Prosecute the torture.

November 12, 2005

BUSH IS A LYING BASTARD

In his Veterans Day speech yesterday in Pennsylvania, Bush said the following:

"more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."
THIS IS A LIE.

Don't even bother with anything else. We should just repeat over and over:

BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED. BUSH LIED.

BUSH LIED.


(Oh, yeah, and we need to impeach the lying bastard.)

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

"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

dayvoe said...

Very nice research, "Anonymous." Interesting how the same words show up here There's even a link back to this blog. Nice work. Helps out a lot.

You are, of course, acting like a true wing-nut--filling the room with smoke hoping upon hope that no one will notice that you're no longer addressing the issue. Why not just type out the word "Chappaquidick" a thousand or so times? It would work just as well, trust me.

In any event, you might want to take a look at the article quoted in the blog posting. Here's now it begins:
-----
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.[emphasis added]
-----
And then there's this:
-----
But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.
-----
And:
-----
In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.
-----
And so on.

So when Bush said that the 100 Democratic members of the House and Senate "saw the same intelligence" that's not true, is it? And if he knew it wasn't true (which is obvious, since the Congress only saw what the administration allowed them to see) then that's what's known as a lie, isn't it?

Nice try, "Anonymous."

enigma4ever said...

Anonymous went to ALOT of trouble- little defensive eh? LIES are LIES...and now people are dead. Many. So maybe anonymous should go to Funerals instead of hoping to convince himself with his own propaganda.....Your blog is great, don't be deterred by the wingnuts- and feel free to throw them out...you are always welcome over on http://watergatesummer.blogspot.com/

Maria said...

We LOVE our detractors -- they help to drive up traffic! LOL

Anonymous said...

*cough*cough* Where were you when Clinton lead our troops into Kosovo? *cough* Heads in the sand, eh? Of course. Where was the UN? Where was France? Where were the UN Resolutions? Nowhere.

You then sit there, like the liberal democrats you are and spew out the name calling, because that's all you can do when you're presented with a serious question.

J said...

Errr... Those decisions deserve serious present and historical scrutiny as well, to be sure, but... isn't it beside the point what Clinton did? Who's avoiding questions?

Just to remind you: The issue in discussion was whether or not Bush lied, then led us to war. Clinton has already been convicted of lying in the court of public opinion (and in real court, I suppose, over whether or not he had a bj... not your earth-moving perjury or distortions costing thousands of lives now, is it?) If you want to mention Clinton, then let's just remember that no matter what he & Albright said, we, er, DIDN'T go to war under 2 terms with those jokers. Not of this scale -- Operation Desert Fox blew people up with US bombs from far away, true, but less people and for more proven cause.

So let's review: Bush is lying now, AND he led us into a war that these new lies are meant to excuse. Other topics may be interesting in this light, but to the point being made, utterly irrelevant.

Justin Lollie dot com said...

Once again, Stalin and Sontag look cold, hard, verifiable facts and quotes square in the eye, then flinch right before curling up in a ball, holding their fingers in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs in a vain attempt to drown out reality. And they do it by assuming that their beloved Democrats weren't diligent enough to investigate the same intelligence and evidence that was privy to the Bush administration, evidence which would have supposedly turned their support in favor of Saddam's regime.

So which is it, my dear little moonbats? When Clinton bombed Iraq on the day the Lewinsky scandal hit critical mass, was he just too, oh, Idunno, BUSY to get the whole story about all of this intelligence that you seem so damned convinced of, this intelligence that exonerates Iraq under Saddam of any brand of wrongdoing, or violation of U.N. sanctions? I guess the military planted those mass graves, too, huh?

Or is it that Saddam Hussein really was a bad widdle boy when Clinton was in charge, and in spite of all realistic logic, all that finger-wagging from the U.N. was gonna work out, doggone it. Maybe he cleaned up his act right when Bush took office (oh, I'm sorry, I mean, "when he stole the election" -- I forgot I was addressing idiots; I'll try to speak your language)... so all that nasty stuff he did when Clinton ruled the world just kind of vanished once a Republican found his way into office, right? Clinton was telling the truth, but Bush lied. Is that what you're claiming?

I still can't figure out whether you two are willfully ignorant of reality, or just dumber than dryer lint. It must be a combination of the two. Still, I must thank you for the service you provide. Blogs like yours show the world that the heart and soul of the American left consists of obscene, sputtering morons who can barely function as human beings for all the manic rage and hatred directed towards your country and your fellow man, all fueled by the stark, unnerving reality that when you wake up in the morning, George W. Bush is still the president of the United States of America. You both seem like you're one dirty look or one American flag pin or one Support The Troops bumper sticker away from going on a shooting rampage, and if it weren't for all those "die-ins" and near-riots that International A.N.S.W.E.R. has put on over the past few years, you'd have snapped long ago. Makes me wonder what other addictions classify the two of you as "junkies."

Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well in Pittsburgh. Oh, but I'm just a stupid, reactionary wing-nut Bushitler supporter, so what do I know? (There, I just wrote your reply for you. You're welcome.)

Loogaroo said...

Don't even bother with anything else. We should just repeat over and over:

(BUSH LIED. x 337)


You mean you people don't already do that?

Why don't you try this one on for size:

CLINTON AND BUSH HAD THE SAME REASONS TO INVADE IRAQ, BUT BECAUSE WE IDOLIZE CLINTON AND DESPISE BUSH, WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY BUSH LIED AND HOPE NOBODY REMEMBERS CLINTON SAYING THE EXACT SAME THINGS.

Come to think of it, your line has a much better cadence. Never mind.

Maria said...

What you blatantly choose to ignore in the quotes you use is that Clinton was saying things like "capacity" and "program" and Bush and his minions were saying things like we know they have WMD's and we know where they are.

Moreover, Clinton was arguing for continued surveillance and strategic attacks not the all out war where we go in and become the hated occupiers with no exit strategy.

We had Saddam boxed in with no threat to us and very lettle loss of lives to our troops -- BUSHCO's BIG LIE was to cherry-pick the intelligence to convince the public otherwise.

Loogaroo said...

Will you stop and listen to yourself split hairs for a moment?

Just how would you suppose Clinton would have "den[ied] Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them" and "diminsh the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program"? A harshly-worded letter? Obviously, Clinton was just as eager to launch a military attack on Iraq as Bush was, in that he orchestrated a missile strike on Iraq the very day Monica Lewinsky was supposed to testify before the grand jury, with nary a word to Congress.

As for Bush "cherry-picking" intelligence, why don't you go ahead and say Joe Wilson lied instead, since he's the one who supplied Bush with the yellowcake intel?

(Oh wait, that's right - Wilson is right with you guys calling for Bush's head on a spike, so there's no way you're going to criticize him. By the way, don't you think it's a tad bit suspicious that the man who gave Bush the story about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake in Algeria is now one of the figureheads of the movement caterwauling that Bush lied? I mean, just a little?)

Fact of the matter is, Bush had to make a decision on a thuggish dictator who freely spent the lives of his innocent population as to whether or not he had the means to inflict massive harm on the US and his allies. His WMD stockpiles were already documented. Weapons inspectors discovered thousands of Al Samoud II missiles in Iraq's possession long after they were ordered to destroy them. The UN had ordered him on 17 separate occasions to prove that he had done away with his weapon programs, which could have been easily done by taking inspectors to the disposal sites of their weapons.

Nuclear centrifuges have since been discovered buried in people's rose gardens. Mobile weapons labs have been found littered across the Iraqi landscape. American troops did indeed find several tons of Ricin in Iraq's possession.

If you're to sit there with a straight and tell me that Iraq was an innocent nation that was persecuted by the oil-thirsty ambitions of a neocon president (which reminds me: exactly how much Iraqi oil have we received since we invaded Iraq? Answer: not a single drop), then I seriously hope you continue with your capricious bellyaching, because the more you chant "BUSH LIED KIDS DIED", the more idiotic and disconnected with reality you look.

Maria said...

"Will you stop and listen to yourself split hairs for a moment?"

Clinton did not go into Bagdad -- he did not declare war on them and occupy the country -- that's hardly splitting hairs.

As for Bush "cherry-picking" intelligence, why don't you go ahead and say Joe Wilson lied instead, since he's the one who supplied Bush with the yellowcake intel?

Ok, I get it now: you're completly insane. Here's the article that Wilson wrote in the NYT that got him Swift-Boated and his wife outed:

http://www.warmwell.com/04fev3joewilson.html

I'll quote from it:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

[snip]

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be
exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent
with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Loogaroo said...

I still think it's hilarious that you're using a known liar who can't get his story straight as your basis to try and demonize Bush. And for what it's worth, Wilson's report wasn't the only factor that led to Bush's decision to go into Iraq. There was also the fact that Saddam Hussein couldn't prove the fact that he had eliminated the WMDs known to have been in his possession, he had thousands of missiles that he shouldn't have had, and he was known to be involved in terrorist activities (such as giving $25,000 to families of suicide bombers).

And you're right, Clinton didn't go into Baghdad - he just lobbed a few cruise missiles at Iraq. Maybe if Ol' Willy had some balls and actually tried to do what Bush has done - take out the despotic hierarchy and rebuild the country from the ground up with a government that doesn't get its jollies filling mass graves - Joe Wilson wouldn't have had to fabricate any intelligence.

Maria said...

What color is the sky in your world?

Justin Lollie dot com said...

Owch. Loog, I think you made her cry.