Why Bush Should be Impeached

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
There's a big difference between seeking guidance (praying for wisdom and insight, etc.) and claiming that you're hearing voices of supernatural entities and acting on that. Ever heard of "Son of Sam?" In the Psychology profession, we call such people "mentally ill." And no, I wouldn't want my kids under the leadership of someone who is mentally ill in that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RogerB:
And who exactly do you seek wisdom and insight from?

wholearmor:
Obviously no one.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Eireann
The way they've been backpedaling lately. with everyone trying to point the blame of misinformation at everyone else, I would say the answer to that question would be a big resounding NO!

You would say that but you would be ignorant.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
He allegedly claimed that "God told him" to get Bin Laden by invading Afhghanistan and Hussein by invading Iraq.

Do you believe that your God told him to do those things, Roger?

I believe you flunked Link Posting 101.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
I believe you flunked Link Posting 101. I believe you must have been out sick the day they covered answering direct questions... ;)

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
I believe you must have been out sick the day they covered answering direct questions... ;)

Provide a link to the story and I will respond.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by wholearmor
And what if God's NOT a mythical, supernatural entity?
Can you demonstrate that the above notion is true?

There haven't been any miracles wrought in a very long time; it is simpler to conclude that there never were any.

[Zakath]

Roger,

All you had to do was say it was an incorrect link. It's an easy thing to fix. The link in my previous post has been corrected. Read on...

[RogerB]

it is simpler to conclude that there never were any

Now there's a rule to live by.....NOT!

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
I believe you must have been out sick the day they covered answering direct questions... ;)

HA! Look who's calling the kettle black, Zakath. You still haven't answered my question. Here, I'll make it simple even for you:

Choose one:

1) I want the Commander in Chief of my sons to make decisions
on his own without praying and listening to his God.

2) I want the Commander in Chief of my sons to make decisions based on praying and listening to his God.

Please enter your answer here_______.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
HA! Look who's calling the kettle black, Zakath. You still haven't answered my question. Here, I'll make it simple even for you:

Choose one:

1) I want the Commander in Chief of my sons to make decisions
on his own without praying and listening to his God.

2) I want the Commander in Chief of my sons to make decisions based on praying and listening to his God.

Please enter your answer here_______.

I propose an alternative scenario...

The CIC can follow whatever religion he wishes so long as he makes his military decisions based on sound military, intelligence, and political strategy.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Roger,

All you had to do was say it was an incorrect link. It's an easy thing to fix. The link in my previous post has been corrected. Read on...

My apologies....I assumed the bad link was merely a clownish ploy to put words in our great leader's mouth. After reading the real story, however, all I can say is if Bush did indeed say that to Abbas then, yes, I believe God told him to strike at al Qaida and Saddam.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
I propose an alternative scenario...

The CIC can follow whatever religion he wishes so long as he makes his military decisions based on sound military, intelligence, and political strategy.

Good thing you're not setting policy.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
My apologies....I assumed the bad link was merely a clownish ploy to put words in our great leader's mouth.:shock: Roger, I'm wounded! That's something Jay Bartlett would do... ;)

Apology accepted. :D

After reading the real story, however, all I can say is if Bush did indeed say that to Abbas then, yes, I believe God told him to strike at al Qaida and Saddam. Do you believe that his God and yours are the same entity?

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
:shock: Roger, I'm wounded! That's something Jay Bartlett would do... ;)

Apology accepted. :D

Do you believe that his God and yours are the same entity?

Yes.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Good thing you're not setting policy. Yep. I've never sought, nor wanted such a job. I'm happy to leave it to the people that do, provided they're competent.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Yes. Thank you for answering. :D

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Thank you for answering. :D

You're welcome. :)

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Now there's a rule to live by.....NOT!
Well, I've been talking smack for years to this "all-powerful" being you bow and scrape to, and he's done somewhere between jack and squat about it.

As well, the followers who have tried to take me to task have had their heads handed to them, every one.

So, I've no choice but to conclude he's either weak as a kitten or nonexistent...

[Zakath]

I find it particularly disgusting when both sides in a political urinating contest drag in the deity as their authority... like Bush and bin Laden. Both claim to be doing "God's work"...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath
I find it particularly disgusting when both sides in a political urinating contest drag in the deity as their authority... like Bush and bin Laden. Both claim to be doing "God's work"...
Indeed. If there's any kind of supernatural intelligence at work, it does a wonderful job of playing both ends against the middle...

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Zakath
I find it particularly disgusting when both sides in a political urinating contest drag in the deity as their authority... like Bush and bin Laden. Both claim to be doing "God's work"...

Actually, bin Laden's claim is that he's doing Allah's work. Allah and Jehovah are not the same God. :nono:

[Zakath]

Of coursee, but don't both the Christian and Muslim claim their deity is exclusively "God"?

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Zakath
Of coursee, but don't both the Christian and Muslim claim their deity is exclusively "God"?

Yes. You're right about that. I know that if I was raised in Saudi Arabia, I would believe in Allah. Right now, I praise God that I wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, I've been talking smack for years to this "all-powerful" being you bow and scrape to, and he's done somewhere between jack and squat about it.

As well, the followers who have tried to take me to task have had their heads handed to them, every one.

So, I've no choice but to conclude he's either weak as a kitten or nonexistent...

Neither....He's patiently waiting for you.

[wholearmor]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wholearmor
And what if God's NOT a mythical, supernatural entity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gerald:
Can you demonstrate that the above notion is true?

There haven't been any miracles wrought in a very long time; it is simpler to conclude that there never were any.

wholearmor:
Gerald, what part of "what if" don't you understand?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
I propose an alternative scenario...

The CIC can follow whatever religion he wishes so long as he makes his military decisions based on sound military, intelligence, and political strategy.

Agreed...and he has.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Agreed...and he has. And that's where the arguments come from; concerns about the validity, efficacy, accuracy, etc. of his advisors...

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
And that's where the arguments come from; concerns about the validity, efficacy, accuracy, etc. of his advisors...

Yes, naturally there will be arguments.

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
And that's where the arguments come from; concerns about the validity, efficacy, accuracy, etc. of his advisors...

But arguments from people who are not in possession of any insiders knowledge or intelligence are simply ignorant.

[Zakath]

As are the support arguments... ;)

I've got family in the intelligence community and I've worked for quite a while as a federal contractor. You'd be surprised how things work here in the "logic free zone" of Washington DC. :rolleyes:

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
As are the support arguments... ;)

Only problem is....you're going to be waiting a very, very long time for someone to hand over that classified information. In the mean time, the truth goes marching on!

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
You'd be surprised how things work here in the "logic free zone"

No, I read your posts every day. :p

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
Neither....He's patiently waiting for you.
:chuckle:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
As are the support arguments... ;)

I've got family in the intelligence community and I've worked for quite a while as a federal contractor. You'd be surprised how things work here in the "logic free zone" of Washington DC. :rolleyes:

I don't believe I'd be that surprised.

[Zakath]

Then perhaps you'll understand why I have such a strong bias against anything coming out of a politician's mouth...

[Skeptic]

Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments:
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

June 20, 2003

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

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

Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."

Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.

If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story, please see FAIR's Media Contact list: http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html

From: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

[RogerB]

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

Thanks for misrepresenting the truth, Skeptic.

If you don't think Saddam is a terrorist, you're just plain crazy.

[BillyBob]

Yeah Skeptic.........silly neocom.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
Thanks for misrepresenting the truth, Skeptic.

If you don't think Saddam is a terrorist, you're just plain crazy.
Terrorist, perhaps. At least, he did support terrorism.

Connected in any way to 9/11, that's another story. I am still waiting for any of you who say he was to actually show something of substance that establishes any connection at all between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

So far the closest anyone has come to doing that was when BillyBob posted an article containing a lot of conjecture from Israelis, even to the point that it was phrased as conjecture and opinion, but even that fell miserably short of substance (since it was largely nothing but opinion and conjecture).

[Skeptic]

U.S. Envoy Says Bush 'Twisted' Iraq Intelligence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20030706/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former U.S. ambassador who investigated a report about Iraq buying uranium from Niger for the CIA accused the Bush administration on Sunday of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Joseph Wilson, Washington's envoy to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, detailed in his role in investigating the report -- which turned out to be a forgery -- in an article in the New York Times on Sunday.

The report was cited by President Bush and Britain to support their charges that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and to justify their invasion of Iraq in March.

"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote.

Controversy is raging in both Britain and the United States over charges that the governments of the two countries manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. No evidence of such weapons has been found by the occupying forces in Iraq.

Wilson, who helped to direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton, said he was the "unnamed former envoy" who news media have said traveled to Niger in February 2002 to check the report of a uranium deal between the west African country and Iraq.

At the request of the CIA, which was to report his findings to Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson said he spent more than a week meeting current and former Niger government officials and people associated with the uranium business.

"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," he said.

Wilson said he reported his findings in detail to the CIA and the State Department. But in January 2003 Bush "repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa," Wilson said.

"If the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," he said.

Wilson said that if the administration had ignored his information "because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

In the weeks before the war began, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal was a forgery.

[Is it possible?]

Testing

[Is it possible?]

:devil:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Skeptic
U.S. Envoy Says Bush 'Twisted' Iraq Intelligence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20030706/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former U.S. ambassador who investigated a report about Iraq buying uranium from Niger for the CIA accused the Bush administration on Sunday of twisting intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Joseph Wilson, Washington's envoy to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, detailed in his role in investigating the report -- which turned out to be a forgery -- in an article in the New York Times on Sunday.

The report was cited by President Bush and Britain to support their charges that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and to justify their invasion of Iraq in March.

"Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote.

Controversy is raging in both Britain and the United States over charges that the governments of the two countries manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the war. No evidence of such weapons has been found by the occupying forces in Iraq.

Wilson, who helped to direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under former President Bill Clinton, said he was the "unnamed former envoy" who news media have said traveled to Niger in February 2002 to check the report of a uranium deal between the west African country and Iraq.

At the request of the CIA, which was to report his findings to Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson said he spent more than a week meeting current and former Niger government officials and people associated with the uranium business.

"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," he said.

Wilson said he reported his findings in detail to the CIA and the State Department. But in January 2003 Bush "repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa," Wilson said.

"If the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," he said.

Wilson said that if the administration had ignored his information "because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

In the weeks before the war began, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the report about an Iraq-Niger uranium deal was a forgery.
This news isn't surprising. Particularly the part about the administration ignoring evidence because it didn't fit a particular preconception about Iraq. Integrity took its leave of this administration long ago.

[RogerB]

Integrity took its leave of this administration long ago.

We got witches judging integrity. :confused:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
We got witches judging integrity. :confused:
And your blanket attacks on witches continue. Again I ask you, do you have a basis for these aspersions? Did a witch somehow personally wrong you at some point? Do you even know what a witch is, especially in context with the modern day? Be warned: what the bible describes as a "witch" isn't even close to what a modern witch is.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
We got witches judging integrity. :confused:
The witches have the bigger stick...at least until Patriot II gets passed; then Duhbya can just have them all hunted down and shot...

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Gerald
The witches have the bigger stick...

You mean brooms? :chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by RogerB
You mean brooms? :chuckle:
Hey, one uses what works; I once took down the school bully with a broom handle (granted, he was using the urinal at the time...).

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
You mean brooms? :chuckle:
Hey, buddy ... Nimbus 2002! Don't knock it! It's got get-up-and-go!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Eireann
Hey, buddy ... Nimbus 2002! Don't knock it! It's got get-up-and-go!
The '03 has a better climb rate; costs a bit, but then you gets what you pays for...:D

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Gerald
The '03 has a better climb rate; costs a bit, but then you gets what you pays for...:D
Yeah, but I never trust brand new models. I like to let at least a year go by, make sure they've had time to get the bugs worked out (or at least properly fed). Nothing worse than having your brand new broom break down over the desert ... a mile up!

[Skeptic]

The evidence continues to grow. :chuckle:

White House downplays role of faulty report
Thu Jul 10, 7:57 AM ET

John Diamond USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration defended on Wednesday its decision to go to war against Iraq and downplayed the role of discredited intelligence in the decision. President Bush said Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to world peace, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Sept. 11 attacks put the danger in sharp relief.

Rumsfeld's statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee and Bush's comments in Africa marked the second day this week that the administration tried to reframe its justification for war in Iraq and rebut criticism over how intelligence was used.

''The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder,'' Rumsfeld said. ''We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of . . . Sept. 11th.''

Bush, visiting South Africa, declined to say whether he had any regrets about alleging in his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28 that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Niger for a nuclear weapons program. The White House said earlier this week that the charge should not have been in the speech because it was based on information that U.S. intelligence knew was bogus.

''I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program,'' Bush said. He didn't answer a question on whether he regretted including false information in his speech.

Rumsfeld's remark drew a sharp response from critics of the administration's Iraq policy.

''It is deeply troubling that Congress would be asked to vote on something as serious as sending American troops into harm's way and then be told after the fact, 'There's nothing new,' '' Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said.

At the hearing Wednesday, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, called it ''absolutely startling'' that Rumsfeld had repeated Bush's Jan. 28 charge on CNN the next day, apparently unaware of widely circulated intelligence reports concluding that the documents on Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium were forgeries.

At a Washington news conference hosted by the Arms Control Association, a former senior official in the State Department's intelligence bureau said the problem was not bad information but the tendency of policymakers to exaggerate intelligence on Iraq.

''The administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: 'We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers,' '' said Greg Thielmann, who resigned last September as chief arms proliferation analyst. Rumsfeld said, ''The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of . . . Sept. 11th.''

What does this statement really say? It says that Bush and his neocons didn't really have any new information about a clear and imminent threat of Iraqi WMD. They didn't have any more info than they had several years ago. But, after 9/11, Bush and his neocons saw an opportunity ("saw the existing evidence in a new light") to take advantage of public's fear of terrorism ( "prism of . . . Sept. 11th") to preemptively strike Iraq and fulfill the ten-year old neoconservative plan to invade Iraq for strategic advantage.

The following is an excerpt of their principles (my bold):
"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
...we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

The above excerpt was taken from a statement signed in 1997 by the following people:
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Let me get some more crack for your pipe.




Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? Is this the neocon perspective, that one must be on drugs to actually want some truth and integrity from this administration?

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Eireann
Was that supposed to be a rebuttal? Is this the neocon perspective, that one must be on drugs to actually want some truth and integrity from this administration?

Well, none of the liberal crowd wanted truth and integrity from the last administration.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Well, none of the liberal crowd wanted truth and integrity from the last administration.
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence. I think the degree of sin is considerably greater with this administration.

Besides, as I've said before, it ain't a spitting contest. This isn't a case where the "your guy got away with it so ours should, too" argument is going to have any merit.

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Eireann
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence. I think the degree of sin is considerably greater with this administration.

Besides, as I've said before, it ain't a spitting contest. This isn't a case where the "your guy got away with it so ours should, too" argument is going to have any merit.

No. He just authorized the bombing of an aspirin factory to take the attention off of his sexual problems.

I don't care who's in office. Either way, the guy's a politician and as such cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That goes for any politician out there.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Eireann
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence.

Billy;
Neither did this administration.
GW sent our troops to remove Saddam and did it quite well. What lies are you talking about?

[Is it possible?]

If Bush should be impeached so should Clinton for he did far worse to this country than Bush...

I was disappointed to hear that Bush apologized for slavery...it was reminescient of Clinton when he spoke to college students and told them America was responsible for 9-11.

Just like this man...to pass the buck.

GOD, bless everyone on this thread!

By the way America is not responsible for all the evils in this world...no

[billwald]

Impeached For taking bad advice?

[Is it possible?]

what are you talking about Bill?

I do not think Bush should be impeached...the Senate should of had a REAL trail in the first place and removed Clinton from office in the first place...who knows how much better off we would have been.... by the way the true hero's were the house managers...

my hats off to these boys!

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Originally posted by Eireann
The last administration didn't send us into a full-scale war citing lies, forgeries, and manufactured evidence.

Billy;
Neither did this administration.
GW sent our troops to remove Saddam and did it quite well. What lies are you talking about?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008
http://www.whodies.com/lies.html

This one below is especially interesting. It shows that the forged information Bush cited in his January SotU address had already been stopped once when they tried to use it three months earlier. It also says that the reference didn't appear in any of the drafts prior to Bush reading it. Looks to me like someone slipped it in after it made it past the censors, then when it backfired Tenet was forced to take the fall so Bush wouldn't have to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Eireann
This one below is especially interesting. It shows that the forged information Bush cited in his January SotU address had already been stopped once when they tried to use it three months earlier. It also says that the reference didn't appear in any of the drafts prior to Bush reading it. Looks to me like someone slipped it in after it made it past the censors, then when it backfired Tenet was forced to take the fall so Bush wouldn't have to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb You beat me to it! I was just going to post the exact same link! :thumb:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Skeptic
You beat me to it! I was just going to post the exact same link! :thumb:
You know what they say. Great minds think alike! :thumb:

[claire]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
No. He just authorized the bombing of an aspirin factory to take the attention off of his sexual problems.

I don't care who's in office. Either way, the guy's a politician and as such cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That goes for any politician out there.

:D I am agreeing with the first point....lolol.....but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't comment on the last....which I agree with to some degree, but with a couple of reservations...

I am a TEXAN (that's always spelled in capital letters for the uninitiated :) W is a good man, who is moral, much smarter than people give him credit for, and has a very deep love for this country and the things it stands for....he is very protective of our freedoms, our way of life, and our constitution.

We (collectively) tend to assess what we read in the media without giving any thought to the fact that there is much deeper and more detailed information that we are NOT privvy to. I trust him because I know what kind of man he is.....and while I do not agree with everything he may do, I know that the place it comes from is centered in right....It is amazing to me how public opinion turns on a dime depending on what liberal media "puts out there"....but regardless.....

Let the voter's decide in 2004.....

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by claire
:D I am agreeing with the first point....lolol.....but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't comment on the last....which I agree with to some degree, but with a couple of reservations...

I am a TEXAN (that's always spelled in capital letters for the uninitiated :) W is a good man, who is moral, much smarter than people give him credit for, and has a very deep love for this country and the things it stands for....he is very protective of our freedoms, our way of life, and our constitution.

We (collectively) tend to assess what we read in the media without giving any thought to the fact that there is much deeper and more detailed information that we are NOT privvy to. I trust him because I know what kind of man he is.....and while I do not agree with everything he may do, I know that the place it comes from is centered in right....It is amazing to me how public opinion turns on a dime depending on what liberal media "puts out there"....but regardless.....

Let the voter's decide in 2004.....

Claire,

I trust Bush more than I've ever trusted any other politician. That says a lot. But, the fact is that he's a politiician. I don't pay attention to what the media says. I base my decisions on what I see.

I'm thirty-four years old. And, I haven't seen a president yet who valued the safety and security of this nation more than he valued saving his own hide. The republicans tend to be more "pro-military," while the democrats tend to be "pro-welfare." If I was allowed to choose, I'd choose "pro-military" anyday. I believe that people should work to support themselves and their families instead of expecting the government to do it for them.

[claire]

Originally posted by ebenz47037
Claire,

I trust Bush more than I've ever trusted any other politician. That says a lot. But, the fact is that he's a politiician. I don't pay attention to what the media says. I base my decisions on what I see.

I'm thirty-four years old. And, I haven't seen a president yet who valued the safety and security of this nation more than he valued saving his own hide. The republicans tend to be more "pro-military," while the democrats tend to be "pro-welfare." If I was allowed to choose, I'd choose "pro-military" anyday. I believe that people should work to support themselves and their families instead of expecting the government to do it for them.

Well, we seem to have arrived at the same conclusions, I'm happy to say....:)

I am politically conservative in most ways...I am liking for the government to stay out of my hair, and I also believe that able bodied and minded people should work and support themselves and their families....I believe in Peace through strength (go navy :D) and also that we have a right, as well as a duty, to protect the freedoms which have made our country what it is....people have a right to live without fear...and I'll take a determined decision maker in that regard over an indecisive liberal (no names needed) anyday....

I think that our constitution must be guarded and protected...so that the intentions of our forefathers are not "embellished" based on a changing social climate....

There, thats my political rant for the day...:).

[taxpayerslavery]

One thing is for sure, the Liberal media is out to get Bush. They have been ever since the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to select Gore.

We don't hear about the honeymoon which is going on between our troops and the Iraqi people, only the body count is being reported. I wonder why?

The Liberals were wrong about everything they predicted of what would happen if we went to war. Now they're wrong about Bush putting a false statement in the state of the union speech. The problem with the Liberal media is that you can't always depend on them to be wrong. If you could then at least you could always take the opposite of what they say and they would then be of some use.

So now the Liberal media is trying this Bush lied thing to get Bush. I wish they were as interested in exposing Bill Clinton's lies, they would have had a story every time Clinton spoke. Oh, it's the Liberal media we're talking about, Clinton was their guy that they got elected. That's why they did every thing they could to help him out.

Bush said a British government report states that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. Since a British report said that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, then Bush told the truth in his speech.

The British are standing by their unnamed sources for this information.

End of story.

Alqeada was training in Iraq. Just in case anybody forgot, Bush stated that any country allowing terrorist training would be held accountable.

The Liberals are really sticking their neck out say that there are no weapons of mass destruction this early in the search. Since they have been wrong about everything else, I expect they will be wrong about this. they are so eager to GET BUSH, and they are so confident that the Liberal media will give them a pass if they are wrong, they are jumping the gun way too early.

At what point do the Liberals loose complete and total credibility?

If weapons of mass destruction are not found, then I guess we liberated the people of a country, ended torture chambers, freed a bunch of child prisoners, shut down terrorist training camps and made America safer . . . FOR NOTHING ! ! !

I hate it when that happens.

[o2bwise]

Hey taxpayerslavery,

What is Bush doing to abolish the Federal Reserve banking System and to restore lawful money (gold and silver coin)? Why would Bush allow our money system to be owned by a private corporation whose stock is >70% owned by foreigners?

Bush is a communist. He is out for ONE THING. And that is to enslave us all.

He didn't even allow Congress to read the staggeringly draconian Patriot Act.

Playing the "Democrat-Republican" paradigm is suicide.

The solution lies elsewhere. The differences between Klinton and Bush are microscopic.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
You know what they say. Great minds think alike!

:vomit:

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
This one below is especially interesting. It shows that the forged information Bush cited in his January SotU address had already been stopped once when they tried to use it three months earlier. It also says that the reference didn't appear in any of the drafts prior to Bush reading it.

Billy;
The CIA approved the speech before Bush gave it.

Eireann;
Looks to me like someone slipped it in after it made it past the censors, then when it backfired Tenet was forced to take the fall so Bush wouldn't have to.

Billy;
Yes, it is a political mishap. The thing is, Tony Blair stands by the accusation that saddam was indeed trying to purchase nuclear material. Turns out that Bush's caution was appropriate and supported from more than one source.

There is no doubt that Saddam was doing what he could to obtain WMD including nukes. The Brits back this up. The UN knew it and now Saddam is gone.

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!

[BillyBob]

Taxpayslavery;
At what point do the Liberals loose complete and total credibility?

Billy;
About 10 years ago......

TPS;
If weapons of mass destruction are not found, then I guess we liberated the people of a country, ended torture chambers, freed a bunch of child prisoners, shut down terrorist training camps and made America safer . . . FOR NOTHING ! ! !

I hate it when that happens.

Billy;
Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Billy;
The CIA approved the speech before Bush gave it.
Did you read the link? The CIA approved what was given to them as a final draft. Those drafts that were given to them for approval did not include the reference that was ultimately included in the given speech.

Billy;
Yes, it is a political mishap. The thing is, Tony Blair stands by the accusation that saddam was indeed trying to purchase nuclear material. Turns out that Bush's caution was appropriate and supported from more than one source.
Exactly what caution are you referring to? Bush wasn't cautious. The CIA was cautious. The CIA warned Bush about the document, and even blocked him from using it three months earlier. Bush ignored their cautions and warnings and used it anyway.

There is no doubt that Saddam was doing what he could to obtain WMD including nukes.
Then why has every effort to find evidence of such turned up completely empty?

The Brits back this up.
Have you actually seen what the Brits backed up? They backed up a document that cited a constitution that had been defunct for four years at the time of the citation, which was signed by a dignitary who was no longer in office at the time of the signing and which didn't even get the name of the government right! Is that honestly what you call reliable?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by taxpayerslavery
One thing is for sure, the Liberal media is out to get Bush. They have been ever since the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court's attempt to select Gore.

We don't hear about the honeymoon which is going on between our troops and the Iraqi people, only the body count is being reported. I wonder why?

The Liberals were wrong about everything they predicted of what would happen if we went to war. Now they're wrong about Bush putting a false statement in the state of the union speech. The problem with the Liberal media is that you can't always depend on them to be wrong. If you could then at least you could always take the opposite of what they say and they would then be of some use.

So now the Liberal media is trying this Bush lied thing to get Bush. I wish they were as interested in exposing Bill Clinton's lies, they would have had a story every time Clinton spoke. Oh, it's the Liberal media we're talking about, Clinton was their guy that they got elected. That's why they did every thing they could to help him out.

Bush said a British government report states that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. Since a British report said that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, then Bush told the truth in his speech.

The British are standing by their unnamed sources for this information.

End of story.

Alqeada was training in Iraq. Just in case anybody forgot, Bush stated that any country allowing terrorist training would be held accountable.

The Liberals are really sticking their neck out say that there are no weapons of mass destruction this early in the search. Since they have been wrong about everything else, I expect they will be wrong about this. they are so eager to GET BUSH, and they are so confident that the Liberal media will give them a pass if they are wrong, they are jumping the gun way too early.

At what point do the Liberals loose complete and total credibility?

If weapons of mass destruction are not found, then I guess we liberated the people of a country, ended torture chambers, freed a bunch of child prisoners, shut down terrorist training camps and made America safer . . . FOR NOTHING ! ! !

I hate it when that happens.
For those who don't want to read this whole rant, I'll translate it for you: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[BillyBob]

Sorry Eireann, your feeble attempts to implicate GW in some sort of deliberate deception for some undisclosed reason is falling flat. GW still has a higher approval rating than the percentage of people who voted for him.

I assume that you wish Saddam was still in power......

Or should I assume that your entire motivation is not based on truth at all, but rather contempt for a conservative President?

Which is it?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Sorry Eireann, your feeble attempts to implicate GW in some sort of deliberate deception for some undisclosed reason is falling flat. GW still has a higher approval rating than the percentage of people who voted for him.
Not by much. He's down to about 60% now, down almost 20 points from where he was at when the war was declared over, and dropping steadily. At the rate his rating has been dropping, if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat and kick the economy into gear really quick, he'll be below 50% within a month or so.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Billy;
Translation:
'I don't have a thing to say in defense of my silly neocom ranting which was just proven to be completely innacurate so I will try to win the argument by pretending to be clever. '

Sad how you libs ignore the obvious truth.....:ahso:

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
Not by much. He's down to about 60% now, down almost 20 points from where he was at when the war was declared over,

Billy;
The war was never declared over.

Eireann;
and dropping steadily. At the rate his rating has been dropping, if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat and kick the economy into gear really quick, he'll be below 50% within a month or so.

Billy;
One of the reasons he has dropped is because of the constant liberal lies assaulting everything from WMD which EVERYBODY agreed he had, to some silly notion that the economy is in bad shape.

The economy is booming, the stock market is officially considered a bull market and even YOU got a job this year.

Sorry, the liberal lies just won't cut it this time and even your 'base' is starting to see through you. Which is surprising because the democrat constituency is predominantly ignorant, unemployed, black, stupid, union thugs, extremely old, so old that they are easily duped, special interest groups, welfare recipients, the very lazy, the extremely lazy, the uninformed, the lied to, inmates and the formerly living.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann;
Not by much. He's down to about 60% now, down almost 20 points from where he was at when the war was declared over,

Billy;
The war was never declared over.
President Bush declared an end to major combat hostilities on May 1st. True, no end of war was declared, because war was never declared in the first place.

Eireann;
and dropping steadily. At the rate his rating has been dropping, if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat and kick the economy into gear really quick, he'll be below 50% within a month or so.

Billy;
One of the reasons he has dropped is because of the constant liberal lies assaulting everything from WMD which EVERYBODY agreed he had, to some silly notion that the economy is in bad shape.
Completely baseless. Nice rant, though. You do give the liberal voice a whole lot of credit!

The economy is booming, the stock market is officially considered a bull market
I think economists would disagree with you. This is what you WANT to believe, but it has no basis in reality.

Sorry, the liberal lies just won't cut it this time and even your 'base' is starting to see through you.
Tell it to the economists and pollsters. The numbers are right there. You can read them yourself. You can pretend it's all lies, because that's what you so desperately want to believe, but in the end you'll have to face the facts.

Which is surprising because the democrat constituency is predominantly ignorant, unemployed, black, stupid, union thugs, extremely old, so old that they are easily duped, special interest groups, welfare recipients, the very lazy, the extremely lazy, the uninformed, the lied to, inmates and the formerly living.
Baseless, as usual. Nice rant, though.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Eireann;
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Billy;
Translation:
'I don't have a thing to say in defense of my silly neocom ranting which was just proven to be completely innacurate so I will try to win the argument by pretending to be clever. '
Perhaps you would care to show where in his ignorant rant he proved anything inaccurate. The best he could come up with was that Bush didn't lie on a technicality (a cry of desperation if I ever saw one!) because he said the source was from Britain. That won't wash, though, because according to witness statements from the State Department and the CIA, Bush knew the document was false before the speech was ever made. That he plotted for a contingency by passing the buck to the Brits IN the speech is irrelevent. He presented as truth to the nation what he already knew to be untrue. That's a lie in any book, sorry to tell you. Beyond the irrelevent technicality argument, the remainder of his post was nothing but a desperation tantrum against the liberals that you like so much to blame for all your ills (easier than accepting responsibility for your own actions, I suppose).

Honestly, rants like we just saw from TPS read more like desperate prayers than an honest critique.

[BillyBob]

Billy;
The economy is booming, the stock market is officially considered a bull market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eireann;
I think economists would disagree with you. This is what you WANT to believe, but it has no basis in reality.

Billy;
It has nothing to do with what I want to believe. The Dow is up and so is NASDAQ. If you doubt it, check for yourself, we are officially in a bull market. The fact that you instantly disregard the truth about the economy demonstrates your liberal bias.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
Tell it to the economists and pollsters.

Billy;
There is quite a difference between economists and pollsters. The economists agree that the Clinton/Gore recession is over. They agree that the market is a bull market and they agree that the economy is growing.

Pollsters, such as yourself, are emotional and don't want to hear the truth about a strong economy because it defies your political bias and twisted asperations.

Eireann;
The numbers are right there. You can read them yourself. You can pretend it's all lies, because that's what you so desperately want to believe, but in the end you'll have to face the facts.

Billy;
What numbers are you taliking about? The fact that the Dow is up over 25% and the NASDAQ is up over 35%? I agree, the numbers speak the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Woo Hoo!!!!!! I love this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillyBob]

Wow, I forgot how much I enjoy arguing with you!

I must do it more often.......

"I'm too sexy for my shirt..... too sexy for my shirt.... I leave Eirean in the dirt"

"I'm too sexy for this thread....too sexy for this thread... I just climbed inside your head!!!!"

[Eireann]

The Dow and Nasdaq have been up and down on a roller coaster ride for some time now. That they are up right now hardly indicates a "booming economy." They've been up before and then back down. Let's give this a few months and see if it can gain a consistency it's lacked since the war started before we proclaim it a "booming economy," eh?

[mrsnacks]

BillyBob: What is this the humor thread I've stumbled on to.??
Yes, your right the economy is booming. You will notice all the new factories being built in the US in the past year.

The kids out of college have jobs just waiting for them.

The unemployment offices are closing down all over the country.

The malls are not having to put items on sale all year around as they have had to. people are buying left and right.

By the way -- is Bush your god ???:confused:

[BillyBob]

Yeah, that's it......

[BillyBob]

Let's go back and take a look......



Greenspan: It's Clinton's Bad Economy
Dan Frisa
Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2000

Let the word go forth, far and wide, that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has identified the current economic slowdown as occurring during the Clinton-Gore administration.
Yes, it is the economy, stupid!

And that economic "genius" Bill Clinton must be held responsible for this downturn in the economy.

Yesterday the Federal Reserve Board met and while refusing to lower interest rates, it did finally signal its belief that its previous hyper-focus on inflationary fears was misplaced.

What is clearly in order is a reduction in the Federal Funds Rate, which is then, in due course, reflected in lower interest rates to consumers and businesses.

During times when the economy is "moderating" – to borrow the Fed’s characterization – lower interest rates provide incentives to spur growth.

At the same time, this news from the Fed will likely provide a greater impetus for passage of reductions in marginal tax rates, as proposed by President-elect Bush, early in the 107th Congress.

Altogether, this confluence of events in both monetary and fiscal policies could inure to the benefit of the economy and the initial stature of George W. Bush at the beginning of his tenure as the 43rd president.

First impressions are said to be lasting impressions, and if such a scenario should play out in this manner, a positive tone could well be set for his entire first term.

So, let it be clearly understood that Bill Clinton left a declining economy as yet another part of his sorry legacy.

This is the Clinton economic downturn.

In January, President George W. Bush will have the opportunity to clean up this Clinton economic mess as well as to restore honor and dignity to the presidency, which has been lacking for the past eight years.

[BillyBob]

Bush has done as much as a President can do to allow Americans to keep more of the money they earn. Clinton took money away from them by rasing taxes, even the taxes that elderly SS recipients pay!

So we had the Clinton tax hikes, Enron style bookeeping so Clinton could hide the downturning economy, the Clinton/Gore recession of 1999 and then the Clinton stock market crash of 2001.

And despite all that, the economy is still booming! We just had the largest quarterly growth in ten years. The real estate market is strong.

I just had my best year ever with no end in sight and Eireann landed a 60K job.


The future's so bright....I gotta wear shades!

[o2bwise]

From:
http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/darsecinbohg.html

SINCE 1873, THE GLOBAL ELITE HAS HELD SECRET MEETINGS IN THE ANCIENT REDWOOD FOREST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. KNOWN MEMBERS OF THE SO-CALLED BOHEMIAN CLUB INCLUDE FORMER PRESIDENTS NIXON, EISENHOWER, REAGAN AND BUSH. THE BUSH FAMILY MAINTAINS A STRONG INVOLVEMENT.

EACH YEAR AT BOHEMIAN GROVE, WORLD LEADERS DON RED, BLACK AND SILVER CLOAKS AND CONDUCT AN OCCULT RITUAL, WHEREIN THEY WORSHIP A GIANT STONE OWL. DURING THE CEREMONY A HUMAN BEING IS SACRIFICED "IN EFFIGY" TO THE OWL GOD IDOL.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, AN OUTSIDER HAS INFILITRATED BOHEMIAN GROVE WITH A VIDEO CAMERA AND CAUGHT THE RITUAL ON TAPE.

THAT MAN IS ALEX JONES.

THE RITUAL IS JUST ONE PART OF THE TERRIFYING EXCLUSIVE VIDEO IN HIS LATEST DOCUMENTARY: DARK SECRETS: INSIDE BOHEMIAN GROVE


Apparently, Alex Jones caught George Bush on tape. Now, if this is true (and anyone can buy the video), I would like to know what a CHRISTIAN and a PRESIDENT is doing attending such an occultic event.

[o2bwise]

Hi Claire,

Well, I can't share your fondness for Mr Bush, BUT, your state has some WONDERFUL PATRIOTS. I am aware of:

1. Congressman Ron Paul - my favorite Congressman.

2. Alfred Adask - writer of the Antishyster and a true patriot (now incarcerated). I bound up all of his Antishyster magazines. See www.antishyster.com

3. Alex Jones. I don't know how this guy is still alive. I have four of his videos. www.infowars.com

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by o2bwise
From:
http://www.store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/darsecinbohg.html

SINCE 1873, THE GLOBAL ELITE HAS HELD SECRET MEETINGS IN THE ANCIENT REDWOOD FOREST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. KNOWN MEMBERS OF THE SO-CALLED BOHEMIAN CLUB INCLUDE FORMER PRESIDENTS NIXON, EISENHOWER, REAGAN AND BUSH. THE BUSH FAMILY MAINTAINS A STRONG INVOLVEMENT.

EACH YEAR AT BOHEMIAN GROVE, WORLD LEADERS DON RED, BLACK AND SILVER CLOAKS AND CONDUCT AN OCCULT RITUAL, WHEREIN THEY WORSHIP A GIANT STONE OWL. DURING THE CEREMONY A HUMAN BEING IS SACRIFICED "IN EFFIGY" TO THE OWL GOD IDOL.

NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, AN OUTSIDER HAS INFILITRATED BOHEMIAN GROVE WITH A VIDEO CAMERA AND CAUGHT THE RITUAL ON TAPE.

THAT MAN IS ALEX JONES.

THE RITUAL IS JUST ONE PART OF THE TERRIFYING EXCLUSIVE VIDEO IN HIS LATEST DOCUMENTARY: DARK SECRETS: INSIDE BOHEMIAN GROVE


Apparently, Alex Jones caught George Bush on tape. Now, if this is true (and anyone can buy the video), I would like to know what a CHRISTIAN and a PRESIDENT is doing attending such an occultic event.


That is wild! :think:
Could it be true?

[Curtsibling]

I found some so-called dirt on the Bush clan!

These are not my words, please note!
Some of it may be true, some of may not be. Decide for yourself...

A few Questions that Bushes Controlled Media never asks him....

1.) “Mr. President, is it true that your grandfather Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer for the Nazis?”

2.) “Mr. President, can you explain why it is not common knowledge to most Americans that the Bushes knew perfectly well that Brown Brothers was the American money channel into Nazi Germany, and that Union Bank was the secret pipeline to bring the Nazi money back to America from Holland?”


3.) “Mr. Bush, how would you respond to a report that Prescott Bush was a director of a New York bank where rich Germans who supported the Nazis stashed millions in personal wealth?”

4.) “Mr. President, has your father ever discussed with you his activity in the early 70's when he worked with David Rockefeller in promoting a worldwide depopulation program?”

5.) “Mr. President, was it not the Reagan-Bush administration that armed, trained and financed Usama bin Laden, and deliberately built up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan into a force to be reckoned with?”

6.) “Sir, could you explain your administration’s numerous direct ties to vaccine and drug manufacturers; why so many of your cabinet members are former drug company executives; and could you explain if there is any connection between these ties and your family’s seventy year long documented involvement with eugenics and population control?”

7.) “Mr. President, how can you characterize your domestic agenda as "compassionate conservatism", when it was formulated by the CIA's Manhattan Institute?”

8.) “Mr. Bush, is the Manhattan Institute not a right wing think tank founded by former CIA director William Casey who helped bring thousands of former Nazis to the US following WWII?”

9.) “Sir, would you care to elaborate on a report that you, your father and brothers Jeb and Neil, have 25 super secret bank accounts worldwide, through which you have laundered tens of billions of dollars of illicit funds from drug trafficking from weapons smuggling, and clandestine and illegal gold smuggling overseas?”

10.) “Mr. President, could you share with the American people the series of real estate frauds, bank swindles, and other reputed massive rip-offs, perpetrated by you and your brothers, which have caused the taxpayers and innocent parties billions and billions of dollars?”

11.) “Mr. President, is it true that just before his fatal take-off, you were near the New Jersey airport where JFK Jr. kept his plane? If so, why?

12.) “Mr. President, Why, in January 2001, did your administration issue orders to the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Usama bin Laden's relatives?”

13.) “Sir, how do you respond to a report in the French newspaper Le Figaro, that Usama bin laden met with the CIA while being treated in a hospital in Dubai and was then free to leave?”

14.) “Mr. President, do you care to comment on your father’s recurring amnesia when asked of his whereabouts on November 22, 1963?”

15.) “Sir, is it true that you, your father, and your brothers are personally acquainted with would be presidential assassin John W. Hinckley and his brother Scott?”

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Let's go back and take a look......



Greenspan: It's Clinton's Bad Economy
Dan Frisa
Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2000

Let the word go forth, far and wide, that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has identified the current economic slowdown as occurring during the Clinton-Gore administration.
Yes, it is the economy, stupid!

And that economic "genius" Bill Clinton must be held responsible for this downturn in the economy.

Yesterday the Federal Reserve Board met and while refusing to lower interest rates, it did finally signal its belief that its previous hyper-focus on inflationary fears was misplaced.

What is clearly in order is a reduction in the Federal Funds Rate, which is then, in due course, reflected in lower interest rates to consumers and businesses.

During times when the economy is "moderating" – to borrow the Fed’s characterization – lower interest rates provide incentives to spur growth.

At the same time, this news from the Fed will likely provide a greater impetus for passage of reductions in marginal tax rates, as proposed by President-elect Bush, early in the 107th Congress.

Altogether, this confluence of events in both monetary and fiscal policies could inure to the benefit of the economy and the initial stature of George W. Bush at the beginning of his tenure as the 43rd president.

First impressions are said to be lasting impressions, and if such a scenario should play out in this manner, a positive tone could well be set for his entire first term.

So, let it be clearly understood that Bill Clinton left a declining economy as yet another part of his sorry legacy.

This is the Clinton economic downturn.

In January, President George W. Bush will have the opportunity to clean up this Clinton economic mess as well as to restore honor and dignity to the presidency, which has been lacking for the past eight years.
It doesn't really matter squat who is ultimately responsible for the current economy. You and I both know that the current state of the economy is largely out of Bush's control. He didn't cause the economic slump, and he alone cannot repair it. But what you and I know doesn't mean squat. What the average joe off the street thinks is what matters, because that's your voting public, and the voting public generally holds the President responsible. Clinton may have caused the economic downturn, but the voting public will hold Bush responsible. So if something doesn't happen dramatic and fast, Bush will have to shoulder the burden of responsibility for a failing economy. Whether he is really responsible is totally irrelevent.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by BillyBob

So we had the Clinton tax hikes, Enron style bookeeping so Clinton could hide the downturning economy, the Clinton/Gore recession of 1999 and then the Clinton stock market crash of 2001.
Yes, and speaking of Enron and that scandal, let's not forget that the entity responsible for that bookkeeping was Anderson, the same entity who audited Halliburton and Harken during their similar corporate scandals. Let's not forget that Bush has strong ties to Anderson and all the above companies -- Bush himself was CEO of Harken during its scandal, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton during its scandal, and Bush's number one campaign financier was ... duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhh ... Kenneth Lay!

[Curtsibling]

The plot thickens! :)

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Curtsibling
The plot thickens! :)
Yeah. They love to try to take heat off of Bush by drawing irrelevent comparisons to Clinton, but they really hate when that mirror is thrust into their faces!

They love to draw upon Clinton's association with Enron, all the while forgetting that Bush has a much stronger tie to Enron than Clinton ever had!

[RogerB]

But Clinton's ties to immorality, Direct student loans and the whole missing back-bone thing trumps everything.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
But Clinton's ties to immorality, Direct student loans and the whole missing back-bone thing trumps everything.
Trumps everything? No. But it certainly makes Clinton as corrupt as any politician out there (though I'm not sure what you mean about the student loans, I'm not a follower of Clinton, so could you elaborate?). I'm not a fan of either Clinton or Bush.

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by Eireann
Yeah. They love to try to take heat off of Bush by drawing irrelevent comparisons to Clinton, but they really hate when that mirror is thrust into their faces!

They love to draw upon Clinton's association with Enron, all the while forgetting that Bush has a much stronger tie to Enron than Clinton ever had!

I fear the august Mr Bush has many naughty skeletons in the old family closet! ;)

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by RogerB
But Clinton's ties to immorality, Direct student loans and the whole missing back-bone thing trumps everything.

I think the Bush Clan importing Nazis and shooting JFK trumps everything.

But, hey! I'm just old-fashioned! :D

[RogerB]

The Federal Direct loan program was a BAD idea that never caught on and now banks and student loan servicers are stuck with administering a program that is dying a slow, painful death. I wonder how much it cost?

[Curtsibling]

Not as much as the pointless invasions of those sand nations!

Ooops! :)

[RogerB]

How would you know?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
The Federal Direct loan program was a BAD idea that never caught on and now banks and student loan servicers are stuck with administering a program that is dying a slow, painful death. I wonder how much it cost?
I don't know how much it costs or how its future stands. I know it was a big help in putting me through school, though.

[RogerB]

An FFELP loan made through your local bank would have put you through school just as well.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by o2bwise
3. Alex Jones. I don't know how this guy is still alive. I have four of his videos. www.infowars.com
Perhaps because he's nothing more than a garden-variety crank?

If The Government (cue accordion sting) really considered him a threat, he'd have vanished a long time ago...probably before anybody ever heard of him...

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
An FFELP loan made through your local bank would have put you through school just as well.
Well, you know what they say, hindsight is 20/20.

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
It doesn't really matter squat who is ultimately responsible for the current economy. You and I both know that the current state of the economy is largely out of Bush's control.

Billy;
Yes, I agree. About all he can do is push for tax cuts and less governmental spending. So far he has a .500 batting average.

Eireann;
He didn't cause the economic slump, and he alone cannot repair it. But what you and I know doesn't mean squat. What the average joe off the street thinks is what matters, because that's your voting public, and the voting public generally holds the President responsible.

Billy;
I agree. And that is why the libs are constantly beating the drum about how Bush is mishandling the economy and how it is his fault and how much better it was because of Clinton. The worst thing that can happen for the dems is the ecomony rebounding. Even as it is gaining momentum, the libs are still claiming doom and gloom.

Eireann;
Clinton may have caused the economic downturn, but the voting public will hold Bush responsible. So if something doesn't happen dramatic and fast, Bush will have to shoulder the burden of responsibility for a failing economy.

Billy;
Yeah, that is how it is looking right now. I saw that evil witch Hillary Clinton [no offense meant to witches] on Letterman last week. She was squawkin' about Bush's mishandling of the economy. It was a blatant lie and I was even more repulsed by her than usual.
[I'm really starting to hate that woman]

Eireann;
Whether he is really responsible is totally irrelevent.

Billy;
Yeah, I know what you are saying, but it really is relevent. Isn't the truth always relevent? You are usually very careful how you word your posts so as not be accused of any falsehood. You demand retraction from accusers if they are unjust to you. You can't tell me that there aren't plenty of voters out there who are just as aware of what is going on as we are and who know the truth.

There are also plenty who do not....

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by RogerB
How would you know?

And you do know? ;)

What is more expensive, a student or an Apache Longbow?
:cool:

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
and Bush's number one campaign financier was ... duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhh ... Kenneth Lay!

Billy;
Ken Lay was also Clinton's golf buddy and he donated tons of cash to the dems.

Let's keep it 'real', Eireann.

The reason I mentioned Enron style accounting is because it was discovered that the 'surplus' Clinton claimed to have had was a gross, deliberate over-estimation. A lie.

[Curtsibling]

I think Reps and Dems are both blackmailing the USA...

They are politicians after all! Do they care about us, the plebs?

[Skeptic]

======================
Published on Monday, July 14, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Intelligence Unglued
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Intelligence Unglued

The glue that holds the Intelligence Community together is melting under the hot lights of an awakened press. If you do not act quickly, your intelligence capability will fall apart—with grave consequences for the nation.

The Forgery Flap

By now you are all too familiar with the play-by-play. The Iraq-seeking-uranium-in-Niger forgery is a microcosm of a mischievous nexus of overarching problems. Instead of addressing these problems, your senior staff are alternately covering up for one another and gently stabbing one another in the back. CIA Director George Tenet’s extracted, unapologetic apology on July 11 was classic—I confess; she did it.

It is now dawning on our until-now somnolent press that your national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, shepherds the foreign affairs sections of your state-of-the-union address and that she, not Tenet, is responsible for the forged information getting into the speech. But the disingenuousness persists. Surely Dr. Rice cannot persist in her insistence that she learned only on June 8, 2003 about former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s mission to Niger in February 2002, when he determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job. Wilson’s findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002. And, if she somehow missed that report, the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff on May 6 recounted chapter and verse on Wilson’s mission, and the story remained the talk of the town in the weeks that followed.

Rice’s denials are reminiscent of her claim in spring 2002 that there was no reporting suggesting that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. In September, the joint congressional committee on 9/11 came up with a dozen such reports.

Secretary of State Colin Powell’s credibility, too, has taken serious hits as continued non-discoveries of weapons in Iraq heap doubt on his confident assertions to the UN. Although he was undoubtedly trying to be helpful in trying to contain the Iraq-Niger forgery affair, his recent description of your state-of-the-union words as “not totally outrageous” was faint praise indeed. And his explanations as to why he made a point to avoid using the forgery in the way you did was equally unhelpful.

Whatever Rice’s or Powell’s credibility, it is yours that matters. And, in our view, the credibility of the intelligence community is an inseparably close second. Attempts to dismiss or cover up the cynical use to which the known forgery was put have been—well, incredible. The British have a word for it: “dodgy.” You need to put a quick end to the dodginess, if the country is to have a functioning intelligence community.

The Vice President’s Role

Attempts at cover up could easily be seen as comical, were the issue not so serious. Highly revealing were Ari Fleisher’s remarks early last week, which set the tone for what followed. When asked about the forgery, he noted tellingly—as if drawing on well memorized talking points—that the Vice President was not guilty of anything. The disingenuousness was capped on Friday, when George Tenet did his awkward best to absolve the Vice President from responsibility.

To those of us who experienced Watergate these comments had an eerie ring. That affair and others since have proven that cover-up can assume proportions overshadowing the crime itself. All the more reason to take early action to get the truth up and out.

There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney’s office, and that Wilson’s findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well.

Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons—a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a “mushroom cloud” being the first “smoking gun” we might observe.

That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections—a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process.

The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq.

It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that “we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that “most analysts” agreed with Cheney’s assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney’s unprecedented “multiple visits” to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC’s Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: “we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Mr. Russert: …the International Atomic Energy Agency said he dose not have a nuclear program; we disagree?

Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree…we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong.

Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts—those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons—judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right.

Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.

It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president’s state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy.

Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney’s request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud “what else they are lying about.” Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit.

This was no case of petty corruption of the kind that forced Vice President Spiro Agnew’s resignation. This was a matter of war and peace. Thousands have died. There is no end in sight.

Recommendation #1

We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney “not guilty.” His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney’s immediate resignation.

The Games Congress Plays

The unedifying dance by the various oversight committees of the Congress over recent weeks offers proof, if further proof were needed, that reliance on Congress to investigate in a non-partisan way is pie in the sky. One need only to recall that Sen. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has refused to agree to ask the FBI to investigate the known forgery. Despite repeated attempts by others on his committee to get him to bring in the FBI, Roberts has branded such a move “inappropriate,” without spelling out why.

Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee, is a CIA alumnus and a passionate Republican and agency partisan. Goss was largely responsible for the failure of the joint congressional committee on 9/11, which he co-chaired last year. An unusually clear indication of where Goss’ loyalties lie can be seen in his admission that after a leak to the press last spring he bowed to Cheney’s insistence that the FBI be sent to the Hill to investigate members and staff of the joint committee—an unprecedented move reflecting blithe disregard for the separation of powers and a blatant attempt at intimidation. (Congress has its own capability to investigate such leaks.)

Henry Waxman’s recent proposal to create yet another congressional investigatory committee, patterned on the latest commission looking into 9/11, likewise holds little promise. To state the obvious about Congress, politics is the nature of the beast. We have seen enough congressional inquiries into the performance of intelligence to conclude that they are usually as feckless as they are prolonged. And time cannot wait.

As you are aware, Gen. Brent Scowcroft performed yeoman’s service as National Security Adviser to your father and enjoys very wide respect. There are few, if any, with his breadth of experience with the issues and the institutions involved. In addition, he has avoided blind parroting of the positions of your administration and thus would be seen as relatively nonpartisan, even though serving at your pleasure. It seems a stroke of good luck that he now chairs your President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Recommendation #2

We repeat, with an additional sense of urgency, the recommendation in our last memorandum to you (May 1) that you appoint Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to head up an independent investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence on Iraq.

UN Inspectors

Your refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq has left the international community befuddled. Worse, it has fed suspicions that the US does not want UN inspectors in country lest they impede efforts to “plant” some “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, should efforts to find them continue to fall short. The conventional wisdom is less conspiratorial but equally unsatisfying. The cognoscenti in Washington think tanks, for example, attribute your attitude to “pique.”

We find neither the conspiracy nor the “pique” rationale persuasive. As we have admitted before, we are at a loss to explain the barring of UN inspectors. Barring the very people with the international mandate, the unique experience, and the credibility to undertake a serious search for such weapons defies logic. UN inspectors know Iraq, know the weaponry in question, know the Iraqi scientists/engineers who have been involved, know how the necessary materials are procured and processed; in short, have precisely the expertise required. The challenge is as daunting as it is immediate; and, clearly, the US needs all the help it can get.

The lead Wall Street Journal article of April 8 had it right: “If the US doesn’t make any undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already-widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war.” As the events of last week show, that skepticism has now mushroomed here at home as well.

Recommendation #3

We recommend that you immediately invite the UN inspectors back into Iraq. This would go a long way toward refurbishing your credibility. Equally important, it would help sort out the lessons learned for the intelligence community and be an invaluable help to an investigation of the kind we have suggested you direct Gen. Scowcroft to lead.

If Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity can be of any further help to you in the days ahead, you need only ask.

/s/
Ray Close, Princeton, NJ
David MacMichael, Linden, VA
Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA

Steering Committee
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Raymond McGovern is a member of the Steering Committee, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He can be contacted at: rmcgovern@slschool.org

From: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0714-01.htm
======================

[Skeptic]

:chuckle:

April 23, 2003
George W. Bush's Resume

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Kelley Kramer

I recently had an email exchange with a right-winger from my local newspaper, and of course the war with Iraq came up pretty quick. But he said something in defense of George Bush that really surprised me. In defense of the attack on Iraq he said 'between Hussein and Bush, Hussein is the bad guy'.

My first response was ... So your guy is better than a third world dictator, Wow! what an accomplishment! Does he put that on his resume?

And with that in mind, I started wondering ... what would a George W. Bush resume look like exactly?

Listed below is what I came up with,

Best!

Kelley Kramer

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

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleeza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.

First US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.) :chuckle:

[mrsnacks]

Hey skeptic : So what ! Don't confuse us with the facts --we already have made up our minds about Bush.

i'm just kidding. I get so frustrated and upset with the whole thing . Why is it that the government overall - AIN'T DOING A DARN THING ?

Where are the WMD ?? I am not defending Sadam . I am questioning our going in there on the basis of a lie to the American people. No one is holding him accountable. So where's the outrage from the American people ???

I feel so helpless and insignificant. The problem is that the American people as a whole aren't worth taking a stand for . because they could care less.



:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Curtsibling]

Welcome to the new world order, mrsnacks.

Where media flashing lights have robbed the people of their desire to ask questions of the cold profiteers that rule over them...

It's frustrating, and where is it all going to end?
What outrage will it take to snap the people from this enforced sleepwalk?

[BillyBob]

mrsnacks;
So where's the outrage from the American people ???

Billy;
What is there to be outraged about?
Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi's are liberated. The oil is starting to flow. We have shown the world our might and we have shown them that we mean what we say.

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrsnacks]

Billy Bob : Have you tripped over a cordless phone ? I read your comment and then went to read your profile page. Honestly you're a burger shy of a happy meal. i urge some of you to read his profile. Sounds scary to me.

There are a lot of things to be outraged about. i take it that you don't read a lot. Read " Brave New Schools " - about the government's intentional dumbing down of America.

How about the false teaching in the churches and the condition they are in.

How about our health care system.

You say Sadam is out of power but you missed the whole point.

I will let others comment .

You have a president and government that lies to the American people. They have covered up 9- 11 . They have lied to you about the WMD . Read the previous posts.

If you were married and you found out that your wife has been cheating on you and lying to you all along and i came up to you while you were about to leave her and said : " come on give her a chance - at least she still cooks dinner for you .

There are many things to be outraged about. It's a matter of finding the right button in each person to get them outraged. Judging by your profile -- your button might be if the government took away your right to bear arms. Or took away your pension for serving in the armed services.

[mrsnacks]

By the way -- I am retired form the IRS( 2 years) but I am under oath to report directly to my former boss -suspicious Americans who have made comments about avoiding the IRS by giving them available info . i'm sorry- but you'll probably be getting an audit notice soon. i'm just doing my part as an American citizen. Good luck. :help:

[mrsnacks]

Billy Bob : I was just kidding !! :chuckle:

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Billy Bob : Have you tripped over a cordless phone ? I read your comment and then went to read your profile page. Honestly you're a burger shy of a happy meal. i urge some of you to read his profile. Sounds scary to me.

There are a lot of things to be outraged about. i take it that you don't read a lot. Read " Brave New Schools " - about the government's intentional dumbing down of America.

How about the false teaching in the churches and the condition they are in.

How about our health care system.

You say Sadam is out of power but you missed the whole point.

I will let others comment .

You have a president and government that lies to the American people. They have covered up 9- 11 . They have lied to you about the WMD . Read the previous posts.

If you were married and you found out that your wife has been cheating on you and lying to you all along and i came up to you while you were about to leave her and said : " come on give her a chance - at least she still cooks dinner for you .

There are many things to be outraged about. It's a matter of finding the right button in each person to get them outraged. Judging by your profile -- your button might be if the government took away your right to bear arms. Or took away your pension for serving in the armed services.

mrsnacks,

BillyBob's whole TOL pesonality (profile and all) is a joke. The only time I would say that he lets his "real" self out is when he talks about politics. He is an extremely conservative man. Am I the only person on TOL who sees him as he is?

[mrsnacks]

Hey thanks for that info : I was really concerned and assumed that he would be truthful in his bio. But you must admit there are people who are that way and that's scary. I guess you can't believe everything you read. He's a buffalo in sheeps clothing. :confused:

[ebenz47037]

mrsnacks,

There are very few people that are what they say they are anywhere. I'd imagine that there are even less here because they want to maintain the anonymous (sp?) atmosphere. I think I'm an oddball here because I use my real name and tell everyone exactly what I am and what I believe.

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Billy Bob : I was just kidding !! :chuckle:

Or is he? :crackup:

[mrsnacks]

Or is she????:confused:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by mrsnacks
Or is she????:confused:
You're female? You mean that is supposed to read Mrs. Nacks? I had always read it as Mr. Snacks! I was envisioning some guy sitting at his computer surrounded by bags of chips and boxes of Twinkies!
:D

[mrsnacks]

Yes. i'm Billy Bob's twin sister.

Just kidding. No I'm a Mr. Snacks - a man stuck in a male's body.

Just for even thinking I was a female- may a thousand elephants go to your house and stomp on your carefully constructed leggo town .



:bannana:

[BillyBob]

Eireann;
You're female? I was envisioning some guy sitting at his computer surrounded by bags of chips and boxes of Twinkies!

Billy;
Yep, Tye's cover is blown....The chips and Twinkies are accurate!

[BillyBob]

What happened to Skeptic?

[BillyBob]

I miss his really long posts that I never read. :chuckle:

[RogerB]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tempt him back.

[BillyBob]

Well, he was a steady fixture around here and I knew I could always find an argument with him.

Now I am arguing with people that I usually don't disagree with just for the fun of arguing!

It was more fun with Skeptic....

[Skeptic]

I'm back. Been busy. Please read:

___________________________
Published on Monday, July 21, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
President Bush Must Set the Niger-Uranium Story Straight
by Governor Howard Dean

As the Niger uranium story has unfolded over the past week, it has become increasingly obvious that many questions remain to be answered about the way the Bush Administration led the American people to war, managed the conflict in Iraq, and failed to foresee the continuing resistance that our military is now confronting.

Decisions regarding war and peace are the most serious and solemn that a Commander-in-Chief is called upon to make. There are now fundamental questions about President Bush's leadership in taking us to war with Iraq.

There has been much controversy over the 16 words included in the State of the Union address. I call on President Bush to answer these sixteen questions, to ensure that the American p