beginning with Monday's address at the Army War College, Bush will give a major speech on Iraq every week through June 30, when the U.S.-led coalition is due to turn over limited authority to a new interim Iraqi government. "We're entering a critical phase, and the president will be speaking out each week to discuss with the American people, and the world, the way forward in Iraq," said a White House official.

"Some speeches will have more details than others, and will be given at different places and times. All have the important goal of explaining the essential tasks at hand and the significance of June 30," the official added.”

“LMAO”

“"But you can't win a war if you don't believe in fighting," he [Bush] said of his challenger, five times a decorated Vietnam War veteran.”

“"when our commanders say that they need support, they'll get support"
- President Bush, September 23, 2004


Long an Iraqi target, no U.S. help in sight

[...]
(Brig. Gen. Oscar B.) Hilman (commander of the 81st Brigade Combat Team) said he requested additional forces in the spring and again in the summer from 13th Corps Support Command, which is responsible for LSA Anaconda and all other multinational supply and transportation facilities in Iraq.

Maj. Richard W. Spiegel, a spokesman for the 13th Corps, confirmed that Hilman put in the request and that it was endorsed by the command's top officer, Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers.

The request was forwarded to Multi-National Corps Iraq headquarters, which assesses troop requirements and makes the final decision, Spiegel said. The request was denied, he said, declining to provide details.

Sharon Walker, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad, said officials had no comment on why the request was not approved.
[...]”

“U.S. Misled Allies About Nuclear Export

In an effort to increase pressure on North Korea, the Bush administration told its Asian allies in briefings earlier this year that Pyongyang had exported nuclear material to Libya. That was a significant new charge, the first allegation that North Korea was helping to create a new nuclear weapons state.

But that is not what U.S. intelligence reported, according to two officials with detailed knowledge of the transaction. North Korea, according to the intelligence, had supplied uranium hexafluoride -- which can be enriched to weapons-grade uranium -- to Pakistan. It was Pakistan, a key U.S. ally with its own nuclear arsenal, that sold the material to Libya. The U.S. government had no evidence, the officials said, that North Korea knew of the second transaction.

Pakistan's role as both the buyer and the seller was concealed to cover up the part played by Washington's partner in the hunt for al Qaeda leaders, according to the officials, who discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. In addition, a North Korea-Pakistan transfer would not have been news to the U.S. allies, which have known of such transfers for years and viewed them as a business matter between sovereign states.

The Bush administration's approach, intended to isolate North Korea, instead left allies increasingly doubtful as they began to learn that the briefings omitted essential details about the transaction, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said in interviews. North Korea responded to public reports last month about the briefings by withdrawing from talks with its neighbors and the United States.

continued...”