Time Article on Bush and National Guard

That's hysterical coming from you. You keep responding to people
you allegedly have on "ignore".

LIAR

 

OK, Enough dicking around, let's cut to the chase...

ÒThere are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed -- but it's huge -- is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.Ó Paul Wolfowitz

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2003/0604.asp

So, since it has been proven in many different quarters that by the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Bush Administration knew that there was an extremely small chance of finding WMD in Iraq, why did Bush choose to invade?

Looks like the Saudis want U.S. troops out of their sorry assed catbox and Bush needed some place in the area to put them.

Essentially, we invaded a country and were responsible for thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damages because the Saudis are in charge of our foreign policy in the current administration. In effect, as long as Bush is president, we have become and will remain the Saudis' Bitch.

 

Re: OK, Enough dicking around, let's cut to the chase...

Although I wouldn't use the same words, I could agree we've been the Saud's *bitch* since FDR.
But please explain further your assertion that we are responsible for a thousand deaths in Iraq. Which deaths do you refer to and in what way do you hold the US and its soldiers responsible?

 

The deathtoll in U.S. troops alone has risen to over 500 and the conservative estimates on civilian deaths caused by the war has risen to somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

<in what way do you hold the US and its soldiers responsible?>

Oh, I don't know, maybe I'm being overly dramatic.

I suppose that over 500 U.S. service personnel and over 5,000 Iraqi civilians could have died during the same time period due to natural causes had we not conducted a military invasion of Iraq, but we will never know will we, because our Saudi masters have directed us into this conflict instead.

It's kinda funny isn't it, in a macabre puppets and puppet masters sorta way, that the Saudis financed and carried out the 9/11 attacks, and now are directing the Bush administration as to how we respond to them.

 

Then your side should stop bringing up Gore and Clinton quotes trying to make it look as if Bush was continuing Clinton policy by going to war in Iraq. You people lie your asses off when you have no facts supporting your position.

We know today what the CIA was telling Bush. There were NOT telling him that the CIA was absolutely certain about what Saddam had or was working on. There were NOT telling Bush they knew "exactly" where the WMD factories and laboratories were.

But Bush and Cheney were telling us that Saddam had a massive WMD program and that they knew EXACTLY where everything was.

We know that the CIA told Bush specifically that they did not believe Saddam was trying to acquire fuel to make a nuclear bomb. Bush reported to us that he was.

The CIA was NOT telling Bush that Saddam and Bin Laden were joined at the hip, which is what Bush was telling the American people.

If you cannot trust the President to tell you the truth when it is time to go to war, can you ever trust him to tell you the truth on anything?

 

Bush did not lie. Bush presented his case based upon information available to him. And you liberals conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam smugly flaunted the UN resolutions which gave Bush all the authority he needed to take him out. I know this won't do any good but you, phatcat and your other butt buddies have made it clear that you hate Bush and think he's a stupid liar. We all are aware of how you feel. Let's change the subject.

 

But I like this subject...

< Bush did not lie. Bush presented his case based upon information available to him. And you liberals conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam smugly flaunted the UN resolutions which gave Bush all the authority he needed to take him out. I know this won't do any good but you, phatcat and your other butt buddies have made it clear that you hate Bush and think he's a stupid liar. We all are aware of how you feel. Let's change the subject.>

Due to the number, seriousness, and repeated exposures of Bush's lies, I can only surmise that that your inability to recognize them for what they are can only be explained by your having your head firmly planted up the ass of your own "butt buddies" my sweet natured friend.

Actually, what you and I think about Bush's lies means nothing in the great scheme of things. The courts, on the other hand, are going to have a field day with that habitual liar before all is said and done.

He has nine months of having to continually defend his lies before the supreme court is scheduled to choose our next president. I'm betting his poll numbers will make the post puke numbers of daddy look fantastic in comparison.

 

I just realized you are from California so I'll not continue to pick on you. I understand and sympathize.

 

<I just realized you are from California so I'll not continue to pick on you. I understand and sympathize.>

Thanks buddy. That's mighty white of ya.

Speaking of white, how bout that Republican Party?

Those who continue to support Bush after he lied about WMD are hopeless. But for the rest of us, we need a president we can trust on national security issues, defense and the budget. Bush is not that person. In fact, there aren't but a pitiful few republicans that can be trusted on national security, defense or the budget. It's time for clean slate--time to rid our government of the most corrupt party to ever exist in US history--the republican party.

It was the republican party that said we needed a tax cut (Which is a lot like maxing out your credit cards and telling yourself you got a raise), it was the republican party that gave us the largest deficits in US history, first under Reagan, then under GHW Bush and now under the budget balloon all time champ GW Bush. It was the republican party that lied to us about a threat to our national security, then led us into war with what turned out to be a nearly defenseless country on manufactured evidence.

The only threat to the republican party is the threat of losing power. To insure that doesn't happen they will bankrupt us, take us on endless wars and hide everything under the veil of secrecy and national security. And if you dare to question them you're unpatriotic.

We do indeed live in strange times. Bush gets credit for tax cuts but isn't blamed for their resulting record deficits. Bush gets credit for a great patriotic war, but isn't blamed for lying about his pretext to go to war. Propaganda only requires that we believe, it never requires truth, evidence or facts.

Those who support Bush believe. They don't bother themselves with the facts.

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goering

Looks like the Bush gang is taking a page right out of Hermann's book don't it?

 

MORE ON BUSH NATIONAL GUARD DUTY:

from: RIGHT-REPORT.COM

Lately in the news, John F. Kerry has been attacking Bush on this so-called idea that he was AWOL for a while during his time in the National Guard. I remember when this came out during Gore’s campaign. No one could prove it & nothing could come of it. There is an article in USA Today stating that the Whitehouse had to go and find old records showing that G.W. Bush got paid for the time that Kerry stated. And like usual, the mainstream press wants more. They call for an investigation into Bush service record. It seems like everyone is trying to investigate Bush for everything.

Here is the problem; doesn’t anyone get the fact that no one discussed this story in-between elections? They brought it up during the 2000 and campaign and low & behold here it is during 2004. Why does the press fall for these tactics so easily? How come no one ever says the obvious, that this is a typical stunt by Kerry to compare Military records? Everyone is calling for investigations for the remote possibility that Bush missed a week of drill and no one gave Clinton any problems for the “Draft Dodging” fiasco.

This kind of stuff only comes up when another candidate served in the military. I ask you, does it matter? I cannot seem to find a rule stating that the President must be a veteran. When Clinton ran, the Republicans made an issue of the fact that he has no military record. The Democrats dismissed this and said it doesn’t matter. He has good advisors for that. Well, here we are in 2000 & 2004, and all the damn Democrats keep saying is Military record, Military Record! Gore kept saying this during the 2000 campaign, saying that someone like Bush doesn’t have the experience necessary to run an Army, does Gore? Did Clinton?

Why is there such a double-standard with the Democratic Party? What happened to the great leaders the Democrats produced Like JFK, Truman, and those guys? Why are all the full-of-it Democrats coming out today? Where are the great leaders? Don’t say Clinton, I will have to vomit.

People, while we all have the utmost respect for the Military, that doesn’t mean that it is a requirement to take office. George Bush Sr. was a great military man as well, that did not help him. John Kerry needs to stop attacking Bush and focus on his qualities, but he won’t because he knows that this is the best way to become President, because, let’s face it, we fall for it. We do not follow politics enough to see who voted for what and our attention spans cannot survive over a year at the most. If it did, then we would remember Kerry’s full support of the war under Clinton & Bush Jr. and we would question him today about that. BUT NOBODY DOES! Amazing!

I am a republican because republicans do not attack the heart of a man, just his politics… Democrats attack everything and that scares me… Sean Hannity says that we need to defeat liberalism before we can defeat evil… I am starting to agree. The people talking are truly scary, like Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and Kerry. Why are we listening to these guys? Gore yelled that Bush ‘Betrayed” this country! Is that slander? Sounds like it. How can you say that about the President? They treat Saddam Hussein better than Bush! I am sure that if they ever catch Bin Laden, then the democrats will fight for his rights and call Bush the “Administration of Evil”. I am telling you people that this is insulting the heart of a person… it is low and below the belt. How can you trust someone like that in office? Well, Jesse Ventura got elected Governor… I guess you can.