PDA

View Full Version : George Bush lying performance



DickLeonard
12-19-2005, 06:03 AM
AS a Bush Follower I only had to look at Georges Face for one minute and I could tell he was lying to us. When he lies his face loses its color and a Blank stare comes over face. I would love a criminalogist to comment on Georges demeanor when speaking/lying to the public.####

pooltchr
12-19-2005, 07:04 AM
What a wonderful gift to be able to look at someone and know they are lying.....or maybe you are just predisposed to judging someone without actually listening to what they are saying.

Gayle in MD
12-19-2005, 07:47 AM
Dick, it is disgusting, and an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and the rest of the world for this man to continue to get in front of the television cameras and tell lie after lie. I am going to take his text and go through it sentence by sentence. Everything he said about Iraq, contradicts what the Commanders on the ground have told us, from his version of their constitution, to the conditions on the ground, obviously, we are not winning this war. Obviously, the Iraq constitution is not bold nor is it democratic and fair, nor does it include the Sunnis rights or womens rights. Obviously, we have a man in the White House who never tells the truth, whether he is taking us to war, or taking us through war. There is no reason to think that we are making any progress in reconstruction, another lie. Statement after statement was either greatly exaggerated, of just plain not true. He looks more and more like a deer caught in the headlights, he know's he's in big trouble, so here we are right back to what IS, IS, and what did the President know, and when did he know it.

BTW, have you noticed that when he is being interviewed, since his new PR firm apparently advised him to drop the giggle after he tells a whopper, his former facial signal for a lie? It is re-manifested itself, and now comes out as a jaw roll, from left to right. If you have ever studied body language, not only does he tell whoppers, but he does it badly. Atleast Reagan was a good liar, lol. Nixon sweated, Clinton's face broke out, rosascea, (sp) but when you watch Bush lie, it's comical!

The iraqis are not fighting on their own, not one single batallian fights without Americans. He tries to tell us there are hundreds trained, are they trained if they can't do it alone, or are they still being trained, another lie....???????

His speech was full of lies, but what can he do now, you can't start telling the truth after you have screwed things up as badly as he has, and lied all along, or you might just get impeached.

Also, I noticed that the right has already started their usual lies regarding this whole wire-tap scandel, and the situation with the Patriot Act, trying lay both the outcries, and the blocking of the P.Act renewal at the feet of the Democrats, when both actions have been bi-partisan. I think Bush and Company should all start wearing top hats before they go into their acts.....their magic tricks are slipping....Rice, on Meet the Press, another obvious liar, also just doesn't answer the important questions. She is the first Stepford Secretary of State, lol. She defends going into Iraq stating what MIGHT have happened, if we hadn't gone in there. Still justifying a colossal mistake.

Gayle in Md. Will someone tell George Bush and the rest of his family, including his wife, that there is an S in the word Doesn't..... He just duden get it....

Qtec
12-19-2005, 08:08 AM
.I,ve gotta laugh when I hear the " never give up, BS etc,etc" speech, when he is 7000 miles behind the front line. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
He had his chance and he DUCKED! /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Q

moblsv
12-19-2005, 08:30 AM
I have a better way to tell when Bush is lying: His lips are moving.

Gayle in MD
12-19-2005, 08:35 AM
BWA HA HA HA...Kind of like his Dad...."Read my Lips, no new taxes."

Gayle in Md... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
12-19-2005, 08:39 AM
AWWW now Q, you know that's not fair. He wasn't ducking, just bent over snorting a line, LOL. He refused to answer any questions about his former drug use....

Gayle in Md...What can you expect from a guy who fried his brains with alcohol and drugs for years?

sack316
12-19-2005, 02:05 PM
I was just glad Family Guy was shown in it's enirety, rather than joining it "already in progress". But maybe my priorities are a little mixed up /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sack

pooltchr
12-19-2005, 02:06 PM
You guys are never happy. He admitted that mistakes had been made, he admitted that the intelligence was faulty. What do you want him to do now???? You have been all over him for not admitting this...and when he does...that isn't good enough either!
Steve

wolfdancer
12-19-2005, 02:20 PM
Steve, it was a big step, admitting that the intelligience was faulty....and what I think is of no importance....but some members of congress, on both sides, do not think it enough.
The deeper question is how did the "world's best intelligence agency" misinterpret the info?
If it was a mistake,it's now too late to rectify it ....I read that while a majority of americans oppose the war, the majority also believes we now need to finish the job there.
so for better of for worse, we are committed to Iraq.

Deeman3
12-19-2005, 03:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Steve, it was a big step, admitting that the intelligience was faulty....and what I think is of no importance....but some members of congress, on both sides, do not think it enough.
The deeper question is how did the "world's best intelligence agency" misinterpret the info?
If it was a mistake,it's now too late to rectify it ....I read that while a majority of americans oppose the war, the majority also believes we now need to finish the job there.
so for better of for worse, we are committed to Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I know how you feel about Bush but, for a moment, think about what may happen. We may fall apart and lose this war effort. Maybe a 50/50 chance. But what if Iraq eaks out a workable democracy and that, combined with the present internal pressure in Iran leads that country to a democratic type government. If that were to happen, no one else could possibly claim any sort of responsibility for this accomplishment other than GWB and his allies. If this resulted in some permanent peace in the Middle East, wouldn't all the new republics formed be naming their babies after GWB? Would this not be the biggest single step in Middle East relations and world peace in a half century?

The Iraqi's have already held two important elections, radified their own constitution faster than we did in this country over 200 years ago and seem to be talking to each other already about sharing the government among all the different factions.

If this happens and Bush starts withdrawing troops by the middle of 2006, what do you think the reaction will be? It might be popular but can't even be claimed as a political move for the mid-term elections as you know how he ignored the bad press when it was easier to compromise.

Is it possible this "chimp" has outmaneuvered everyone of the political experts once again? That he had enough smarts left over even after rotting his brain on drugs to outsmart the cleaver people now putting themsleves in a political boat they can't climb out of. Is Hillary the only one on the far left to grasp this possibility?

It would have seemed that a better strategy than batter Bush at every opportunity would have been to offer a plan that was something other than, "anything but what HE is doing." I just don't remember anyone bothering to comment on how badly FDR had managed the war in his most unpopuler times after he achieved a victory in Europe. ONly afew misguided individuals even talked about Trumans dropping the two (2) bombs when they heard they had won and their sons were coming home.</font color>

Deeman

wolfdancer
12-19-2005, 04:23 PM
Dee, That would be a best case scenario, but given the religious schisms, and fanaticism that divide the Middle East, not likely to occur??? Israel has been a nation since 1949, and has not found lasting peace.....their conflict dates back to the 20's. Iran and Iraq have their own history of war between the two nations.
One doesn't have to be anti-GWB to see that this will be a long and ardous journey towards real peace, and can we really predict that a future elected government, in Iraq, will not be again hostile to the U.S.?
After all Saddam was once an ally.
Let's hope that you are right though....since "the die is cast".....Jacta alea est
"Les jeux sont faits",as they say in Monte Carlo
(The closest that I ever came to understanding, or speaking French, was haggling over prices at Place Pigalle)
so you see real peace in Middle Asia, with GWB as it's architect.....and the sheer brilliance of him finally revealed to the world, as his master plan takes root.
Schools, hospitals, stadiums, renamed in his honor...
How hot is it down there in Ala?
Kidding aside....I hope that you are right.......

Qtec
12-20-2005, 12:39 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/iraq/main562943.shtml

[ QUOTE ]

According to Rice, the CIA had mentioned the claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa in a classified National Intelligence Assessment made periodically to the president.

Rice also said that the State Department's intelligence division considered the uranium-purchasing allegations dubious, and this was also noted in a footnote in an intelligence assessment given to Mr. Bush.

Rice acknowledged that Powell had reservations about the report and chose not to mention the allegations in his Iraq presentation to the Security Council a few days later.

"I didn't use the uranium at that point because I didn't think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world," Powell said Thursday.

The White House retraction of the uranium claim is the only time it has admitted a flaw in its case for war with Iraq, in which Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction was a leading rationale.

No weapons have been found yet, spurring allegations the prewar intelligence was exaggerated. Three Congressional committees are reviewing the prewar claims, but Democrats are calling for a public inquiry.

"If the intelligence agencies come up with reliable information which is then distorted by political operatives in the White House and delivered to the American people, it'll destroy the credibility of the White House and the presidency," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

The administration says the Niger claim was only one part of the argument for military action, and only a portion of the evidence that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. <hr /></blockquote> web page (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/11/iraq/main562943.shtml)

The info wasnt wrong, it was deliberately misinterpreted. In 2000 Powell said Saddam had been 'contained'and that sanctions were 'working'. After 9/11, based on the same evidence, S was now presented as a threat. Vague rumours became fact and claims from unreliable sources were now considered to be 'solid'.
The Niger affair, the Alu tubes and the links to Al Q were all based on the Govts bias assessment of the available intelligence.
It HAS happened before............



Team B [ wiki]

Team B, came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable by contemporary Western technology. When the CIA argued that the economic chaos in the Soviet Union was hindering their ability to produce an air defense system, Team B countered by claiming that the Soviet Union was trying to deceive the American public when in fact their air defense system worked perfectly.Some members were even considering promoting a "first strike policy" against the U.S.S.R.[13][14][15]

The CIA strongly disagreed with Team B's assessments, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.[16] A top CIA analyst called it "a kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." [17]

This information was later proven to be false. According to Dr. Anne Cahn (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980) "if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

Sound familiar? How about this little gem!

"Team B's failure to find a Soviet non-acoustic anti-submarine system was evidence that there could well be one. "The implication could be that the Soviets have, in fact, deployed some operational non-acoustic systems and will deploy more in the next few years." It wasn't a question of if the Russians were coming. They were here. (And probably working at the CIA!)"
web page (http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=apr93cahn)

Rumsfeld, Libby and Wolfowitz were all involved!

Q

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 03:24 AM
Dee, Please don't call the president a chimp...
/ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Gayle

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 03:47 AM
He has never admitted the truth about what and how he used the intelligence, how he left out what didn't support his plan, and embroidered the rest, intentionally. That is a felony.

Let me ask you this. If George Bush had run on the platform of going to war with Iraq, in the interest of an experiment in spreading democracy in the middle east, would you have voted for him?

Second question, Do you see, at all, even one little inch, how people like us, who may not have in love with Clinton, but thought he did a pretty good job, and had to watch the republicans waste all that money persecuting those people for eight years, and then finally scoring one with a BJ between consenting adults, and forcing the President and the first lady and their daughter through probably the worst public humiliation any first family has ever gone through, and costing this country a fortune doing it, even though every poll showed that the public didn't care about it...do you think having to now watch Bush with, I'm not going to write the list again, lets's just talk about this last one, illegal wire tapping, which he will probably get away with, but you think that we're are suppose to let all his sins just vanish, because when he can't totally deny reality, he steps in front of the camera and blames someone else. Given the past, don't you think that GW and the right, might just be giving us bad taste in our mouths? Don't you think, you might just be just as fed up as some of us who don't like Bush? Think about it.

Gayle in Md.

If all this was going on with the Democrats, you guys would be screaming bloody murder...There have been more BJ jokes on here, more snide remarks about the Clinton's private sex life than you can shake a stick at....

Deeman3
12-20-2005, 07:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dee, That would be a best case scenario, but given the religious schisms, and fanaticism that divide the Middle East, not likely to occur??? Israel has been a nation since 1949, and has not found lasting peace.....their conflict dates back to the 20's. Iran and Iraq have their own history of war between the two nations. <font color="blue"> Yes, i do know all this. I'm just saying that, maybe, it's the best chance of a lasting conversion to a representative style of government, not a mortal lock. </font color>
One doesn't have to be anti-GWB to see that this will be a long and ardous journey towards real peace, and can we really predict that a future elected government, in Iraq, will not be again hostile to the U.S.? <font color="blue"> I'm not so sure that we can judge succes but how much anti-U.S. sentiment is in Iraq. They can be anti-U.S. but still a stable and non-threatening government. </font color>
After all Saddam was once an ally. <font color="blue"> Saddam was judged to be the lesser of two evils, rather his governement was considered as such by all administrations after WWII. </font color>
Let's hope that you are right though....since "the die is cast".....Jacta alea est
"Les jeux sont faits",as they say in Monte Carlo
(The closest that I ever came to understanding, or speaking French, was haggling over prices at Place Pigalle)
so you see real peace in Middle Asia, with GWB as it's architect.....and the sheer brilliance of him finally revealed to the world, as his master plan takes root.
Schools, hospitals, stadiums, renamed in his honor...
How hot is it down there in Ala? <font color="blue"> Hey, i don't especially predict that but wouldn't it throw a wrench in everyone's motor for this to occur and it's as likely as some other senerios we are looking at. </font color>
Kidding aside....I hope that you are right....... <font color="blue"> Me too. The troops (most) home next year would go a long way in making everything better. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
12-20-2005, 07:23 AM
Pooltchr having grown up in poolrooms during the age of Hustlers and Con Men it became easier and easier to spot a Con Man. In the 50/60s there was no money in pool so all the poolplayers were on Hustle and I don't mean the dance routine.

We went to war in Iraq because of WMDs when we didn't find them we should have packed our bags and got out of town. NO one voted to go to War to Change a Dictator. There are many places in this World that we could bring democrazy too. China,North Korea,Saudia Arabia home of the 911 Terrorists but we pick on Saddam who we supplied arms to, Afganhistan were we supplied weapons to them in their war with Russia. The worst thing that can happen to a Country is having us supply them with weapons.####

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 07:40 AM
"I'm just saying that maybe, it's the best chance, of a lasting conversion to a representative style of government."

Dee, If I may, I would like to ask you several questions. Do you think it is reasonable, and worthwhile that we, as a Nation, put our troops into war in the interest of "Chance" and IMO, slim chance?

Do you really believe that having people voting, insures peace, in a Nation which has the history of Iraq?

Do you really think in the best case scenario, that a peaceful Iraq will protect us in any way from further terrorist attacks?

Is there any chance, any at all, that our country would have been much better served by spending the effort, time and money that has gone into Iraq on better technology for protection from terrorists, and on energy independence?

Thanks Dee...

Fasteddy7
12-20-2005, 10:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There have been more BJ jokes on here, more snide remarks about the Clinton's private sex life than you can shake a stick at....
<hr /></blockquote>

Come on Gayle, no more stick shaking thats what got Clinton in trouble in the first place.

+1 for the snide remarks
BJ jokes + 1

Deeman3
12-20-2005, 12:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> "I'm just saying that maybe, it's the best chance, of a lasting conversion to a representative style of government."

Dee, If I may, I would like to ask you several questions. Do you think it is reasonable, and worthwhile that we, as a Nation, put our troops into war in the interest of "Chance" and IMO, slim chance? <font color="blue"> Yes, even if it's a slim chance the Mideast deserves a model in their region. We only had a small chance over 200 years ago when we declared our independence and we even needed the interventionist influence of the French to make it happen. I know it's not a sure thing but it's at least a chance. </font color>

Do you really believe that having people voting, insures peace, in a Nation which has the history of Iraq? <font color="blue"> No, voting alone does not insure peace but the democratic process can lend support ot the effort in giving these people the first taste of their own government. That may make the difference. Their history is of brutal repression both before Saddam and during his time. If a small spark of freedom can spread to the country and even help the Iranians, who are facing hugh internal pressure for reform, maybe, just maybe there can be a peace. The Iraqi people will value the peace under a free system where they, for once, have something to lose. Something they have nnot had since well before WWII.</font color>

Do you really think in the best case scenario, that a peaceful Iraq will protect us in any way from further terrorist attacks? <font color="blue"> Not protect us but, if we do the job and get out, the Mid East will see us as a liberator rather than the occupationist some of them do now. Of course, 72% of them feel things are getting better. Many are far away from the violence in Bagdad and the major problem areas so they have a much better opinion of us and their chances. Then the main terrorists may focus on other targets they have historicaly been more likely to attack, Israel, Turkey, Western Europe.</font color>

Is there any chance, any at all, that our country would have been much better served by spending the effort, time and money that has gone into Iraq on better technology for protection from terrorists, and on energy independence? <font color="blue"> Yes, I can't say truthfully that those other things might not have been effective and still might be. Most would have beem much harder to get committments to, believe it or not, than even the war on Iraq. Real energy policy does not hold the U.S.'s attention much longer than the period that gas prices are high. Defensive tactics might be o.k. but, of couorse, depend on fighting the terror at the point of attack, much more risky, for us, than doing it overseas. All in all, I don't think either of us could make a prediction on the effectiveness of these alternate strategies but they might have worked. The bloodshed, in fact, may have been higher for Americans if done here but who knows. I agree, the Iraqi dead would have been lower. I wish GWB could have rallied everyone around these topics but we all know how good these things sound until you try to get someone to do something about it. Unfortunately, a war concentrates everyone's efforts and attention, on both sides.

Deeman</font color>

Thanks Dee... <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
12-20-2005, 12:11 PM
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby and R Pearle were all involved in the Soviet assessment with turned out to be all wrong and the assessment on Iraq, with also turned out to be all wrong. Coincidence?
What are the chances of all the intelligence being wrong? TWICE!
Q....oops.......Big Brother might be listening........ /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Qtec
12-20-2005, 12:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any chance, any at all, that our country would have been much better served by spending the effort, time and money that has gone into Iraq on better technology for protection from terrorists, and on energy independence? <font color="blue"> Yes, I can't say truthfully that those other things might not have been effective and still might be. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

If you want to cure the disease, you have to go the root of the problem, dont just treat the symptoms.
We have propped up UNPOPULAR Govts and rulers AGAINST the wishes of the people all over the ME. The Shah spent billions on US/ Euro figher aircraft etc, while his people lived in poverty. We backed him up.
Saudi A is another example.
In the eyes of the US, Israel can do nothing wrong.[ do you know the the US citizens are paying for the wall they are building around the Palestinians.]
In S.A, a woman cant drive a car. In Israel, a woman cant get a divorce unless her husband agrees to one.

We have f@#$ed about the ME for centuries telling them what to do. The US was even trying to make friends with SADDAM, when he was waging an illegal war against Iran and using WMDs.

9/11/ Madrid/ London didnt happen because 'they' are jealous of our lifestyle.
Why 9/11 has never been discussed . Its about time it was.

Q

wolfdancer
12-20-2005, 01:13 PM
Q..................Rosebud, a wet rabbit never flies at night
(use your secret decoder ring, just in case BB/GWB is listening in)

Deeman3
12-20-2005, 02:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Q..................Rosebud, a wet rabbit never flies at night
(use your secret decoder ring, just in case BB/GWB is listening in)

<font color="blue"> Wolfdancer,
"A man who stacks peas on a weathervane is a fool."

Dick Cavett </font color>




<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
12-20-2005, 03:31 PM
Does that work with the "Captain Midnight" decoder ?
web page (http://otr.com/ra/midnite01.mp3)
web page (http://www.otr.com/cm_archives.shtml)
Sadly I just found out this former hero of mine..........
was probably a Republican......since the show was sponsored by
The Skelly Oil Co.......

Gayle in MD
12-20-2005, 09:49 PM
Hey Q, what can you do. We have just gotta figure out a way to convince Americans they would be much better off, if they would just be more cynical....lol.

BTW, I heard that Bush and Condi invited Starr to join the in a little three-way...Laura just wants to watch /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Gayle in Md,

DickLeonard
12-21-2005, 07:02 AM
Gayle My question is how can a country be steamrolled into going to war against a country who maybe is trying to make a bomb when we possess 10,000 + bombs. Only a total fool would attempt that, then again Saddam must have thought we wouldn't have invaded his country or he would have thrown open his country to a million inspectors rather than go to War with a second ranked military power. I say this because it is now obvious that China is Ranked number one.

The people of Iraq now are sorry that Saddam is out of power at least with him in power there was Stability in the Country now there is nothing but chaos. After three years it has turned into hell for them. Most of the Voters they showed on TV were Women the Men must have been afraid of getting Killed if their faces were on TV.####

pooltchr
12-21-2005, 07:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> The people of Iraq now are sorry that Saddam is out of power <hr /></blockquote>

That has to be the most ridiculous comment I have heard on this forum. On what facts do you base it? How many of the people in Iraq have you talked to about this. Are you following the trial? Have you heard the testimony from those who were victims of this crazy leader they had?
Get your head out of the clouds. This is obviously something you just decided made sense to support your feelings on the war.
Get Real!
Steve

DickLeonard
12-21-2005, 07:31 AM
Wolfdancer Your Captain Post made me want to share this info that I was just made aware of three heros of War. That no one would guess they were heros. It began with actor Lee Marvin being on the Johnny Carson show, Johnny began telling that Lee was at the the Invasion of Iwo Jima and receieved the Navy Cross for Bravery on the landing. He then told of his Sargent the Bravest man he ever knew. He stood up during the landing directing his men to Safety while being the target for the enemy fire. Mortar fire,machine gun fire he never flinched just kept directing his men. Lee was shot in the ass and was taken down from the mountain and his Sargent lit him a cigarette and asked him where he was shot he told him to tell his mother to sell the outhouse. His sargent was a life long friend, his name was Bob Keeshan, Captain Kangaroo.

It was noted that most Movie Stars made War Bond Appeals, that they were rear eschelon soldiers never seeing battle.

It also said that Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal in Viet Nam trained in hand to hand combat with over 25 kills to his credit. He wore his sweater to cover up his tatoos from the war. He became a Presbytarian Minister and a Pacifists after the war. He tried to lead children on the right path.####

Chopstick
12-21-2005, 07:49 AM
Those are great stories, unfortunatly they are urban ledgends. Marvin and Keeshan were both marines but they never served together. Marvin was wounded in Saipan, two months before Iwo Jima. Neither Marvin or Keeshan were in Iwo Jima.

Fred Rogers was never in the military. Too bad. I really liked the stories. I'm a big fan of Lee Marvin and the Captain.

SnakebyteXX
12-21-2005, 07:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>
It also said that Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal in Viet Nam trained in hand to hand combat with over 25 kills to his credit. He wore his sweater to cover up his tatoos from the war. He became a Presbytarian Minister and a Pacifists after the war. He tried to lead children on the right path.#### <hr /></blockquote>

"Unless all the biographical information available about him is wrong, Fred McFeely Rogers never served in the military in any capacity, let alone as a Marine sniper (or Navy Seal, as another version of this apocryphal story claims). Some cynical folks may be loathe to believe that the gentle, soft-spoken host of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" was exactly what he seemed, but he was.

Rumors to the contrary have circulated since the early 1990s. It's unknown where, precisely, they began, but starting in 1994 stories about Fred Rogers' supposed military exploits became a hot topic on the Internet, escalating as the decade wore on. For example:

1994: "A note on Mr. Rogers. He would be a tough competitor. He has 42 confirmed sniper kills (in Korea?)."

1998: "So this fellow at work (retired Army vet) says that Mr. Rogers of childrens' TV fame served three tours of duty in 'Nam as a sniper and has been credited with kills in excess of 1500 meters."

1999: "Interesting side note about Fred Rogers. He was the number three Marine sniper in the Vietnam war. And one of the reasons he always wears long sleeve clothing is because his arms are covered in tattoos."

Predictably, Rogers' death in February 2003 sparked a resurgence in the rumors, but with a new twist: now, he was an ex-Navy Seal instead of a Marine sniper. This variant circulated far and wide when it hitched a ride with an newer email hoax making similar claims about Bob "Captain Kangaroo" Keeshan. The relevant portion of the text went as follows:

2003: "On another note, there was this wimpy little man (who just passed away) on PBS, gentle and quiet. Mr. Rogers is another of those you would least suspect of being anything but what he now portrays to our youth. But Mr. Rogers was a U.S. Navy Seal, combat-proven in Vietnam with over twenty-five confirmed kills to his name. He wore a long-sleeve sweater to cover the many tattoos on his forearm and biceps. A master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat, able to disarm or kill in a heartbeat. He hid that away and won our hearts with his quiet wit and charm."

Fred Rogers won our hearts, true enough; but the rest is hogwash. After graduating from Rollins College in Florida with a degree in music in 1951, he immediately embarked on a broadcasting career a career that went uninterrupted for nearly 50 years, even while he studied for a Bachelor of Divinity degree, eventually becoming an ordained minister in 1962. Far from hiding a secret past as a trained killer, Fred Rogers was an exemplary individual who devoted his entire adult life to educating and bettering the lives of children, and as such he deserves to be remembered. "

web page (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-mr-rogers.htm)

Chopstick
12-21-2005, 07:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Q..................Rosebud, a wet rabbit never flies at night
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Is that one of them Zen can't figgur it out things? </font color>

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 07:57 AM
You are way out of line talking to Dick that way. Maybe you haven't seen the Iraqis interviewed, saying pricisely what Dick says, that they were better off with Saddam, than they are now. These people still don't have electricity in large parts of their country. I'd like to see you live without electricity for two years. The administration has totally misjudged and mishandled the occupation of Iraq. The proff of that is everywhere. It is continually amazing to me how many people obviously do not stay abreast of circumstances in Iraq. There are other opinions by people who are there on the ground than the version you get from the administration. It's a shame that you aren't aware of that. If you were, you'd understand how out of line your comment to Dick really is. I have seen such interviews, more than once. This is one reason why 2/3 of the Iraqis want us out of there, this was a face to face survey. many said they were better off with Saddam. You will soon see, once elections are completed, how fast they call for our leave. Reconstruction has practically been at a standstill. 1,654 contractors have been killed in action, another 454 in accidents. They are living in hell.

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool."

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 08:00 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
12-21-2005, 05:01 PM
On one hand, I can live a life under a dictator who used gas to kill the people in his own country, torture anyone who spoke out against him, and killed who knows how many others (remember the mass graves we DID find?). On the other hand, I don't have electricity......wow, you're right...that would be a tough choice.
Steve

wolfdancer
12-21-2005, 05:41 PM
Yep, it's just a power choice,
electricity or gas.
I believe what Gayle means is that ruthless as he was, there was still some normalcy in their everyday life. Now with their
power, water, sewerage, schools, hospitals, factories, in ruins.....to a degree....their jobs and homes perhaps gone, and no real end in sight to this battle for control....
it does seem likely that many would prefer the intolerances of living under a dictatorship...to trying to survive under the present conditions....
That's not meant to infer, that given an ending to this fight.....the future could be so much better then under Saddam. An oil rich country, where the profits can be used to enrich the lives of the avg citizen......hopefully.

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 11:50 PM
Dick's post wasn't about you, it was about the Iraqis, and what they are saying, and Dick was right.

Gayle in Md.

supergreenman
12-22-2005, 12:38 AM
Before Daddy Twig, oops I mean bush, invaded Iraq, Iraq had the highest standard of living, the most educated proffesionals and the best health care in the region.

They are very aware of what they had with Saddam(who was a monster) and what they don't have now.

They are also very much aware that while they had oppression and torture with Saddam, they still have it today with Occupying forces and the Iraqi Army and police who are saturated with shiite militias.

Given the choice, you can see why they would say things were better with Saddam. Hmm torture and a high standard of living or torture and a country bombed into the stoneage.

J

DickLeonard
12-22-2005, 12:07 PM
Gayle I want to thank you for defending me I was begining to think I was the President of the US and I was coming down with the lyme, no lying disease. I thought I had seen that on WNBC, with the outcry I thought I had imagined it. I will save that for my State of the Onion Aadddrreeessss&gt; For aa moment I thought I was in Ssssttttrrreeetttccchhhh"s Company.####

DickLeonard
12-22-2005, 12:10 PM
Snake that just shows one how easy it is to deceive with words typed, it is much harder to deceive with words spoken.####

Stretch
12-22-2005, 06:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Gayle I want to thank you for defending me I was begining to think I was the President of the US and I was coming down with the lyme, no lying disease. I thought I had seen that on WNBC, with the outcry I thought I had imagined it. I will save that for my State of the Onion Aadddrreeessss&gt; For aa moment I thought I was in Ssssttttrrreeetttccchhhh"s Company.#### <hr /></blockquote>

lol@State of the Onion address /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

i wonder, could a Democrat ever Marry a Republican? I hadn't reolized how polar opposites thier phylosophys are. Up here it's the Liberals and Conservatives. i didn't like either one of them. As soon as they get to Ottawa they all become the same. All the best and brightest minds have been sucked into the private sector, big buisness, big money.

Poloticians in general are really small time crooks compared to the Multi Nationals. It would take an extra special compelling giant of a Man/or Woman to win me back to a party of any stripe and i just don't see anything on the horizen so i'll vote on the issuse of the day when the time comes and like my father before me keep that vote to myself cause it's knowone elses buisness St.