1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[RetiredGySgt]

"word games"?? explain how one plays "word games" with these:


GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. ..."

DICK CHENEY, 2002: "Its been pretty well confirmed that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague"

DICK CHENY, 2003: "By attacking iraq, we will be attacking the geographic base, if you will, of those who attacked us on 9/11"

GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "By removing saddam, we've removed an ally of Al Qaeda".

At the time they were said the intel was there to have one believe that. As to the Geographic location, umm correct me if i am wrong but is not Iraq in the middle East? RIGHT next door to Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia? 2 of those Countries OPENLY support, supply, train and protect terrorists, allowing them free passage, giving them diplomatic immunity , paying them to operate, arming them and allowing their own citizens and foreigners to join therm in their country. The third secretly provides funds and openly provides funds to religious schools that teach the hatred of all non Muslims, you won't get any traction off that one NO MATTER how you spin it.

 

[ReillyT]

The supposed bipartisan report is from 2006 not 2002 or 2003. And I ask again, provide some EVIDENCE that this report claims Bush lied or even purposefully mislead anyone. Like Maineman says, I will wait.

True, the report is from 2006, but the quotations everyone are referring to are from Bush and Cheney in 2002-2003.

I don't know that they (Bush/Cheney) lied. They may very well have believed everything they were saying. However, since there was (apparently) little (or no) evidence to support what they were saying, they were reckless and stupid... or lying.

Are you still caught up on the concept of the explicit lie? Is it any better if they implied something untrue?

 

[ReillyT]

At the time they were said the intel was there to have one believe that. As to the Geographic location, umm correct me if i am wrong but is not Iraq in the middle East? RIGHT next door to Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia? 2 of those Countries OPENLY support, supply, train and protect terrorists, allowing them free passage, giving them diplomatic immunity , paying them to operate, arming them and allowing their own citizens and foreigners to join therm in their country. The third secretly provides funds and openly provides funds to religious schools that teach the hatred of all non Muslims, you won't get any traction off that one NO MATTER how you spin it.

Sorry. I didn't realize that when he referred to Iraq as the geographic base, he really just meant that the Middle East is the geographic base, in which Iraq as a country exists. How could people have misunderstood his meaning there?

 

[Dr Grump]

Prove any one of those stupid accusations. Or lose cred.

Here's a link to a whole list of the latter

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

As for the former, there is enough anecdotal evidence Bush had some sort of substance abuse problem..whether it be coke or alcohol. I'm thinking living off the pig's back like he has done all his life that it is hardly surprising..

Apologies about the tying shoelaces. he can most likely do that....probably takes him a month of Sunday's, but the chances of him accomplishing that feat are pretty high I guess...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's a link to a whole list of the latter

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

As for the former, there is enough anecdotal evidence Bush had some sort of substance abuse problem..whether it be coke or alcohol. I'm thinking living off the pig's back like he has done all his life that it is hardly surprising..

Apologies about the tying shoelaces. he can most likely do that....probably takes him a month of Sunday's, but the chances of him accomplishing that feat are pretty high I guess...

In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.

 

[Psychoblues]

Thanks for keeping this kicked to the top of the page. No one has yet explained all that "Mission Accomplished" bullshit the lil' one tried to pull on us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one has yet explained all that "Mission Accomplished" bullshit the lil' one tried to pull on us.

Sure they have. You just dont like the explanation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.

Those were opinions. You dont have to prove opinions, and so they can make whatever accusation they want and not have to back it up in any way.
They say so themselves.

 

[glockmail]

Here's a link to a whole list of the latter

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

As for the former, there is enough anecdotal evidence Bush had some sort of substance abuse problem..whether it be coke or alcohol. I'm thinking living off the pig's back like he has done all his life that it is hardly surprising..

Apologies about the tying shoelaces. he can most likely do that....probably takes him a month of Sunday's, but the chances of him accomplishing that feat are pretty high I guess...

Cred lost.

 

[Dr Grump]

In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.

Thanks for disputing my link. <rolls eyes>

Why am I not suprised....

 

[Dr Grump]

Cred lost.

You asked a question. I provided a link...

actually you asked three questions, but only demanded proof of one...

What's that about credibility again??

 

[DeadCanDance]

The supposed bipartisan report is from 2006 not 2002 or 2003. And I ask again, provide some EVIDENCE that this report claims Bush lied or even purposefully mislead anyone. Like Maineman says, I will wait.

You can't lie, or mislead people in order to defend your hero by tap dancing around some dates.

It was known, even back in 2003, that Al Qaeda and Saddam were almost certainly not collaborating, they were not allies, and yet your Hero's were asserting that they were.

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

A Senate report on prewar intelligence found no evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, pictured here testifying in Baghdad on Aug. 21, 2006

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html

 

[DeadCanDance]

This is public knowedge: Bush was told in 2003 that Saddam was very unlikely to assist al qaeda, yet he and cheney continued to assert the lie that saddam and al qaeda were allies

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.

However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.


http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0302nj1.htm

 

[glockmail]

You asked a question. I provided a link...

actually you asked three questions, but only demanded proof of one...

What's that about credibility again??

I gave you every chance to gain it, and you failed.

 

[Warner]

What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.

We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq. In fact it was a few miles off the coast of San Diego. They even turned the carrier so they could get the landing shot without exposing San Diego in the shot giving away the deception. This caused a 3-4 hour delay in making port - Bush had no concern for the families waiting for their loved ones to debark.

Face it, Bush's war in Iraq was a lie and it's become a farce.

 

[jillian]

What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.

We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq. In fact it was a few miles off the coast of San Diego. They even turned the carrier so they could get the landing shot without exposing San Diego in the shot giving away the deception. This caused a 3-4 hour delay in making port - Bush had no concern for the families waiting for their loved ones to debark.

Face it, Bush's war in Iraq was a lie and it's become a farce.

All true, not to mention the fact that his advance people made the sign.

 

[jillian]

I gave you every chance to gain it, and you failed.

I'm sure he'll be crying in his beer tonight over the loss.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt. We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq.

No we weren't. Not even close.
Only soneone REALLY not paying attention would have EVER thought that, and I DEFY you to show where anyone even remotely hinted at the idea that the USS Lincoln was off the coast of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85711,00.html

Both of these stories state that he took off from the NAS in San Diego.

 

[maineman]

What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.

We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq. In fact it was a few miles off the coast of San Diego. They even turned the carrier so they could get the landing shot without exposing San Diego in the shot giving away the deception. This caused a 3-4 hour delay in making port - Bush had no concern for the families waiting for their loved ones to debark.

Face it, Bush's war in Iraq was a lie and it's become a farce.

in fact, the initial reason that the white house PR gang gave for Bush flying out on an S3 instead of a marine chopper was that the Lincoln would be too far out to see at the time of the event. By the time the event was ready to commence, the Lincoln had made better than anticipated progress on its track and was only a few miles away from San Diego. It would have been MUCH easier for the crew to have Bush fly out on a helicopter and not have to totally clear the flight deck and get ready to trap a jet. Bush didn't care about that. He needed the photo op so that bloggers could immediately start spreading the story that he "landed the aircraft in a war zone" (which I heard over and over again by posters on politics.com, btw). It was all a stunt that delayed the arrival of the ship into home port and cost much more than a quick and simple helo ride. pathetic.

 

[Annie]

No we weren't. Not even close.
Only soneone REALLY not paying attention would have EVER thought that, and I DEFY you to show where anyone even remotely hinted at the idea that the USS Lincoln was off the coast of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85711,00.html

Both of these stories state that he took off from the NAS in San Diego.

Agreed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2003

President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln
At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California

Play Video Video (Real)
Play Real Audio Audio
en Español En Español

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country....

Note too, he did not declare 'the war over,' nor that it was endless:

Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. (Applause.)

The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.) ...