PDA

View Full Version : Things Gayle would not want you to know about:



eb_in_nc
05-15-2008, 09:33 AM
Bush Lied? (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm)

hondo
05-15-2008, 12:44 PM
Thanks, EB. I had no idea it was actually Clinton
who decided to occupy a Muslim nation and stick us
in the middle of a civil war.
I thought it was bush. Silly me!

eb_in_nc
05-15-2008, 01:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, EB. I had no idea it was actually Clinton
who decided to occupy a Muslim nation and stick us
in the middle of a civil war.
I thought it was bush. Silly me! </div></div>

Bush made the decision with regards to Iraq. The link was meant to give people the understanding that the Clinton's and other Democrats prior to this election race had many things to say in reference to the Iraqis that are not consistent with what they say today when they are trying to pick up votes.

Clearly you should be able to see this distinction.

nAz
05-15-2008, 03:11 PM
Gayle is an anti bush bit@h, but she usually right too.
I on the other hand am not opposed to bush, i love everything about bush. bush smells,taste great and is good for you too.

Sid_Vicious
05-15-2008, 08:09 PM
Bush DID lie, many, many times, and while professing to be a Christian. As a lifetime Christian as I am, and a follower of "every sin is equal...gw is terrible for any kind of an example to "the faith." How the hell do you rights, so-called Christians defend such an example? Any one wrong, makes no right. sid

wolfdancer
05-15-2008, 11:40 PM
Since that "news" has been around for some time now, why wouldn't Gayle want people to know about it?
She doesn't like Bush or Cheney (an understatement)....and there is enough factual, not to like, without suppressing something, or making something up. Bush now admits there were no WMDs in Iraq, and blames it on faulty intelligence...and I agree....his

LWW
05-16-2008, 04:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, EB. I had no idea it was actually Clinton
who decided to occupy a Muslim nation and stick us
in the middle of a civil war.
I thought it was bush. Silly me! </div></div>

Bush made the decision with regards to Iraq. The link was meant to give people the understanding that the Clinton's and other Democrats prior to this election race had many things to say in reference to the Iraqis that are not consistent with what they say today when they are trying to pick up votes.

Clearly you should be able to see this distinction. </div></div>
Actually he didn't.

The USA made regime change the official policy of the US govt during Clinton.

Also under Clinton we loaded up Kuwait with troops and were ready to take him out then Protesters met Albright at OSU in Columbus and the Clintonista made a regime that they could not survive American casualties politically due to his draft dodging past.

This led to several more years of Saddam and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The funny thing is, the far left cared not a whit.

Proof once again that the slaughter of brown people is only important when it can be used as a political weapon.

The people they claim to care about are merely props used to incite the sheeple.

The far left gave not a care when Saddam was murdering people wholesale, but when they are killed by terrorists as part of building a democracy they will be the first to scream B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH! as loud as possible.

If Obama wins in November the brown people being murdered in the name of Allah will no longer matter again.

LWW

LWW
05-16-2008, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, EB. I had no idea it was actually Clinton
who decided to occupy a Muslim nation and stick us
in the middle of a civil war.
I thought it was bush. Silly me! </div></div>

Bush made the decision with regards to Iraq. The link was meant to give people the understanding that the Clinton's and other Democrats prior to this election race had many things to say in reference to the Iraqis that are not consistent with what they say today when they are trying to pick up votes.

Clearly you should be able to see this distinction. </div></div>
What you have to realize is that the far left are incredibly adept at the art of doublethink, or being able to believe two completely opposite things and accept them both as true.

It can be quite entertaining to watch.

LWW

eb_in_nc
05-16-2008, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle is an anti bush bit@h, but she usually right too.
I on the other hand am not opposed to bush, i love everything about bush. bush smells,taste great and is good for you too. </div></div>

I agree, unless we're talking about Gayle bush.

wolfdancer
05-16-2008, 01:25 PM
While the faithful still believe GW is doing the Lord's work.....
"...They speak a vision of their own imagination,
Not from the mouth of the LORD. (Jer 23:16b)"

Gayle in MD
05-17-2008, 09:09 AM
Sort of reminds one of those hypocritical types, which are always yapping about less government interference in their lives, and at the same time, they are all for it when the Christian right seeks to use the courts, and the government, to force their personal religious agendas on all others, or into personal r famliy matters.

It's probably just a coincidence, that those same people are the ones who often try to suggest that those of us who turned against George Bush because of the many lies he has told, and the many un-American actions he has taken, and laws he has broken, or simply skewed to his own liking, or for his own protection, are always hurling accusations of partisanship, and thoughtlessness, as they follow their leader over their oft referred to "Cliff"... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
05-17-2008, 09:25 AM
His post is absurd on its face. The fact is that nothing stated about Saddam, or WMD's in Iraq, previous to the vote on using force in Iraq, addresses the fact that George Bush stated to the Congress that force would be a last resort, and that he would get the approval of the UN.

Whatever decisions were made by Congress, they were made before they understood that the intelligence had been cherry picked and skewed by George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and even then, the majority of Democrats voted against going into IRaq. WE now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and according to former Republican statesmen, and our own NS Estimates, that doing so has proved to be the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

I find it laughable the extent to which the right is willing to go to try to hold the left, Democrats, Clinton's bj, anyhing they can drag up out of a past, irrelevant and far fetched from the decisions Bush made, or the lies he has told, and is still telling, and seek to make Democrats responsible for George Bush's stupid failed foreign policies, and unamerican activities.
I suppose it is all they can do, since much of the wasted blood, damage and wasted treasure is on their own Christian hands.

Posts like this one give a good indication of the stupidity of some from the right, and their own inability to acept proven facts. It seems George Bush has created a whole cabal of truth skewing Americans, without conscience. Interesting, none of them ever want to discuss our own National Intelligence Estimates of the results of Bush's war, his resulting huge debts, or his many documented lies, new ones emerging every week,
hence, his disgusting lies about giving up golf.

He isn't only the worst President in history, he's the most repulsive public servant of our times, a proven liar, a complete disgrace to the world "Christian" and a proven idiot, without conscience.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-17-2008, 12:35 PM
Do you honestly expect that you can make a case for that blather?

Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

LWW

wolfdancer
05-17-2008, 01:20 PM
Damn, i thought it was FDR

Gayle in MD
05-24-2008, 07:51 AM
Clearly you are putting up more BS.

Clinton was never for invading Iraq.

Clinton actually destroyed many of the sights which Bush one left in place in Iraq, where WMD's were, previous to Bush two.

Clinton was never stupid enough to weaken Iraq to the point that Iran would be strengthened, only W. was stupid enough to do that.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Better Heritage: Arthur Schlesinger
History is the best antidote to delusions of omnipotence. Self knowledge of the inevitable is the indispensible prelude to self control for the nation, as well as it is for the individual, and history should remind us to resist pressure to convert momentary impulses into moral absolutes. Sometimes when I'm particularly depressed I ascribe our behavior to stupidity. The stupidity of our leadership, the stupidity of our culture.

Thirty years ago we suffered a military degfeat fighting an unwinnable war against nationalism, the most vital of national
emotions, against a country about which we knew nothing and in which we had no vital interess. Vietnam, was hopeless enough, but to repeat the same arrogant folly, thirty years later in Iraq, is a gross instance of national stupidity.
</div></div>

When historians write of Bush, such will be his legacy, and the legacy of the Neocons, and the neoconned.

Gayle in Md.