Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
No President has lied so badly...
    #2085656 - 11/09/03 02:14 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=461946

'No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably'
By Andrew Gumbel
09 November 2003


"The intelligence process is a bit like virginity," says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. "Once you prostitute it, it's never the same. Your credibility never recovers.

"Watching what has happened with Iraq over the past several months has been like watching your daughter being raped."

Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administration's basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida - has been shown to have been built on air.

Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the President's daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short.

What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. "The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. That's very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we've seen to justify a war. This is an order of magnitude different. It's so blatant."

Mr McGovern accuses Mr Bush of an extraordinary act of chutzpah - taking advantage of his authority as President of the United States to make people believe there must be something to his insistent allegations that Iraq possessed potentially devastating weaponry.

"Many of us felt there had to be something there ... If this had been another country, one would have written a convincing analysis that this guy is lying through his teeth, that there are no weapons in Iraq. But people thought, the President can't say he knows something if he doesn't. That was persuasive, in a way.

"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."

It will, Mr McGovern believes, take a change of president and a change of CIA director to even begin to repair the damage done by what he sees as an overt politicisation of the intelligence business. But even that may not be enough.

"Unless what has happened in the past year and a half is recognised as a scandal, in which the CIA has been badly abused, then there's no hope," he said. "I pin my hopes mostly on the press these days. Turns out, surprise surprise, that even the US press doesn't like to be lied to."

:wink: :shocked:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2085837 - 11/09/03 04:13 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

"I pin my hopes mostly on the press these days.




.


That same press cares more about who sucks whose dink or not than war and such.

I think this guy's in for a letdown...


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilocybeingzz
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 14,463
Loc: International waters
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: carbonhoots]
    #2085901 - 11/09/03 05:04 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

""I pin my hopes mostly on the press these days."


"That same press cares more about who sucks whose dink or not than war and such."


So then pin your hopes on yourself, www.indymedia.org, I think some people underestimate the power of turning on the media by doing a better job.

Another important thing will be to take apart these HUGE blobs of shit they call media companys.

Who can talk about freedom and democracy(true democracy) and then say they dont mind their media being so condensed?


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2086106 - 11/09/03 08:41 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/08/powers/index.html

Here is an interview with intelligence expert Thomas Powers about how the Bush administration, through its lies and unwillingness to hear the truth, has effectively rendered the CIA impotent and imperiled US national security in the process. I had to paste the whole thing because you need to have a subscription to get access.

If this were a just world Bush would already be rotting in prison, but alas . . .

*******
The White House war with the CIA
Author Thomas Powers, an expert on U.S. spy agencies, wonders who will take the rap for 9/11 and the "horrific, calamitous" mistake in Iraq.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Follman



Nov. 8, 2003 ?|? While the nation's attention is focused on the slow-motion deterioration of Iraq, the White House for months has been at war on the home front -- clashing repeatedly with the CIA in a rare series of public disagreements. They've fought over intelligence that seemed to predict the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They've fought over whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They've fought over a seemingly vindictive White House leak that identified an undercover CIA agent.

According to Thomas Powers, a widely respected authority on the nation's spy business, that conflict has put the CIA -- and U.S. national security -- in peril.

"I think the agency is in terrible shape because of this," Powers told Salon in an interview. "It appears now that the CIA is actually incapable of operating in a hostile environment. It's afraid."

Powers is the author of "Intelligence Wars: American Secret History From Hitler to Al Qaeda." He says that the CIA, facing a demoralized rank and file and a lack of resources, is being effectively hamstrung by the Bush administration and compromised in its job of protecting national security. A big part of the danger is that U.S. intelligence, in the hands of an administration that views foreign policy through its own self-serving lens, has lost not just its autonomy, but essential assets. With the administration's focus shifting to the invasion earlier this year, crucial intelligence resources needed to battle al-Qaida around the globe -- as well as those now needed to secure and stabilize Iraq -- have been squandered. "We have practically nobody who can speak the language [in Iraq]," Powers says. "We're running the country with teenagers carrying machine guns."

As the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq keeps rising, evidence continues to accumulate that the Bush administration was determined to invade the country and topple Saddam Hussein, and was never interested in compromise. On Thursday several major news services reported that the Pentagon was offered a last-minute deal by high-level Iraqi officials, via an obscure Lebanese-American middleman, to avert the war. According to the New York Times, the U.S. government did not pursue the offer. The back-channel attempt, which allegedly would have made concessions to key U.S. foreign policy goals in Iraq, may not have been credible. But according to Powers, the Bush administration's apparent lack of interest in the offer fits a broader pattern in which it has parsed intelligence to fit its long-held plan for taking over Baghdad.

Even before the war, a faction within the intelligence community had begun to attack the administration for corrupting the intelligence system in its forced march to war. But since July, when former ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed that the administration knowingly used bogus intelligence to promote the war, it has grown increasingly vocal in its criticism. The administration retaliated against Wilson by leaking the identity of his wife, undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame -- yet another example, Powers says, of how the White House has no qualms about compromising national security in pursuit of its agenda. And the breakdown is almost unprecedented, he says. While the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident, which escalated the war in Vietnam in 1964, bears some comparison to the Iraq/Niger uranium scandal, Powers sees a more egregious scenario unfolding now.

"This [war] is more manufactured, more deliberate and more coldblooded. And it was done in plain sight. The whole world was watching and saying, 'No!'" he says. "My own feeling is we've embarked on a horrific, calamitous mistake in Iraq. We're already in a situation we have very little control over and very little ability to get out of, without leaving everything much worse off."

Salon reached Powers by phone at his home in Vermont on Thursday.

Since July when the phony Iraq/Niger uranium story first broke, a number of CIA veterans have been publicly condemning the Bush administration for corrupting the U.S. intelligence system. They're saying it's demoralizing to the agencies, and dangerous to national security. They're saying there is an unprecedented degree of manipulation by the White House. Is this an accurate assessment of what's going on?

Absolutely. I think we've never seen such a flagrant and disastrous misuse of the [intelligence] system.

If you think about the whole history of the run-up to the war, going back as far as 9/11, it seems that the CIA has been right on two occasions. First, it was right about 9/11. The agency was issuing a lot of warnings before it happened. The administration, for whatever reason, has refused to make a lot of documents available to Senate and other investigators, including the 9/11 Keane commission, and we don't know exactly why. But we have to assume there are things in those intelligence reports that these investigators want, which the administration does not want public. It's very unlikely that it's the fact that the CIA fell on its face and didn't offer any adequate warnings. It's the opposite: There's probably very explicit, maybe even uncomfortably close predictions of what would happen ...

Such as we began to see with the leaked presidential daily brief from Aug. 6, 2001, which warned of attacks by bin Laden inside the U.S. and described the potential for plane hijackings?

Right -- that would be the principal one. But of course, that brief is a daily publication; there are a hundred of them that the Keane commission would like to have a look at, and they haven't seen any of them. Yet all the evidence we do know of strongly suggests that the CIA was warning the White House vigorously.

Second, you have to ask, Why wasn't the White House livid with fury at the CIA for the failure to find WMD in Iraq? And the answer is, the CIA told the White House they never would. They must have been forthcoming when they said that they didn't know what there was, or where it was. There's really no solid way to interpret the judgments made in the [declassified] summary of the [October 2002] National Intelligence Estimate. It's vague. We don't know what's in the rest of the document, but it's pretty clear [the intelligence] community didn't know where anything was; they were unable to tell the U.N. inspectors how to find anything. They had four months when they could have led those weapons inspectors around anywhere in Iraq. They couldn't find anything, except what they found by accident in that military scrap heap, those 16 empty artillery shells that had been designed for chemical warheads. That was it; I mean it was really just junk -- certainly not the kind of usable weapon that would justify going to war.

Is the White House in uncharted waters here in terms of how it has manipulated intelligence and exercised executive power?

I think what the Bush administration has done is extremely dangerous. It has conducted what is essentially an illegal war. If circumstances were slightly different in the world, they would be facing a tribunal. It's not legal to go to war against somebody based on just some vague notion ... in this case, the administration was on constructive notice that the [intelligence community] didn't know where any of this WMD was. Their cause for war was weak and they knew it. But they wanted a war. They'd dreamed up a theory about how to make the world a better place and that included invading Iraq, toppling the government, and replacing it with one of their own construction.

It would be natural for the administration to try to blame the CIA, but on the other hand, there's a limit to the egregious charges it can bring without having the [intelligence community] protest. As you said, we've seen plenty of that protest over the past six months, whisperings and then angry bleats about misuse of intelligence and pressure from the White House to toe the line on things that were irrelevant or inaccurate.

What we're watching is the second time in 50 years when the United States got a bee in its bonnet that it wanted to go to war, with the premise that some "good thing" was going to come of it. In 1964 Lyndon Johnson's administration wanted to go to war with Vietnam, and they used the Gulf of Tonkin incident as the rationale. There were two alleged attacks on American naval ships -- there's a lot of complicated history about this -- but the essence of it is that one of the attacks never took place.

So how does the run-up to the Iraq invasion compare? In some ways it seems even more manufactured than Gulf of Tonkin.

It's more manufactured, more deliberate and more coldblooded. And it was done in plain sight. The whole world was watching and saying, "No!" We put tremendous pressure on all these countries at the U.N. to support a resolution, including impoverished ones from Africa and elsewhere, which are heavily dependent on U.S. aid, and we couldn't even persuade most of them to vote for it. But we did it anyway.

How does CIA director George Tenet fit into all this? Since July, he's looked as if he's been yanked in opposite directions, by his boss in the White House and by his own irate troops. Where does his allegiance ultimately come down between the two?

George Tenet is a wholly owned property of the White House. But he's definitely in a hard place. If we were to take all these claims [as reported by the Bush administration in the run-up to the war] at face value, the agency would have been completely wrong in what it told the administration about Iraqi WMD. So Tenet [in fearing for his job] is defending the agency as well as he can, saying it was an honest error, that the integrity of the process was not violated, etc. But clearly he knows the White House misused the intelligence, and he's also under the gun internally. You have to assume his hand was forced when he asked the Justice Department to investigate the Valerie Plame leak. Why else would he do it? That's asking for serious trouble inside the White House. Tenet would never call up the White House and say, "I woke up this morning and decided to get the Justice Department to investigate you." The call would have to be, "I woke up this morning and discovered I have a revolt on my hands at the agency, and I have no choice at all, I have to do this." It has to be that kind of an imperative for Tenet to clash with the White House like this.

So where do you see this battle between the CIA and the White House heading? So far the administration appears to be succeeding in stonewalling investigations by the Justice Department and by the Senate Intelligence Committee -- perhaps with the help of Bush ally and committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.

No doubt it could be extremely embarrassing to the White House, but it's kind of hard to read the whole thing. It seems like the Vietnam scenario [with regard to using manipulated intelligence to promote the war], but with its revelation played out at a much faster rate, as if the film has been speeded up immensely. There's already a lot to look at in terms of what Colin Powell and others said was going on in Iraq, and what [Bush administration chief arms inspector] David Kay has since reported. Kay found nothing that the administration had said we would. It wasn't a weak case -- there was no case at all. That's something you can't just explain away.

My own feeling is we've embarked on a horrific, calamitous mistake in Iraq. We're already in a situation we have very little control over and very little ability to get out of, without leaving everything much worse off. Historically when this kind of thing happens, everybody tries to prevent the consequences as long as they can and the process drags out; I would say this is probably good for 10 years now.

A lot of people have said the White House leak exposing the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife, undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, was an act of revenge for Wilson bringing the bogus Iraq/Niger intelligence to light. Do you believe it was purely a vindictive move by the White House? Or was there a bigger strategic reason, perhaps a way to discredit the agency, and thereby control it even more closely?

I think they were trying to suggest that Wilson had an ulterior motive or political ax to grind, first in coming back from Niger with the answer that he did, and second by making it public. They did Valerie Plame serious damage: She had an undercover career, and that's over. It's my guess that whoever made the leak, at that moment, had kind of forgotten they were breaking the law -- it seemed casual, a kind of a muddying-the-waters type of maneuver, just to raise questions about how and why Wilson was involved. It was meant to make the whole thing seem petty and small, rather than what it really was: that Wilson had gone to Niger and concluded there was nothing to the story [that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger], and that this had happened nine months before the president used it in his State of the Union speech anyway.

But how could a high-level leaker in the White House not know that it would be illegal to reveal an undercover CIA agent's identity?

If it wasn't a sloppy mistake, they may have comparably thought they could avoid being caught. And that's probably going to turn out to be the case. Still, I do think it would be possible for somebody under these circumstances not to really recognize they're committing a felony; it's been quite a while since this law was invoked [that revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a federal crime].

Do you think the CIA maintains any real authority or power to carry out its mission of protecting national security?

It's such an imperial intelligence service, so focused on Washington, so attentive to the White House. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of the administration. That leads to intense demoralization inside the organization. Everybody working below the top level or two must feel very badly used and abused, misunderstood and pissed off. It's very dangerous to our national security because it means we don't have an intelligence service that can actually operate. That service is supposed to tell you what's really going on in the world. It hasn't done that; it's gotten us involved in a serious war that we're going to have a hell of a time getting out of. At the moment, I think our national security is more endangered by the consequences of the war in Iraq than anything else. And nobody can really tell at this stage what those consequences are going to be.

How did Donald Rumsfeld's creation of the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon affect the current state of the CIA, and U.S. intelligence?

They wanted the war so badly that they were doing everything they could to create pressure for it. With the Office of Special Plans, they were essentially saying to the CIA, "OK, you're not giving us what we want, so we're going to create a new CIA."

I think the agency is in terrible shape because of this. But there's something that's even much more important: It appears now that the CIA is actually incapable of operating in a hostile environment. It's afraid. It stands offshore, trying to listen with technical ears and to watch with technical eyes, but it appears that it is actually afraid to go into dangerous places. The institution is afraid of getting hurt, of getting caught.

Can you elaborate on this? How does this connect to the apparent control of the agency by the White House?

In some ways it's been developing in this direction for a long time. But the clearest indication I've seen lately is [Rep.] Porter Goss [R-Fla., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] getting pissed off at the CIA for taking all these funds that were supposed to be used to train officers to speak Arabic, and using them for computer translation programs for documents. I think it's a fearfulness of [committing assets to] operating on the ground. Do you think American CIA officers are wandering around the streets of Baghdad right now? Have you read the recent accounts of what it takes to get into the U.S. headquarters in the [so-called] Green Zone there? We have virtually no actual human contact -- we're trying to do this in some kind of technical, remote-control television-commanded way.

What does the Iraq war and the Bush administration's handling of U.S. intelligence resources mean for the broader fight against al-Qaida in dozens of other places around the globe?

Well, it seems we had a lot of things going right. We had the cooperation of much of the world, and could operate in many of those other places. But we largely abandoned that: We pulled back large numbers of intelligence officers who were working on al-Qaida, and turned them to working on Iraq.

We've had about 1,300 people working in the Iraq Survey Group [the intelligence operation set up by the U.S. in early Sept. to hunt WMD in Iraq], but now they're actually talking about abandoning the rest of David Kay's mission because supposedly we need all of those Arabic speakers just to translate documents. But look, the world doesn't unfold on paper, it unfolds between people talking to each other. You can't figure out what all these militants are doing by just constantly reading telephone transcripts and e-mails and other stuff like that. It's just crazy to think that will give us a full handle on terrorist activity.

So the CIA lacks key assets as well as the autonomy it needs to operate effectively.

We're trying to fight a political war in Iraq. I think we're missing real human assets, and the ability to actually conduct many necessary operations. I think there's a delusional dependence on technological solutions. It's kind of like saying, "Hey, we could really save a whole lot of money if we just don't have any more first-grade teachers, we'll just have computers in the classrooms instead, and the kids will punch buttons." I think there's a tendency toward that throughout our whole society. It's not a good way to actually engage things.

Why would the Bush administration really want to operate this way? Why would they think it's a good approach to recasting a foreign country -- and maybe the greater Mideast region?

I think they're ignorant, and were overcome with arrogance in the belief that American power could handle anything, could do anything. Donald Rumsfeld, who's allegedly a smart guy, apparently could not think beyond our ability to destroy Saddam Hussein's army. It seems that it never occurred to him that we would have a political problem afterward that would be complicated.

But recently we learned that the State Department had in fact developed a major report forecasting the political and logistic complications that would follow an invasion of Iraq.

Well, maybe it's that [Rumsfeld and other administration hawks] had nobody really to deal with it. We have practically nobody who can speak the language and we're running the country with teenagers carrying machine guns.

In July and August the city of Baghdad suffered approximately a thousand murders a month. Who was killing who? Do we even know the answer to that question? The tentative answer is, people were getting revenge, or it was petty crimes, etc. I don't believe it for a minute. Those people, whoever they were, were settling who's going to run the country, in kind of a clandestine way. Look back at the Vietnam War: After it was over we discovered that the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong had been running thousands of agents throughout South Vietnam. Thousands. The United States never had one agent reporting from high levels in North Vietnam, or inside the National Liberation Front, the Viet Cong -- not one.

So you're saying the U.S. post-invasion plan for Iraq -- already seemingly very thin -- has this same dangerous gap.

Yes, but we've almost never seen a mistake of this scale unfold in such vivid slow-motion. It's all there, right in front of us right now. We're walking around in that country with no idea what's going on around us. We can't understand any conversation, and we know so little. You may think I'm exaggerating -- and God willing I am. But I don't think so. We don't know who the enemy is, or who we're dealing with, and we can't talk to them. They could all be sitting in a room talking to each other right now about how to kill the Americans, and we would never know. I think an awful lot of that is going on over there as we speak.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #2086172 - 11/09/03 10:29 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administration's basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida - has been shown to have been built on air.

The amazing thing is how many right-wingers sucked this shit right up unquestioningly. Particularly evident on this board.

They swallowed that shit so bad they were even cussing out Scott Ritter for suggesting maybe Iraq didn't have WMD. Strange how easy some people can be fooled.

The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."

What else can you presume?  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: Xlea321]
    #2086199 - 11/09/03 11:04 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."

What else can you presume?



That's why so few here take anything you have to say as fact.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 841
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2086257 - 11/09/03 12:00 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Pot? Kettle? Hellooo?


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: GernBlanston]
    #2086259 - 11/09/03 12:03 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Show me where I've been dishonest.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2086296 - 11/09/03 12:25 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

You back up and apologize for the biggest liar in this country's history.I would say that takes either dishonesty or blindness....
WR:rasta:
PS. I already am a member of the NRA :wink: 


--------------------
To old for this place


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2086299 - 11/09/03 12:26 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Ok, I've searched the database and read all of your posts. I didn't find one instance where you were dishonest. Others? Plenty.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2086304 - 11/09/03 12:29 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

That's why so few here take anything you have to say as fact.

Instead of the same tired old flaming you've been repeating for 12 months why not, for once, explain to us why we should believe anything Bush says. Make a point for once, don't just flame.

Here's the statement again:

"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: ]
    #2086307 - 11/09/03 12:30 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Dishonest? Maybe not. Talking out his ass? Plenty of times.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: silversoul7]
    #2086314 - 11/09/03 12:34 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Other than Pinksharkmark I haven't known one other member here who hasn't done that.

But we really should get back to the topic.  Our president hasn't lied and is the most honorable man to sit in the oval office in a decade.  :lol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: ]
    #2086319 - 11/09/03 12:37 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

I'll assume the :lol: means your joking, and if not, I'll assume you need psychiatric treatment.


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


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: silversoul7]
    #2086328 - 11/09/03 12:41 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Yes, the first part was a joke. But the last part definitely wasn't. The last decade only leaves one other prez.

In case anyone was wondering lying is a part of every politician's job because it is assumed the American people cannot be trusted with the truth. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply naive.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinest0nedphucker
Rogue State
Male
Registered: 04/17/03
Posts: 1,047
Loc: Wales (yes it is a countr...
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: ]
    #2086332 - 11/09/03 12:44 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

*claps*


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: whiterasta]
    #2086586 - 11/09/03 03:19 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

whiterasta said:
You back up and apologize for the biggest liar in this country's history.I would say that takes either dishonesty or blindness....
WR:rasta:
PS. I already am a member of the NRA :wink: 


Wrong, I merely correct errors that are written here. I've also never apologized for him.

Try getting your facts straight.

P.S. I'm glad you're a member.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: ]
    #2086588 - 11/09/03 03:20 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Mr_Mushrooms said:
Ok, I've searched the database and read all of your posts. I didn't find one instance where you were dishonest. Others? Plenty.



Thanks. I pride myself on being honest.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: Xlea321]
    #2086590 - 11/09/03 03:21 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

It wasn't a flame Alpo. I could see where you might wish it to be though.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,778
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: No President has lied so badly... [Re: silversoul7]
    #2086591 - 11/09/03 03:22 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
Dishonest?  Maybe not.  Talking out his ass?  Plenty of times. 


:lol:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Which president told the biggest whoppers?
( 1 2 3 all )
Edame 2,170 52 09/06/03 01:31 AM
by afoaf
* IS BUSH THE WORST US PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME???
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Cornholio 4,474 102 09/06/03 05:56 PM
by fireworks_god
* How Should the Next President Deal with the Bush White House's Crimes? janx 383 1 08/03/08 08:58 PM
by Prisoner#1
* President Bush
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ACN45 3,174 74 03/13/06 07:24 PM
by mack_tasticlies
* article - Republican Presidents And War Crimes - Nothing New grib 712 4 05/20/04 07:50 PM
by silversoul7
* Columbia disaster a bad omen? EchoVortex 427 1 02/07/03 05:59 PM
by hongomon
* Should we be suprised that Bush was caught in another lie?
( 1 2 all )
fft2 1,261 21 06/18/04 07:00 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Is Don't Vote.com a good or bad idea? solemntruth 499 1 10/31/06 06:22 AM
by solemntruth

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,419 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.163 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.