PDA

View Full Version : OMG! Bush Still Completely Delusional



Gayle in MD
11-09-2010, 07:29 PM
What colossal lies he is STILL telling.

The man just cannot stop lying. STILL contending that Saddam was a threat, and had the capacity to reinstate his WMD's, when Charles Dulfer clearly stated, no WMD's, no capacity to restore WMD's, and no threat, whatsoever.

He even says that Saddam wouldn't let the Inspectors in!
Lie, after lie, AFTER LIE!!! the inspectors were in there, for months, and told him over and over, no WMD, no possibility of Nukes, no biological weapons.

Amazing how Republican Presidents NEVER stop with the lies. They actually think if they repeat them over and over, they will magically transform themselves from total fiction, and eventually become truth.

Nixon and Reagan, did the same thing. refused to ever admit to their own treason, and lies. "I am not a crook!" Only, ah hem, yes, you were.

Bush insisted straight up until the economic collapse, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

You'd have to be living in La La Land, to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a Republican, oops, they all live there.

Bush really needed to read Hubris and several other dozens of books before he wrote his book. He's lying about things that have been documented by literally dozens of people, who had no cause, purpose of reason, to lie.

The man is NUTS! The National Nut Party. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

Sev
11-09-2010, 07:42 PM
Your delusional.

Have you been to your therapist lately????

ugotda7
11-09-2010, 11:45 PM
The idiotic consistency of some in this forum continue to be an amazing thing to behold.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 01:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiotic consistency of some in this forum continue to be an amazing thing to behold.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

</div></div>

Are you really that stupid that you think nothing changed in Iraq from 1998, until 2003?

Nothing you posted here has a damn thing to do with the FACT that Bush fit the intel, to his policy, as has been proven, over and over again.

Nothing anyone else said during the run up to the invasion, about Iraq, or Saddam, has a damn thing to do with Bush's lies, that led to the war, since they got their info, from BUSH, AFTER he cherry picked the intel he wanted.

HE LIED.

Hundreds of thousands of people died, and all he can say about it is that he gets sick thinking about the fact they found no WMD??? The man who gave him the final statement, No WMD, said Bush acted like he didn't give a damn about WMD being found there, or not, David Kay, Remember him?

He was making jokes about not finding WMD, while our soldiers, who he lied into fighting a war on his lies, were dying on the gound in Iraq.

Now go on back over to AZ. YOu don't have a clue what you're talking about. We already have enough nutjobs from Beckistan around here, who never picked up a single book about Bush's lies, Cheney's little group he sent to the basement at the CIA, to cherry pick intel for weeks, Bush's switching the reason for going to war, over and over, as every supposed necessity, lost credibility.

Bush LIED, and he's STILL LYING, and idiots, who never did the research, are STILL lapping it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGNhbc3rgRY&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIyPHG07Ii0&NR=1

Iraq Pre War Intel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CBKFS5SFlU&feature=related

CIA Official Exposes Bush Fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3Bfox0k4g&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Wilkerson Exposes 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRKFbLJDfl4

Another CIA Agent Exposes lies, and why so many resigned from CIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmakyb5bZec&NR=1

Goldberg Lies To cover Up Causes Of Terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ&feature=channel




I Dare You To Watch This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f0sDWcZ4IY&feature=related

Ellsberg sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIUSMLOmtQ8



Get lost. You're the idiot.

G.

Qtec
11-10-2010, 01:32 AM
What did C Powell and Condi Rice say about Iraq in 2001, before 9/11?


NO THREAT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ)

Q


Further evidence. Saddam's son (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1UI4KVJCC8&feature=related)

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 02:12 AM
Bush, in both interviews, defended using torture. Still lying about it's effectiveness, too.

But, we know they're lies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfYov5o5_2s&p=C72595B5F3E42CE3&playnext=1&index=36

Too bad he held that book back, until after the election.

Republicans would have never taken the house, if it had been out earlier.

G.

LWW
11-10-2010, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What colossal lies he is STILL telling.

The man just cannot stop lying. STILL contending that Saddam was a threat, and had the capacity to reinstate his WMD's, when Charles Dulfer clearly stated, no WMD's, no capacity to restore WMD's, and no threat, whatsoever.

He even says that Saddam wouldn't let the Inspectors in!
Lie, after lie, AFTER LIE!!! the inspectors were in there, for months, and told him over and over, no WMD, no possibility of Nukes, no biological weapons.


G.

</div></div>

Truth versus fantasy:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on 3 October 2003. The team said it had found evidence of "WMD-related program activities"</div></div>

On the Duelfer Report:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq, stating "ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place" but also acknowledging that there was evidence "about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved," and that this evidence was "sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." IAG noted that, due to security concerns, it "was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war."</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group)

LWW

Qtec
11-10-2010, 05:50 AM
Why don't you answer MY post?

<u>I have video evidence of Powell and Rice stating categorically that Iraq was no threat!</u>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>You ignore it!</span>

Just for once, just to show all here that you are not just another run-of-mill RW crazy troll, answer the Q.



Before 9/11 Iraq was not a threat.
After 9/11, Iraq was the biggest threat.


Did the intelligence change overnight?


Q..........try thinking logically.

LWW
11-10-2010, 06:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why don't you answer MY post?

<u>I have video evidence of Powell and Rice stating categorically that Iraq was no threat!</u>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>You ignore it!</span>

Just for once, just to show all here that you are not just another run-of-mill RW crazy troll, answer the Q.



Before 9/11 Iraq was not a threat.
After 9/11, Iraq was the biggest threat.


Did the intelligence change overnight?


Q..........try thinking logically. </div></div>
<u>I have video evidence of Clinton/Gore/Pelosi/Kennedy and more stating categorically that Iraq was a huge threat!</u>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>You ignore it!</span>

Just for once, just to show all here that you are not just another run-of-mill Obamatron realize that.



Before 2003 Iraq was a monstrous threat.
After 2003 Iraq was no biggest threat.


Did the intelligence change overnight?


Q..........try thinking logically.

I still have hopes for you.

LWW

Qtec
11-10-2010, 06:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I still have hopes for you.

LWW</div></div>

ie, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NO ANSWER!</span>

LWW
11-10-2010, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I still have hopes for you.

LWW</div></div>

ie, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NO ANSWER!</span> </div></div>

If my post was no answer then yours was no question.

Yes ... the doublethink is strong in you Snoopy san.

LWW

Qtec
11-10-2010, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I still have hopes for you.

LWW</div></div>

ie, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NO ANSWER!</span> </div></div>

If my post was no answer then <span style='font-size: 26pt'>yours was no question.</span>


LWW </div></div>


What was this then?


[quote] Before 9/11 Iraq was no monstrous threat.
After 2003 Iraq was the biggest threat, did the intelligence change overnight?


To native English speaking people of average intelligent, the Q mark at the end of the sentence usually denotes a question.

Again, the Q mark at the end gives it away.



Q


Q.....Geez

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 08:38 AM
This morning, Bush told more lies, on the today show, about his economic disasters....I'm sure everyone here knows how to get his interview on line.

Here are some facts, easily documentable, which he completely distorts, willfully.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>David Fiderer
Posted: November 10, 2010 08:46 AM
The Bush Tax Cuts And The Republican Cult of Economic Failure </span>

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as an honest case for extending the Bush tax cuts. Ten years of hard data prove they were a complete failure. They did not work while Bush was in office and they did not work during the first two years of the Obama Administration.<span style='font-size: 11pt'> No wonder the Congressional Budget Office says that the GOP's proposed extension of tax cuts to the rich will reduce future economic growth.

To recap:

In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged about 2.1% a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an 8-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and the GDP fell by 10.9%, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. During FDR's first two terms, when the country remained mired in a Depression, GDP growth averaged about 6.3% a year.

There is no way to make Bush's performance look good. Even if you cherry-pick the data, by excluding fiscal year 2008, when GDP growth was zero, economic expansion was anemic. During Bush's first seven years, it averaged about 2.4%, the worst rate in half a century. And what was the source of most of that economic growth? Homeowner equity extraction. Bush could point to one sector where growth outpaced that of all prior administrations: Residential mortgage debt. It almost doubled, from $5.1 trillion to $9.8 trillion, between 2001 and 2006.

Average Annual GDP Growth
Bush 2001-2008: 2.1%
Clinton 1993-2000: 3.9%
Reagan/Bush I 1981 - 1992: 3.0%
Carter 1977 - 1980: 3.2%
Nixon/Ford 1969 - 1976: 2.8%
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 - 1968: 4.8%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Of course, these numbers understate the magnitude of Bush's failure, since the full effects of the 2008 financial meltdown were not felt until 2009 and later. Though Bush has left the White House, his tax cuts have remained in place. What's completely missing is any evidence that his tax cuts did anything to boost the economy.

After Clinton raised taxes on the rich, GDP growth spiked. His 8-year average was about 3.9%, close to twice what it was under Bush.

In terms of promoting job growth, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

By the end of 8 years of George W. Bush's economic stewardship, 1.1 million jobs had been added to the economy. Measured against any of his predecessors, Bush was a complete failure. Clinton added 22 times as many jobs. Reagan added 16 times as many jobs. Eisenhower added three times as many jobs, when the U.S. economy was a fraction of its current size.

Even prior to the financial meltdown, Bush's record of job creation was dismal. The economy started hemorrhaging jobs in June 2008, but from the end of January 2001 through May 2008, the U.S. economy created 5 million jobs. That's less than 700 thousand jobs a year, the worst performance, over a seven-year stretch, since the early 1960s.

Number of Jobs Added [millions]
Bush, Feb. 2001- Jan. 2009: 1.1
Clinton, Feb. 1993- Jan. 2001: 22.7
Reagan/Bush, I Feb. 1981- Jan. 1993: 18.7
Carter, Feb. 1976- Jan. 1981:10.3
Nixon/Ford, Feb. 1969- Jan. 1976: 11.3
Kennedy/Johnson, Feb. 1961- Jan. 1969: 15.7
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Seasonally Adjusted Nonfarm Payrolls

Of course the job losses that began in 2008 accelerated into 2009 and onward. You can ascribe the blame to Bush or to Obama. But you can't point to any evidence that the Bush tax cuts actually added jobs in the past two years. The reasons are obvious to anyone who understands how companies make their hiring decisions. They hire because they expect their business volume to grow, or because the current workforce cannot handle the tasks at hand. Does anyone really think that a small business owner who nets more than $1 million a year - say, a plastic surgeon, or a hedge fund manager, or (Justin) Bieber Time Touring LLC--would hire more employees simply this tax rates were slashed after the end of the Clinton Administration?

By the way, the Clinton Administration created about 3 million more jobs than the administrations of Ronald Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II combined.

In terms of fiscal prudence, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

Guess what happened after the U.S. economy came out of a mild recession that ended in November 2001? U.S. tax revenues plummeted. They plummeted at a rate that was unprecedented since the demobilization after World War II. And they plummeted during a time when Bush initiated a war that would leave us mired in Iraq for more than seven years.

Historically, U.S. income tax revenues have always grown, year after year. The problem was that government expenditures always grew more. So when revenues started falling, the relationship, between what the government took in and what it spent, really got out of whack.


Source: OMB

Government revenues fell three years in a row, well past the end of the last recession, while government outlays increased at twice the rate seen under the Clinton Administration. Again, Bush set a record for modern times. We also know that the burst of revenues from 2005 onward was traceable to asset bubbles, which were not sustainable. In the last budget he submitted to Congress, Bush assumed that the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2009 would be zero.

Bush's failure was masked by a sleazy accounting trick that Bill Clinton had tried to stop in 1999, when the government's operations approached break-even.

The Social Security surplus is supposed to be invested in Treasuries, which generate compound interest to build up a nest egg for the day when baby boomers start retiring. Of course a real Treasury instrument is a legal promise to pay. So Bush took the cash paid out by you, me, and our employers into the Social Security "Trust Fund" and used it to reduce his current operating deficits. Instead of exchanging the cash for real Treasuries, the Trust Fund bought "Special Treasuries," which the government can change at will. USA Today said it best:

The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.
Scam artists like Mitch McConnell justify their talk about "reforming" Social Security by pointing to "unfunded liabilities." This nonsense about unfunded obligations is one of the biggest frauds of the 20th and 21st centuries.


Source: OMB

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Social Security was funded by you, me and our employers. Bush took the surplus funds and used them to subsidize his failed tax policies. The Trust Fund's liabilities are unfunded for one reason and one reason only: Bush, more than any other President, defunded them. Because Republican politicians can't handle the truth, they cry out, "Class warfare!" But all their screaming cannot alter the immutable rules of simple arithmetic. Now they want to double down on their past failures.</span></span></div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-bush-tax-cuts-and-the_b_781419.html

Links included to statistical data....

pooltchr
11-10-2010, 08:45 AM
We need to face the fact that G and Q will totally ignore any facts that don't fit their personal hatred of Bush. They are completely blinded by their liberal bias.

Bush lied about the threat of Saddam, but Clinton told the truth when he said Saddam was a threat.

There are some people who allow their emotions to overpower any possibility of reasonable thought.

There will always be idiots in the world. They continue to prove it.

Steve

Deeman3
11-10-2010, 09:12 AM
Great read, so far.

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 09:51 AM
And his lies about his torture program...you remember that? when the top down orders led to soldiers who followed orders from Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, were thrown in jail for doiong so, without a word from the top to protect them????

The top General and the declassfied memos sraight from the top, blow that away....

Treason! Breaking International Agreements.

Breaking Domestic laws, FISA.

Abuse of Power, politicizing the entire DOJ.

Destroying evidence of illegal activities.

Lying to the Congress.

Outing a cov ert CIA Agent.

Illegally spying on Americans.

Same ol' Bush, smirking and lying through his teeth, as always.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWehKYzGJ8M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b6NXpiZS2c&feature=related

Gayle in MD
11-10-2010, 10:09 AM
And MOre lies:


<span style='font-size: 11pt'>
W.: Still Not Telling the Truth about Iraq
He's telling fundamental falsehoods about his war in Iraq--and he's not being called out on this
By Mother Jones | Mon Nov. 8, 2010 4:54 AM PST</span>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's baaaaack. George W. Bush releases his book this week--in which he complains about Kanye West and defends his decision to invade Iraq. As David Corn points out in his PoliticsDaily.com column [1], Bush is still telling whoppers about the Iraq war. And so far, he hasn't been called out by the establishment media for his falsehoods. Here' Corn nailing him:

Bush is mounting a defense, as selective as it might be, of the Iraq war. He acknowledges that he experiences "a sickening feeling every time" he recalls the absence of WMDs in Iraq, but he contends that invading Iraq was the right move because "America is safer without a homicidal dictator pursuing WMD."

Yet that statement is flat-out wrong. Not the "safer" part, but the description of Saddam Hussein and WMDs. Bush is still trying to mislead the American public, for at the time of the invasion, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Saddam, brutal dictator that he was, was not pursuing the development or production of WMDs. The Bush administration's own investigation found this. Following the invasion, there was an probe of Iraq's WMD activity conducted by Charles Duelfer, a hawkish fellow whom had been handpicked by the administration to handle this sensitive job. In 2004, his Iraq Survey Group submitted it's final report. [2] The report noted that Saddam "aspired to develop a nuclear capability." But it was quite clear on the key point: Iraq had not been actively working on WMD projects. The Duelfer report concluded that Iraq's ability to produce nuclear weapons--the most troubling W in the WMD category--had "progressively decayed" since 1991 and that inspectors had found no signs of any "concerted efforts to restart the program." In plain talk: nada on nuclear. The same was true, the report said, for biological and chemical weapons. It found that by 1995, under UN pressure, Iraq had abandoned its biological weapons efforts and that there was no evidence Iraq had made any chemical weapons in the preceding 12 years. </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>The report was blunt: "The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners."

Nobody working on WMDs; no schemes to develop or obtain such weapons. The bottom-line: Saddam was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The UN inspections of the 1990s and the international anti-Iraq sanctions had rendered Iraq's weapons programs kaput.

So once again, Bush is not being accurate--or honest. To justify the war, the ex-president maintains he took out a dictator who was seeking the worst weapons imaginable. Did Bush not read the Duelfer report--at the time of it's release or in the six years since? Or does he not care about the real truth of his war? There's a question that ought to be put to him during the PR blitz for Decision Points.

And allow me to pile on. In a push-the-book interview [3] with NBC's Matt Lauer, Bush claims that had he not invaded Iraq, Saddam "would still have the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." Again, that's not so. See above. Per the Duelfer report, Saddam did not have such a capacity.

In that same interview, Bush, still on the subject of Iraq, declares, "I gave diplomacy every chance to work." This is another super-sized whopper. As Michael Isikoff and I revealed in our book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War [4], on May 1, 2002--almost a year prior to the invasion--Bush angrily told press secretary Ari Fleischer, "I'm going to kick [Saddam's] sorry motherf****** ass all over the Mideast." (Our source, Adam Levine, a White House aide, was a witness to the encounter.) Those are not the words of a fellow committed to a diplomatic solution.

That anecdote aside, the facts contradict Bush's claim: At the time of the invasion, the UN weapons inspections program was under way and succeeding in Iraq. The inspectors were resolving key issues, such as whether aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq were for a project to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons (they were not). They also were finding no signs of WMDs. The inspectors were getting a difficult job done and, as we know now, deriving the right answers. Certainly, they were encountering problems. Saddam was not cooperating 100 percent. But the inspectors were navigating the roadblocks, and robust inspections were proceeding.</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Occasionally you will hear some Bush defender say [5] that Saddam tossed out the inspectors and that's why Bush had to invade. This is not so. The inspectors were yanked out of Iraq by the UN because of the pending invasion. That is, by invading Iraq, Bush ended the ongoing diplomatic process that was effectively dealing with the supposed Iraqi WMD threat. He did not give it "every chance to work."</span>Corn asks, "Will Bush get away with these, uh, misrepresentations?" His prediction is not encouraging: "He did so as president, and history may be repeating itself this week."


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

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/w-still-not-telling-truth-about-iraq
Links:
[1] http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/08/george-w-bush-still-not-telling-the-truth-about-iraq/
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
[3] http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/11/02/exc...at-8pm-et/70650 (http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/11/02/excerpts-from-nbc-news-matt-lauer-reports-interview-with-george-w-bush-airs-monday-november-8-at-8pm-et/70650)
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Stor...7277&amp;sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/030734682X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1289187277&amp;sr=1-1)
[5] http://motherjones.com/../../../../../.....-Bush-Rove-spin (http://motherjones.com/../../../../../../../politics/2010/03/brad-blakeman-bet-corn-Iraq-war-Bush-Rove-spin)



With links to the above, AND the official documents which prove Corn's every point, proving Bush'scontinuing lies.




http://motherjones.com/print/86056

wolfdancer
11-10-2010, 01:02 PM
has it made the Times Best Seller list...for fiction? (aw, couldn't stop myself from writing that)
However....:
xxx (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/9/919115/-Former-German-chancellor-accuses-Bush-of-lying-in-memoirs)
and this from Yahoo:
ZZZ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/10895_georgebushmemoirexaidemattlatimerondecisionp oints)

LWW
11-10-2010, 04:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And his lies about his torture program...you remember that? </div></div>

Would that be the one Pelosi and comrades knew about .... and criticised in private because they weren't strong enough?

LWW

ugotda7
11-10-2010, 05:08 PM
Please educate yourself - I always have hope that an old dog can learn new tricks...woof, woof

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy...&gs_rfai=&pbx=1 (http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define%3A+lie&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1)




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The idiotic consistency of some in this forum continue to be an amazing thing to behold.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

</div></div>

Are you really that stupid that you think nothing changed in Iraq from 1998, until 2003?

Nothing you posted here has a damn thing to do with the FACT that Bush fit the intel, to his policy, as has been proven, over and over again.

Nothing anyone else said during the run up to the invasion, about Iraq, or Saddam, has a damn thing to do with Bush's lies, that led to the war, since they got their info, from BUSH, AFTER he cherry picked the intel he wanted.

HE LIED.

Hundreds of thousands of people died, and all he can say about it is that he gets sick thinking about the fact they found no WMD??? The man who gave him the final statement, No WMD, said Bush acted like he didn't give a damn about WMD being found there, or not, David Kay, Remember him?

He was making jokes about not finding WMD, while our soldiers, who he lied into fighting a war on his lies, were dying on the gound in Iraq.

Now go on back over to AZ. YOu don't have a clue what you're talking about. We already have enough nutjobs from Beckistan around here, who never picked up a single book about Bush's lies, Cheney's little group he sent to the basement at the CIA, to cherry pick intel for weeks, Bush's switching the reason for going to war, over and over, as every supposed necessity, lost credibility.

Bush LIED, and he's STILL LYING, and idiots, who never did the research, are STILL lapping it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGNhbc3rgRY&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIyPHG07Ii0&NR=1

Iraq Pre War Intel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CBKFS5SFlU&feature=related

CIA Official Exposes Bush Fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3Bfox0k4g&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Wilkerson Exposes 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRKFbLJDfl4

Another CIA Agent Exposes lies, and why so many resigned from CIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmakyb5bZec&NR=1

Goldberg Lies To cover Up Causes Of Terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ&feature=channel




I Dare You To Watch This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f0sDWcZ4IY&feature=related

Ellsberg sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIUSMLOmtQ8



Get lost. You're the idiot.

G. </div></div>

cushioncrawler
11-10-2010, 06:21 PM
FROM WIKI
".......Wilkie trained at the Royal Military College, Duntroon[2] and graduated in 1984.[3] He joined the Young Liberals while a cadet. After graduation and being stationed in Brisbane, he became a member of the Liberal Party.[4] His military career spanned 1980–2000 and he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel.[5] He was seconded to the Office of National Assessments (ONA), an Australian intelligence agency, from 1999 until late 2000.[5][6] After a stint with US defence company Raytheon,[2] Wilkie returned to the ONA shortly after the September 11 attacks, from late 2001 until 11 March 2003.[5][6]

In the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, the Australian, British and United States governments were asserting that intelligence reports showed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. Wilkie resigned from the ONA in March 2003,[3] claiming that the reports did not support such claims and in the years since his resignation, no valid evidence supporting the pre-war claims of weapons of mass destruction has ever been found.

Wilkie has stated that he increasingly encountered ethical conflict between his duty as an intelligence officer and his respect for the truth and, on 11 March 2003, he resigned from the ONA and placed evidence of this conflict before the Australian public. In response to widespread opposition to the war, Wilkie gave extensive television interviews and accepted numerous offers of public speaking engagements.[citation needed] He subsequently gave evidence to official British and Australian inquiries into the government's case for involvement in the Iraq war.[6]

In 2004, Wilkie published Axis of Deceit, an account of the reasons for his decision and its results.[7] He describes his views on the nature of intelligence agencies and the analyst's work, the history of the Iraq war, the untruths of politicians and the attempts to suppress the truth.[citation needed]

Wilkie was a member of the Australian Greens by 2004 but left the party in 2008 since he considered it had a "lack of professionalism".[8]..."

The ozzy Liberal Party iznt liberal at all, the Liberals are aktually the ozzy conservativ party -- aktually the Liberals aint conservativ at all, the ozzy Green Party iz the only ozzy party really worryd about conservation -- the Liberals are aktualy the ozzy GOP.
I hate the bastards.
mac.

Sid_Vicious
11-10-2010, 08:09 PM
Gayle,

Give it up, Bush, as I said on day1, could stab his own or your own grandmother in the back on national TV with a jump cue, and be given an OK by these ugly excuses of Americans you keep getting chit from here.

Quit. Just quit. It does you no good to pursue this, in fact you are giving these assholes their feeding for the minute and day by just showing up.

It is sad that there are people born here, with liberties, like these people here, who let themselves be so dumbed-up.

Leave them to themselves Gayle. That's what they truly deserve. I have only told you this about 10 times ;-)

You won, all of the real intelligent people knew this long ago. sid

Qtec
11-11-2010, 12:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We need to face the fact that G and Q will totally ignore any facts that don't fit their personal hatred of Bush. They are completely blinded by their liberal bias.

Bush lied about the threat of Saddam, but Clinton told the truth when he said Saddam was a threat.

There are some people who allow their emotions to overpower any possibility of reasonable thought.

There will always be idiots in the world. They continue to prove it.

Steve </div></div>

Facts, both Powell and Condi said Iraq was no threat. WATCH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ)


Did the intel change after 9/11 or did the interpretation of that intel change?

Its been shown over and over again that Bush based his decisions on the cherry picked intel fed to him by Cheney, Rove, the other neo-cons etc.
In the beginning I must admit I thought it was all Bush, but in the last 8 yrs more info has become available and it looks more and more that he was manipulated.

Then again, as POTUS, its still his fault.

Q

LWW
11-11-2010, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH - BLAH

Q </div></div>

Facts: Bill and Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Kerry, Rockefeller, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Frank, and Biden all said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Did the intel change after 9/11 or did the interpretation of that intel change?

LWW