Why Does the Christian Right Embrace a Lying President ? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 09-02-2005, 07:56 AM

What can it be, besides hypocrisy and a lust for "earthly" power and wealth that would compell supposed "spiritual" leaders of conservative christians in the U.S., to continue to predictably and reflexively support, rather than to question or condemn, the repeated and obvious lies that emerge from the lips of President Bush, especially during major national crises?

Quote:

http://www.nola.com/hurricane/t-p/ka...TERPLAN31.html

More From The Times-Picayune | Subscribe To The Times-Picayune
Feds' Disaster Planning Shifts Away From Preparedness

August 31, 2005
By BILL WALSH, BRUCE ALPERT And JOHN McQUAID
c.2005 Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON - No one can say they didn't see it coming......

excerpts are from an article by Sheila Grissett which appeared in the June 8th, 2004 edition of the Times-Picayune.)

For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant earthen berms that won't be finished for at least another decade.

"I guess people look around and think there's a complete system in place, that we're just out here trying to put icing on the cake," said Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers. "And we aren't saying that the sky is falling, but people should know that this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to do before there is a complete system in place."

Quote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...8,print.story?
HURRICANE KATRINA: THE LEVEES

HURRICANE-PROTECTION PROJECTS

Flood-control funds short of requests
Advertisement

[0]

By Andrew Martin and Andrew Zajac
Washington Bureau

September 1, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Despite continuous warnings that a catastrophic hurricane could hit New Orleans, the Bush administration and Congress in recent years have repeatedly denied full funding for hurricane preparation and flood control.

That has delayed construction of levees around the city and stymied an ambitious project to improve drainage in New Orleans' neighborhoods.

For instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and Congress eventually provided $5.7 million, according to figures provided by the office of U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

Because of the shortfalls, which were caused in part by the rising costs of the war in Iraq, the corps delayed seven contracts that included enlarging the levees, according to corps documents.

Much of the devastation in New Orleans was caused by breaches in the levees, which sent water from Lake Pontchartrain pouring into the city. Since much of the city is below sea level, the levee walls acted like the walls of a bowl that filled until as much as 80 percent of the city was under water.

Similarly, the Army Corps requested $78 million for this fiscal year for projects that would improve draining and prevent flooding in New Orleans. The Bush administration's budget provided $30 million for the projects, and Congress ultimately approved $36.5 million, according to Landrieu's office.

"I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have," said Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, when he was ousted after publicly criticizing a Bush administration proposal to cut the corps' budget........

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509020001
On the September 1 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, President Bush acted as though the breach of the levees was an unforeseeable fluke occurrence: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

But, as news reports in the Tribune, Times-Picayune and elsewhere made clear, plenty of people did anticipate the breech. The Army Corps of Engineers, for example, wanted to enlarge levees and improve drainage. But it couldn't, because the Bush administration and Congress didn't give it the money it needed.

So when Bush told ABC's Diane Sawyer during an exclusive interview (video here) that nobody could have "anticipated the breach of the levees," surely she challenged him on his claim? Surely she said, "Wait a minute, Mr. President: the Army Corps of Engineers wanted more money to prevent exactly that. They must have anticipated something. The New Orleans Times-Picayune concluded yesterday that 'No one can say they didn't see it coming.' A former Republican congressman who headed the Corps of Engineers in your own administration lost his job after he publicly criticized your efforts to cut the Corps' budget. How can you say nobody saw this coming?"

But instead, Sawyer simply moved on to her next question:

SAWYER: And in fact Mr. President, this morning, as we speak, as you say, there are people with signs saying help, come get me. People still in the attic, waving. Nurses are phoning in saying the situation in hospitals is getting ever more dire, that the nurses are getting sick now because of no clean water. And some of the things they have asked our correspondents to ask you, they expected, they say to us, that the day after this hurricane that there would be a massive and visible armada of federal support. There would be boats coming in. There would be food, there would be water. And it would be there within hours. They wondered what's taking so long.

BUSH: Well, there's a lot of food on its way, a lot of water on the way, and there's a lot of boats and choppers headed that way. Boats and choppers headed that way. It takes a while to float them. For example, [the USS] Iwo Jima is coming from the East Coast of the United States toward New Orleans. And people have got to know that there is a massive relief -- the most -- most massive federal relief effort ever in combination with state and local authorities. And there's a lot of help coming.

SAWYER: But given the fact that everyone anticipated a hurricane [Category] Five, a possible hurricane Five hitting shore, are you satisfied with the pace at which this is arriving? And at which it was planned to arrive?

BUSH: Well, I fully understand people wanting things to have happened yesterday. I mean, I understand the -- anxiety of people on the ground. I can imagine -- I just can't imagine what it's like to be waving a sign that says, "Come and get me now." So there is frustration. But I want people to know there is a lot of help coming. I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached, and as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will.

SAWYER: A couple of quick questions about the concerns. ...

So...what we have is the record of President Bush making public declarations that are obvious falsehoods, after two major disasters, with the intent of deflecting efforts to assign blame or responsibility to him or to his administration.........

Quote:

Bush speaking on ABC TV, Sept. 1, 2005:

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

As i've posted on this forum before, on Sept. 16, 2001, days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared that no one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. Big events bigger lies.

Why is there no outrage or condemnation of Bush expressed by his religious "base"?

raveneye · 09-02-2005, 08:02 AM

Short answer: because he's their lying president.

filtherton · 09-02-2005, 08:03 AM

I'd imagine it's because the christian right is itself full of people incapable of intellectual honesty. They see bush as a means to achieve their goals in suppressing the freedom of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their quaint, parareligious, contradictive belief system. It's kind've like how many liberals embraced kerry, even though he was a pro-war, pro-business douchebag.

j8ear · 09-02-2005, 08:14 AM

I suspect you could replace 'christian right' with 'liberal' in every single sentence in this thread and answer your own question.

Your answer will probably look a lot like raveneyes post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

....kerry, even though he was a pro-war, pro-business douchebag.

/appreciates that filtherton quote immensely.

-bear

samcol · 09-02-2005, 11:42 AM

I'm so tired of Bush being referred to as a Christian it's not even funny. Clearly his actions do not represent what the book teaches.

filtherton · 09-02-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I'm so tired of Bush being referred to as a Christian it's not even funny. Clearly his actions do not represent what the book teaches.

Perhaps, but his actions are parallel to the actions of some of the most powerful and public representatives of christianity. I don't think he's that christian either, but then again, i don't think the majority of the christian right has any clue as to what jesus was about.

samcol · 09-02-2005, 02:07 PM

Just listened to his speech....

Is it possible to be more out of touch with reality? I don't even know how to describe how disgusted I am.

host · 09-05-2005, 07:51 AM

I do not think that enough can ever be documented, noted, distributed, and protested, concerning the pattern of lies that eminate from the lips of our criminal president, especially when large numbers of us are in crisis, agravated by the incompetence and deceit of these same leaders, passing themselves off as the champions of the "christian right", whoi fund them, vote for them, appologize for them, and cheer them on !

Quote:

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml%3Fpid%3...exercise&hl=en
...........at one point Diane Sawyer asked him to respond to the frustration people were feeling with the apparently slow and disorganized federal response to the crisis. After promising that help was on the way, Bush explained that a faster response was not possible because it was not possible to imagine this kind of catastrophe.
Sorry, but that just isn't true. Not only has the prospect of a hurricane breaking through the levees and <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10180">flooding the entire city</a> been the subject of <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313">widespread media coverage</a>, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) actually practiced for precisely this scenario just over a year ago.

As a summary report of the exercise explains, in the simulation FEMA gathered emergency response officials to see how they would respond to a fake storm named Pam that devastated New Orleans just as the real-life storm, Katrina, now has:

BATON ROUGE, La. -- Hurricane Pam brought sustained winds of 120 mph, up to 20 inches of rain in parts of southeast Louisiana and storm surge that topped levees in the New Orleans area. More than one million residents evacuated and Hurricane Pam destroyed 500,000-600,000 buildings. Emergency officials from 50 parish, state, federal and volunteer organizations faced this scenario during a five-day exercise held this week at the State Emergency Operations Center in Baton Rouge.

The exercise used realistic weather and damage information developed by the National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the LSU Hurricane Center and other state and federal agencies to help officials develop joint response plans for a catastrophic hurricane in Louisiana.

"We made great progress this week in our preparedness efforts," said Ron Castleman, FEMA Regional Director. "Disaster response teams developed action plans in critical areas such as search and rescue, medical care, sheltering, temporary housing, school restoration and debris management. These plans are essential for quick response to a hurricane but will also help in other emergencies."

"Hurricane planning in Louisiana will continue," said Colonel Michael L. Brown, Deputy Director for Emergency Preparedness, Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. "Over the next 60 days, we will polish the action plans developed during the Hurricane Pam exercise. We have also determined where to focus our efforts in the future."

You can read the full summary <a href="http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051">here</a>, including the agency's finding that it would need to operate 1,000 shelters for 100 days while establishing special medical and search-and-rescue operations to take care of those left in the city.

The report doesn't say how the simulation went. And, in any event, simulations are never quite like the real thing. Still, it's clear FEMA knew very well that New Orleans could be facing exactly the sort of crisis it now faces. And the apparent confusion and delays that have beset its response certainly raise some questions about why the agency--and those who oversee it--didn't do a better job.

UPDATE: Knight-Ridder has <a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm">more</a> about the simulation. It also solicits expert opinion on the response so far--and the verdict is pretty damning:

WASHINGTON -- The federal government so far has bungled the job of quickly helping the multitudes of hungry, thirsty and desperate victims of Hurricane Katrina, former top federal, state and local disaster chiefs said Wednesday.

The experts, including a former Bush administration disaster response manager, told Knight Ridder that the government wasn't prepared, scrimped on storm spending and shifted its attention from dealing with natural disasters to fighting the global war on terrorism.

The disaster preparedness agency at the center of the relief effort is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was enveloped by the new Department of Homeland Security with a new mission aimed at responding to the attacks of al-Qaida.

"What you're seeing is revealing weaknesses in the state, local and federal levels," said Eric Tolbert, who until February was FEMA's disaster response chief. "All three levels have been weakened. They've been weakened by diversion into terrorism."

In interviews on Wednesday, several men and women who've led relief efforts for dozens of killer hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes over the years chastised current disaster leaders for forgetting the simple Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.

Bush administration officials said they're proud of their efforts. Their first efforts emphasized rooftop rescues over providing food and water for already safe victims.

"We are extremely pleased with the response of every element of the federal government (and) all of our federal partners have made to this terrible tragedy," Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said during a news conference Wednesday in Washington.
--Jonathan Cohn

Quote:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...g/12557559.htm
............Thursday, Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about exactly that risk.

So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can’t-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.

We have all been here before...."the pattern of lies" seems right out of the movie, "Ground Hog Day". Thank heavens for Fox "news"....Bush's apologists and enablers would have new heaps of reality to twist and to deny, if not for the "look at the looters" coverage that they watch, over and over.

Bush said the following to the press (it is still available on the white house website), just 5 days after 9/11.............

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.............

Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...................

Quote:

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates
scenarios in preparing for emergencies
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan
MDW News Service

Exercise SimulationsWashington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard.

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in509471.shtml
'99 Report Warned Of Suicide Hijacking

WASHINGTON, May 17, 2002

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said U.S. intelligence long has known a suicide hijacker was a possible threat.

(AP) Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building......
(Edited to add lil "dots" between the quoted article segments.)

......"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

Wake the Fuck up, America, moveon.org and Michael Moore are not the enemy. You criminal, lying POTUS, Geroge W Bush is a much more plausible suspect for that "honor". Ted Kennedy killed one woman, 36 summers ago.
...and you think that I'm the one who is too "shrill", here ?????

Bodyhammer86 · 09-05-2005, 09:26 AM

Host, I give your posts about as much thought as the "bLuD fOr O!L!1!1!" trolls on the DU and Moveon.org.

host · 09-05-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Host, I give your posts about as much thought as the "bLuD fOr O!L!1!1!" trolls on the DU and Moveon.org.

Bodyhammer86; the irony is lost on you, I guess. My "posts" consist primarily of undisputed reports from the MSM and other reliable and authorative sources. Your comments are an indication of the state of denial that you and like minded folks must dwell in, to enable this recent degradation of America, and the assault on common sense that makes it all possible.

I'm not the problem, but the information that I post for the benefit of distracted but less ideological people to mull over, if they choose to.....is a part of a possible solution.

Your comments speak for themselves. Attack and attempt to discredit me, by innuendo, first....debate and rebut my arguments and citations with reliable and convincing ones of your own......never !

Bodyhammer86 · 09-05-2005, 12:22 PM

You give the benefit of the doubt to and praise the Downing Street Memos as damning evidence of Bush lying about the war, which is more than enough to toss your credibility out the window. Here's my favorite part of the article:

Quote:

The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material

You know, I’d have a lot more “outrage” about the Downing Street Memo if it were somehow more credible. The reporter who broke the story in the British papers claims to have made a copy on an old typewriter of the transcripts from a clerk who allegedly attended the meeting, and then burned his original copy.

It all sounds so “Rathergatesque” to me that I can’t put any faith into the document. Imagine digging up an old typewriter to transcribe notes in this day and age, and then pre-aging them by photocopying them several times before presenting “the smoking gun” to the public. How convenient(and dramatic) versus credible does the claim of “burning the originals to protect the source” sound? I’d have to go with “convenient”.

I say until the source is identified, and some actual transcripts ( not fifteenth generation transcribed and photocopied notes)are presented, I’ll leave the barking about the DMS’s to the moonbats.

tecoyah · 09-05-2005, 12:36 PM

I could have sworn this thread was about the christian right embracing Bush regardless of the dishonesty. If indeed the dishonesty is in question then perhaps we can address this aspect......but please, lets not attack each other as it serves no real purpose.

Remember...we have a back button

Marvelous Marv · 09-05-2005, 02:54 PM

Host, you have a great talent for pointing out mistakes made by this administration (In HINDSIGHT).

If you will post, right now, what and where the next terrorist attack will be, and how much we should spend to prevent it, I will acknowledge your wisdom. You don't have to give an exact date, but I think it's reasonable to require that you be within a month of it.

Same goes for our next natural disaster.

Until you can do that, I'm not terribly impressed with all of the crap you throw against the wall as an armchair quarterback.

djtestudo · 09-05-2005, 03:43 PM

The quoted passages from the first article do not match the link.

You also left part of the second article out:

Quote:

Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the corps' chief of engineers, said late Wednesday that the corps' requests cited in Landrieu's figures were the amount that would be needed to finish the work in a given year. But he said the corps, working with the administration, rarely requests the full amount in the budget.

"There are limited resources and there are huge demands on it," he said. "Very rarely do we fund at full capability."

Even if the projects had been funded at the highest amounts, Strock said it might not have changed the situation in downtown New Orleans. He said the levee near the 17th Street Canal, where one of the breaches occurred that emptied water into the city, was fully completed.

Sun Tzu · 09-05-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

.....is a part of a possible solution.

This might sway too far out of the topic, and maybe worthy of a thread of its own- let's assume the information is credible; what do you think a realistic solution is?

aswo · 09-06-2005, 02:56 PM

I agree hindsight is 20/20, constantly saying bush is stupid, and irresponsible doesn't help anything

keyshawn · 09-06-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

You give the benefit of the doubt to and praise the Downing Street Memos as damning evidence of Bush lying about the war, which is more than enough to toss your credibility out the window. Here's my favorite part of the article: You know, I’d have a lot more “outrage” about the Downing Street Memo if it were somehow more credible. The reporter who broke the story in the British papers claims to have made a copy on an old typewriter of the transcripts from a clerk who allegedly attended the meeting, and then burned his original copy.

It all sounds so “Rathergatesque” to me that I can’t put any faith into the document. Imagine digging up an old typewriter to transcribe notes in this day and age, and then pre-aging them by photocopying them several times before presenting “the smoking gun” to the public. How convenient(and dramatic) versus credible does the claim of “burning the originals to protect the source” sound? I’d have to go with “convenient”.

I say until the source is identified, and some actual transcripts ( not fifteenth generation transcribed and photocopied notes)are presented, I’ll leave the barking about the DMS’s to the moonbats.

Hey,

Even as a bush critic, I agree with you. I'm a bit perplexed with the liberals focus their attention on unverified sources in order to back up their claims as 'bush being a liar.' However, the evidence that our President is reactive and does not focus attention on certain things is quite numerous, verified by the AP, Mainstream media, and other prominent sources; as host has stated in original post.

Although I do not agree with this position, some of his supporters believe that he's not culpable for his lies, as he was relying upon sources and information that eventually became incorrect, and as well as the reason that he was ignorant. Also, JFK and many other members of Congress were 'duped' on this same incorrect information [pertaining to the military actions against Hussein's regime]. A key difference that separates the left and the right is that, as President, GWB should be responsible for verification of the intelligence and information that he receives.

The outraged moderate,
keyshawn

Lasereth · 09-06-2005, 04:58 PM

I can't argue much about this topic due to my...lacking political knowledge, but I do find it funny that a few members were berating the President for being a liar and then praising Michael Moore. There is no getting around it: Michael Moore is a liar. A public liar. His movies are great forms of persuasion and are very thoughtful, but within these movies are lies, plain and simple. Being on the side of someone who exaggerates to the extremes and even lies in his movie productions is no better than blindly following a "lying" President.

Keyshawn brings up a good point as well -- the President may be presenting false information to the public, but I highly doubt that he is told to lie or is lying on his own behalf. It's most likely information that is transferred to him through close outlets. I do agree that this is a faulty procedure and that such information should be closely inspected, but calling the President a "liar" due to false information being given to him is ignorant. That's the same act as calling the initial 9/11 death toll providers as liars...it's not a lie, it's just a serious lack of information verification.

-Lasereth

djtestudo · 09-06-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I can't argue much about this topic due to my...lacking political knowledge, but I do find it funny that a few members were berating the President for being a liar and then praising Michael Moore. There is no getting around it: Michael Moore is a liar. A public liar. His movies are great forms of persuasion and are very thoughtful, but within these movies are lies, plain and simple. Being on the side of someone who exaggerates to the extremes and even lies in his movie productions is no better than blindly following a "lying" President.

Check my signature

Quote:

Keyshawn brings up a good point as well -- the President may be presenting false information to the public, but I highly doubt that he is told to lie or is lying on his own behalf. It's most likely information that is transferred to him through close outlets. I do agree that this is a faulty procedure and that such information should be closely inspected, but calling the President a "liar" due to false information being given to him is ignorant. That's the same act as calling the initial 9/11 death toll providers as liars...it's not a lie, it's just a serious lack of information verification.

-Lasereth

That is an important point. He doesn't just pull what he says out of his ass, he actually gets it from other people who have that job, and probably had it under Clinton, H.W. Bush, and further.

You can say what you wish about the information provided, but calling it lies is a lie in itself.

n0nsensical · 09-06-2005, 08:44 PM

Observing the difference between fact and fiction is not exactly their strong suit.

host · 09-06-2005, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I can't argue much about this topic due to my...lacking political knowledge, but I do find it funny that a few members were berating the President for being a liar and then praising Michael Moore. There is no getting around it: Michael Moore is a liar. A public liar. His movies are great forms of persuasion and are very thoughtful, but within these movies are lies, plain and simple. Being on the side of someone who exaggerates to the extremes and even lies in his movie productions is no better than blindly following a "lying" President.

Keyshawn brings up a good point as well -- the President may be presenting false information to the public, but I highly doubt that he is told to lie or is lying on his own behalf. It's most likely information that is transferred to him through close outlets. I do agree that this is a faulty procedure and that such information should be closely inspected, but calling the President a "liar" due to false information being given to him is ignorant. That's the same act as calling the initial 9/11 death toll providers as liars...it's not a lie, it's just a serious lack of information verification.

-Lasereth

My response here also speaks to comments posted by aswo, djestudo, and Marvelous Marv.....

My three past posts on this thread have been almost exclusively confined to my thoroughly (and so far, unchallenged, as to the citations I've offered to back my two examples of outrageous Bush lies) documented background information related to the following quotes of Bush's comments recorded by the media shortly after two unprecedented disasters.......

Quote:

Bush speaking on ABC TV, Sept. 1, 2005:

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

Bush, speaking to reporters on Sept. 16, 2001

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.............

I've posted multiple MSM news reports and commentary to back my point that it is not reasonable to defend either of Bush's "post disaster" attempts to deflect blame or responsibility via very similar, untrue statements.

Please attempt to refute the documentation that I've posted to back my contention that, in the two most important incidents that have occured during Bush's presidency, he has chosen to make very similar statements shortly after each event that are not just misleading, but intentionally and obviously false. This pattern now is so obvious, that Bush's base, the Christian Right, are perceived by a growing number of Americans, to be supporting an obvious liar.

Quote:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-08-05-voa49.cfm
By VOA News
05 August 2005
.......Respondents who consider Mr. Bush honest has dropped slightly, with 50 percent now saying they do not consider the president truthful.

Political observers say any further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Mr. Bush to win support for his domestic and international priorities.........

Instead of challenging my documentation, you are reduced to calling me "ignorant", full of "hate", and you make the claim that posting the comment that "Michael Moore is not the enemy", is akin to supporting a POTUS who has lied about his own knowledge concerning the two greatest crises that he has faced as our president.

Can we get back on track? How is either of the Bush quotes, in the face of the other info I've posted about 9/11 plane hijackings and about what was known before the New Orlean levees failed, not an obvious and intentional lie to the American people. during a time of a great crisis ? Facts have to matter. My reaction to what Bush has said is one of outrage, based on the facts.

To ignore the facts and defend Bush despite two of his greatest lies, while making no effort to dispute the evidence that makes the case for him being
a liar who openly betrays the trust placed in him by the American people in a time of crisis, not once, but twice, should be recorded for all to see.

Lasereth · 09-07-2005, 07:05 AM

I can't offer any political knowledge here because it's simply not one of my strong points or hobbies. One of my hobbies is movies, however, hence my Michael Moore comment. Many Republicans may blindly follow Bush even though he's been fed false information and is taking it as true, but Democrats aren't out of the water...many of them blindly follow Michael Moore's movies that bash the POTUS without even checking to see if HIS information is true. It's not. He's a liar, just as many say Bush is a liar. His movies are not made to give insight to the American public on the POTUS, but rather turn them against him at all costs, even if it means lying and using persuasion/exaggerating techniques to do it.

-Lasereth

stevo · 09-07-2005, 07:15 AM

Host - everynight I go to bed happy knowing that you only get 1 vote every 2 years.

smooth · 09-07-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I can't offer any political knowledge here because it's simply not one of my strong points or hobbies. One of my hobbies is movies, however, hence my Michael Moore comment. Many Republicans may blindly follow Bush even though he's been fed false information and is taking it as true, but Democrats aren't out of the water...many of them blindly follow Michael Moore's movies that bash the POTUS without even checking to see if HIS information is true. It's not. He's a liar, just as many say Bush is a liar. His movies are not made to give insight to the American public on the POTUS, but rather turn them against him at all costs, even if it means lying and using persuasion/exaggerating techniques to do it.

-Lasereth

Lasereth, I don't understand why you keep bringing Michale Moore up except as a tactic to completely avoid the thread's point. No liberal or democrat has brought him up here, nothing he has produced is even remotely relevant to what Host posted about, and about the only way you can tie it in is that host's allegations that the president lied about no one conceiving of this sort of thing happening before it did mirrors his earlier assertions that no one had an inkling that something like the WTC disaster could ever occur. And Michael Moore made a movie about how he felt about the president's presentation of the motives behind the war.

That's one of the most bizarre linkage I have yet to see.
Host didn't even call into question anything related to the war...first of all.

He's only alleging that the president keeps telling the public that these disasters could never have been imagined...and then evidence surfaces that, yes, many people did in fact imagine and write about precisely this occuring. So unless President Bush wasn't aware of any of these predictions he flat out lied to the public.

Then host makes the claim that unless the president really didn't have knowledge that his cabinet and intelligence community were aware that OBL was determined to attack the US and that he might even use planes to do it, he lied that no one in the US was remotely aware of that possibility.

Doesn't it seem more logical to argue that the president wasn't aware of that evidence than to reply that Michael Moore makes shit up!?

These kinds of responses are the basis for much frustration from a lot of people, much less liberals.
"Hey, what the hell, the civil engineers have been warning for years that the levees were gonna break. How could President Bush just state on national television that no one thought a disaster like this could occur so don't go blaming anyone just yet?"
"Huh, well, Jane Fonda was a traitor and posed with the enemy in Vietnam."

WTF? It's like the equivalent of trying to talk to a two year old in the sandbox when he's plugging his ears and shouting, "nanananana!"

smooth · 09-07-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Host - everynight I go to bed happy knowing that you only get 1 vote every 2 years.

That's your parting thought as you drift off to sleep?
What a ridiculous statement. On its face your retort is purely flippant and rude to host.

You want respect from people on this forum? You ought to quit attacking host..I haven't once seem him personally attack you.

aswo · 09-07-2005, 08:41 AM

Bush never anticipated september 11th, or the levee's breaking in new orleans. He might not of made the right decisions following the disaster, but that is quite different than intentionally lieing

smooth · 09-07-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aswo

Bush never anticipated september 11th, or the levee's breaking in new orleans. He might not of made the right decisions following the disaster, but that is quite different than intentionally lieing

You make a good point.
If he were interested in personal respnsibility and honesty, wouldn't it be better to state that "I didn't anticipate these events" rather than "No one anticipated them?"

The facts and truth are that people did anticipate them...and published their concerns. Their concerns have been in the public domain for years now.

tecoyah · 09-07-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Host - everynight I go to bed happy knowing that you only get 1 vote every 2 years.

I just noticed this.......and wonder at the use of it

Let us hope such insults do not become .....prevelant

Lasereth · 09-07-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Lasereth, I don't understand why you keep bringing Michale Moore up except as a tactic to completely avoid the thread's point. No liberal or democrat has brought him up here, nothing he has produced is even remotely relevant to what Host posted about, and about the only way you can tie it in is that host's allegations that the president lied about no one conceiving of this sort of thing happening before it did mirrors his earlier assertions that no one had an inkling that something like the WTC disaster could ever occur. And Michael Moore made a movie about how he felt about the president's presentation of the motives behind the war.

That's one of the most bizarre linkage I have yet to see.
Host didn't even call into question anything related to the war...first of all.

He's only alleging that the president keeps telling the public that these disasters could never have been imagined...and then evidence surfaces that, yes, many people did in fact imagine and write about precisely this occuring. So unless President Bush wasn't aware of any of these predictions he flat out lied to the public.

Then host makes the claim that unless the president really didn't have knowledge that his cabinet and intelligence community were aware that OBL was determined to attack the US and that he might even use planes to do it, he lied that no one in the US was remotely aware of that possibility.

Doesn't it seem more logical to argue that the president wasn't aware of that evidence than to reply that Michael Moore makes shit up!?

These kinds of responses are the basis for much frustration from a lot of people, much less liberals.
"Hey, what the hell, the civil engineers have been warning for years that the levees were gonna break. How could President Bush just state on national television that no one thought a disaster like this could occur so don't go blaming anyone just yet?"
"Huh, well, Jane Fonda was a traitor and posed with the enemy in Vietnam."

WTF? It's like the equivalent of trying to talk to a two year old in the sandbox when he's plugging his ears and shouting, "nanananana!"

host mentioned Michael Moore in one of his posts. I can't stand it when people don't know the truth about Moore, so any time he is mentioned I sort of go off on a tangent about him. It was mentioned that Moore is not the enemy. Well, he's a liar, so I guess Bush isn't the enemy either. One might argue that Moore has no effect on citizens and that Bush is the POTUS...but this entire thread is based on lying. I know MM isn't the point of this thread, and I'm not meaning to argue that Bush isn't a liar. What I will argue to the death is using Michael Moore in any form of positive way concerning politics.

-Lasereth

maximusveritas · 09-07-2005, 03:16 PM

To be honest, I've never seen a conclusive example of either George W. Bush or Michael Moore lying. I've seen plenty of examples of them getting something wrong. But that doesn't prove that they lied.

Lebell · 09-07-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

To be honest, I've never seen a conclusive example of either George W. Bush or Michael Moore lying. I've seen plenty of examples of them getting something wrong. But that doesn't prove that they lied.

I've posted several concrete, no-doubt-about-it, conclusive examples of MM lying.

One of the very top of my head is what MM says the plaque under the Diamond Lil says and what it really says. (See BFC).

I've read the thing myself and it doesn't say what he says it says. MM lied about it to make a point in his "documentary".

edit: can't take it back, but I can remove it. Sorry to get off track.

host · 09-07-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

host mentioned Michael Moore in one of his posts. I can't stand it when people don't know the truth about Moore, so any time he is mentioned I sort of go off on a tangent about him. It was mentioned that Moore is not the enemy. Well, he's a liar, so I guess Bush isn't the enemy either. One might argue that Moore has no effect on citizens and that Bush is the POTUS...but this entire thread is based on lying. I know MM isn't the point of this thread, and I'm not meaning to argue that Bush isn't a liar. What I will argue to the death is using Michael Moore in any form of positive way concerning politics.

-Lasereth

I "mentioned" Moore because this post, on another thread, is burned into my mind, and I wanted to pre-empt the use of the "Moore"/moveon.org "card" that I expected would be "played" as a substitute for a substantative rebuttal.
You may use the "Moore" asssociation among yourselves, in as a means to promote solidarity for your reflexive support of the POTUS, but the rest of us don't get it, when you trot it out.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...81&postcount=2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

I think this post from the real police forums explains why she's just a political pawn whoring off of her son's death:
Not to mention she has recently turned anti-Israel and is affiliated with moveon.org and Michael Moore.

Bush's reputation did not rise in stature when Sheehan was cut down by associating her with Moore/moveon.org, and Bush will continue to enjoy a reputation by 50 percent and still growing numbers of Americans as a liar as a substitute for leadership in crisis. He had to be aware of the polled opinions of his credibility before his "levee lie", and he still did it. Michael Moore is a documentary film maker who is excellent at self-promotion, and moveon.org is the web address of a PAC that has an agenda that you may not necessarily agree with. Bush has his own dismal record and reputation now, with poll numbers that are becoming more appropriate for the gravity of the circumstances that he has steered himself and the country into.

Moore and moveon.org are irrelevant in a defense of Bush's performance and veracity.

Lebell, it is ironic that the only example that you posted to buttress your opinion of my level of credibility related to the content of my posts on these threads is a citation of a mistake that I made that I apologized for, even as I took the high road regarding the manner in which my mistake was brought to my attentiion.......

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=81

and Lebell, this is what you posted about me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

.......As to the sources Host presents, I have seen too many examples of his taking questionable sources and posting them as "fact" for me to spend much time with them anymore. The latest was when he posted a satire piece from whitehouse.org to prove a point. In other posts he has been known to take excerpts that support his positionand leave the ones behind that don't. I've also seen him take blogs and post them as support.

Frankly, I don't have time or the inclination to try and track his "sources" down and expose their inconsistencies anymore.

It doesn't seem fair because you announce in advance that you won't make the time or the effort to back up what you are accusing me of, or afford me your attention when I attempt to defend myself with regard to examples of my insufficiencies, which you say you won't make the effort to post.

squirrelyburt · 09-07-2005, 06:38 PM

The Christian right DID NOT support Clinton.

And it would completely go against every fiber of being to support the lies and hypocrasy being spread by the liberal left. Thats why. They all lie. Deal with it.

Elphaba · 09-07-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

To be honest, I've never seen a conclusive example of either George W. Bush or Michael Moore lying. I've seen plenty of examples of them getting something wrong. But that doesn't prove that they lied.

Thanks, Max. You should be a moderator.

matthew330 · 09-07-2005, 06:53 PM

....because most normal people don't have the time, host. The onus is on you to sift through your "references" to make sure they aren't shit, especially in light of the amount of them. This was a discussion board before you showed up. It hurts my wrists to even scroll through one of your posts. I'm frankly amazed you haven't been banned for spamming, because essentially - and at least according to one mod, that's what your presence amounts to.

aberkok · 09-07-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

....because most normal people don't have the time, host. The onus is on you to sift through your "references" to make sure they aren't shit, especially in light of the amount of them. This was a discussion board before you showed up. It hurts my wrists to even scroll through one of your posts. I'm frankly amazed you haven't been banned for spamming, because essentially - and at least according to one mod, that's what your presence amounts to.

Host's sources, as with any source, should be questioned. Unfortunately with the glut of information that we have at our fingertips in this age, one has to take that much more time and effort in seeking out what truth, if any, lies in these articles. Host, would I be mistaken to think that you would be the first to admit this?

I don't see why the onus is on Host to make sure his sources are ironclad anymore than it is on the rest of us. Of course it takes a long time to discover what's reliable and what is not, if that is even possible. If you want to throw in some valid contribution to these discussions, you'll just have to take the time to do some research and build a strong opinion.

matthew330 - In the time it took you to criticize Host you could have gone on to the Guardian U.K. website and searched for a relevant article to either contribute to the discussion or formed an opinion based on it.

matthew330 · 09-07-2005, 07:31 PM

4 articles to support what, 3 senteces of his own. I've contributed all this thread deserves. As Lebell said I " have seen too many examples of his taking questionable sources and posting them as "fact" for me to spend much time with them anymore." I glance through this for peoples thoughts, not to polish up what i've missed in my last visit to the democratic undergrounds latest update to their database.

smooth · 09-07-2005, 08:10 PM

The only conceivable reason this thread is still running is because moderators (and they've said this before) choose to allow members to show their true colors...

...kudos to the way a few members and a fucking moderator* have denigrated a valuable member of this community. These are the kinds of threads I show potential new members when they ask me what this place is like so they can enter with eyes wide open.

*EDIT: lebell, you posted a couple responses but deleted them immediately afterwards, so I'll merely respond to your PM to me:

Quote:

denegrating
I'll also point out that you're the one that deciding to bring cursing into the conversation.

Go ahead and point it out if it makes you feel vindicated in some way about the way you posted toward host. Your usual victimstance notwithstanding, I'm going to trust that most people read my statement in context as an expression of incredulity at your behavior toward a member, not a personal attack (which wouldn't make much sense since my posts have been admonishments against personal attacks on host).

2nd edit:
Here's the PM I received after posting the above edit:

Quote:

vindicated?
Not at all.

After some thought, I decided it was better to remove my comments because they didn't add to the conversation, my personal opinion of host's value to the forum notwithstanding. You could have pm'd me, but you chose to escalate the problem, which I pointed out in pm's. Then of course, you had to go back and post my pm in the forum.

For the record, I have stopped moderating your posts and now refer them to others, but if you think I'll take shit like this lying down, you're very badly mistaken.

Call it my "victimstance" if you want to justify your behavior, but the fact is you've shown repeatedly that you've got something personal against me. You've publically vilified me in the past and in the interest of "fairness", I've let you get away with it. But no more. Since I won't mod you anymore, expect me to report it to other mods when you're being an ass such as this. They can look at it and decide who's in the wrong.

Exactly. I choose not to respond via PM to these kinds of statements--there really isn't anything to say to such communication. I post your statements out here because I think the members have a right to see how you play cool mod out here but attempt to agitate some of us behind the scenes. Furthermore, since you've threatened to put this in hands of others behind the scenes, I think the community should have access to the full picture. I also have a right to allow the community access to what I receive in my personal communication box. In you feel attacked by me posting what you put here, perhaps you shouldn't be sending it to me.

I haven't responded to you via PM, I haven't altered what I've said about you, and I haven't altered what you've stated about me. So if moderators are going to come down on me hard for what I've done, at least the community has access to the full story before I'm wiped from the board.

Marvelous Marv · 09-07-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

You also left part of the second article out:

Quote:
Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the corps' chief of engineers, said late Wednesday that the corps' requests cited in Landrieu's figures were the amount that would be needed to finish the work in a given year. But he said the corps, working with the administration, rarely requests the full amount in the budget.

"There are limited resources and there are huge demands on it," he said. "Very rarely do we fund at full capability."

Even if the projects had been funded at the highest amounts, Strock said it might not have changed the situation in downtown New Orleans. He said the levee near the 17th Street Canal, where one of the breaches occurred that emptied water into the city, was fully completed.

In any forum I've visited, this kind of dishonesty (leaving out highly pertinent information because it contradicts your opinion) would end any trace of credibility the poster had possessed.

host · 09-07-2005, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

In any forum I've visited, this kind of dishonesty (leaving out highly pertinent information because it contradicts your opinion) would end any trace of credibility the poster had possessed.

(Marv, feel free to post more specific criticism, and I will explain myself if it is appropriate to do so, or I will admit that I posted distortions and apologize.)

I put the time and effort into responding to Lebell's post of examples of my shortcomings and tendencies to mislead......as smooth points out, Lebell has since deleted his post. I copied the part of his post that did not include his quote of the entire article found here.....
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Host,

I gave several examples.

But as you wish.

To quote myself from above:

"In other posts he has been known to take excerpts that support his position and leave the ones behind that don't."

Now to SUPPORT my charge, from the VERY FIRST LINK at the top of the page: http://www.nola.com/hurricane/t-p/k...STERPLAN31.html

If you wanted to present the whole story, you would have included this tidbit from that link. But since you didn't and you repeatedly don't in post after post, I can only conclude that a balanced picture is not what your after.

I went on another semi-random link hunt and I found this one
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
in this post

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=93741

You failed to provide the full quote on Iraq. What remains,

doesn't bolster your argument at all, and indeed, I wonder why you even bothered to include it. It actually tells me that Saddam was indeed still a very real threat and from what I've read elsewhere, even the left agrees that the assessment is accurate.

If you want, I will search out more examples.

Lebell, in your first example, it may not have been clear to you that I ONLY included the following, from the link that I posted, to begin this thread.....

Quote:

More From The Times-Picayune | Subscribe To The Times-Picayune
Feds' Disaster Planning Shifts Away From Preparedness

August 31, 2005
By BILL WALSH, BRUCE ALPERT And JOHN McQUAID
c.2005 Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON - No one can say they didn't see it coming......

The rest of that first quote box was content as described....."excerpts are from an article by Sheila Grissett which appeared in the June 8th, 2004 edition of the Times-Picayune.)"

I was unable to come up with a link to the June 8th, 2004 article, and there was no reason that I could justify to post the excerpt of the linked article that you claim I excluded because it did not bolster my argument.

I can only remind you that this thread was not intended to be a debate on the response of authorities to the plight of surviving victims. It is a thread that highlights the narrower issue of our presiident Bush making similar statements, shortly after huge disasters, that strike me as boldface lies. I linked an Aug. 31 articel tiitle that directly contradicted what Bush stated, and all of my posted references are intended to examine what it is reasonable to expect that Bush knew, and when he knew it.....eiither on Sept. 16, 2001, related to 9/11, or last week, related to the risk of N.O. levee failures.

It may not seem like I think about it, but I strive to keep my posts as brief as possible, without weakening my arguments, by being too brief. I assume when I post, that my entire audiience is hostile to what I am tellng them, and a few might be willing to examine what I post and then use what I offer as a jumping off point to their own, independent inquiries.

Respondiing to your second example, I began the thread that you linked, with the following.........

Quote:

Add Trent Lott, senator from MS, who was the Republican leader of the senate in 2001, to the growing number of people who have publicly stated that president Bush planned to invade Iraq before spring, 2002, before "the facts were made to fit the policy". He said on Sunday, Aug. 21, on NBC's
"Meet the Press",

I iincluded the following "excerpts" in the same, thread starting post, to strengthen the crux of what I iintended the thread to be about.....one more sign that Bush intended to contrive a case for invading Iraq.....regardless of the fact that Saddam had not rebuilt his military capability, or his WMD programs, nor did he possess the WMD stockpiles that Bush claimed to be the provocation and justification for war. I also intended to show that Bush's claim that war was a 'last resort", to be chosen only after diplomatic efforts had failed to disarm Saddam, was a falsehood, or at least a cynical charade.

Quote:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001

Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ

Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.

High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.

There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html

...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002

............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week...............

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/
First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney
Monday, March 24, 2003 Posted: 5:49 PM EST (2249 GMT)

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

Quote:

http//www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html.............
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 17, 2003

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall

.................... The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.....................

................ Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.................

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030131-23.html
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

<h4>Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.</h4>

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/22/...omacy-started/
................As David Gregory (of "Meet the Press") notes, this runs completely counter to how President Bush describes the decision to invade Iraq:

“I want to share something with you. Committing troops into harm’s way is — in harm’s way is the most difficult decision a President can make. That decision must always be last resort. That decision must be done when our vital interests are at stake, but after we’ve tried everything else.” [President Bush, 8/5/04]

“The use of force has been — and remains — our last resort.” [President Bush, 5/1/03]

“But a President must always be willing to use troops…as a last resort… I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq… So we use diplomacy every chance we get — believe me.” [President Bush, 10/1/04]

“As a last resort, we have turned to our military.” [President Bush, 4/16/03]

“As a matter of fact, military action is the very last resort for us… this nation is very reluctant to use military force. We try to enforce doctrine peacefully, or through alliances or multinational forums. And we will continue to do so.” [President Bush, 10/28/03]

President Bush keeps saying this because he knows Americans expect him to pursue all other options before U.S. troops are put at risk. If Sen. Lott says is right, President Bush failed to meet that basic expectation.

Do you really want to maintain, that in the face of all of the following that I included, I misled other members into thinking that there were no grounds for the U.S. to invade Iraq, based on his existing WMD programs, stockpiles, and prior, recent buildup in military capabilities, when there actually were grounds.

I think that you have it exactly backwards, Lebell. You seem to want to hold me to a "standard" that would brand me as you earlier described me, if I do not include entire quotes, instead of excerpts that address core, and essentially relevant points, while you exhibit no such tendency to demand a similarly strict standard of your president or his government.

This is all the more curious a stance when one considers that the worst harm that I might do, by what I include or leave out, is possibly mislead some readers, and diminish my own credibility, while the POTUS and his team can get vast numbers of people killed and maimed, as they are demonstrating.....

09-02-2005, 08:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I'd imagine it's because the christian right is itself full of people incapable of intellectual honesty. They see bush as a means to achieve their goals in suppressing the freedom of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their quaint, parareligious, contradictive belief system. It's kind've like how many liberals embraced kerry, even though he was a pro-war, pro-business douchebag. Last edited by filtherton; 09-02-2005 at 12:50 PM..

09-05-2005, 09:26 AM	#9 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	Host, I give your posts about as much thought as the "bLuD fOr O!L!1!1!" trolls on the DU and Moveon.org. __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

09-05-2005, 12:36 PM	#12 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I could have sworn this thread was about the christian right embracing Bush regardless of the dishonesty. If indeed the dishonesty is in question then perhaps we can address this aspect......but please, lets not attack each other as it serves no real purpose. Remember...we have a back button __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-05-2005, 02:54 PM	#13 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	Host, you have a great talent for pointing out mistakes made by this administration (In HINDSIGHT). If you will post, right now, what and where the next terrorist attack will be, and how much we should spend to prevent it, I will acknowledge your wisdom. You don't have to give an exact date, but I think it's reasonable to require that you be within a month of it. Same goes for our next natural disaster. Until you can do that, I'm not terribly impressed with all of the crap you throw against the wall as an armchair quarterback. __________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

09-06-2005, 02:56 PM	#16 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	I agree hindsight is 20/20, constantly saying bush is stupid, and irresponsible doesn't help anything __________________ People who love people

09-02-2005, 08:02 AM	#2 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Short answer: because he's their lying president.

09-02-2005, 11:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I'm so tired of Bush being referred to as a Christian it's not even funny. Clearly his actions do not represent what the book teaches.

09-02-2005, 02:07 PM	#7 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Just listened to his speech.... Is it possible to be more out of touch with reality? I don't even know how to describe how disgusted I am.

09-06-2005, 04:58 PM	#18 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I can't argue much about this topic due to my...lacking political knowledge, but I do find it funny that a few members were berating the President for being a liar and then praising Michael Moore. There is no getting around it: Michael Moore is a liar. A public liar. His movies are great forms of persuasion and are very thoughtful, but within these movies are <I>lies</I>, plain and simple. Being on the side of someone who exaggerates to the extremes and even lies in his movie productions is no better than blindly following a "lying" President. Keyshawn brings up a good point as well -- the President may be presenting false information to the public, but I highly doubt that he is told to lie or is lying on his own behalf. It's most likely information that is transferred to him through close outlets. I do agree that this is a faulty procedure and that such information should be closely inspected, but calling the President a "liar" due to false information being given to him is ignorant. That's the same act as calling the initial 9/11 death toll providers as liars...it's not a lie, it's just a serious lack of information verification. -Lasereth __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

09-06-2005, 08:44 PM	#20 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	Observing the difference between fact and fiction is not exactly their strong suit. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

09-07-2005, 07:05 AM	#22 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I can't offer any political knowledge here because it's simply not one of my strong points or hobbies. One of my hobbies <I>is</I> movies, however, hence my Michael Moore comment. Many Republicans may blindly follow Bush even though he's been fed false information and is taking it as true, but Democrats aren't out of the water...many of them blindly follow Michael Moore's movies that bash the POTUS without even checking to see if HIS information is true. It's not. He's a liar, just as many say Bush is a liar. His movies are not made to give insight to the American public on the POTUS, but rather turn them against him <B>at all costs</B>, even if it means lying and using persuasion/exaggerating techniques to do it. -Lasereth __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

09-07-2005, 07:15 AM	#23 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Host - everynight I go to bed happy knowing that you only get 1 vote every 2 years. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

09-07-2005, 08:41 AM	#26 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	Bush never anticipated september 11th, or the levee's breaking in new orleans. He might not of made the right decisions following the disaster, but that is quite different than intentionally lieing __________________ People who love people

09-07-2005, 03:16 PM	#30 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	To be honest, I've never seen a conclusive example of either George W. Bush or Michael Moore lying. I've seen plenty of examples of them getting something wrong. But that doesn't prove that they lied.

09-07-2005, 06:38 PM	#33 (permalink)
squirrelyburt Crazy Location: Central Wisconsin	The Christian right DID NOT support Clinton. And it would completely go against every fiber of being to support the lies and hypocrasy being spread by the liberal left. Thats why. They all lie. Deal with it. __________________ If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

09-07-2005, 06:53 PM	#35 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	....because most normal people don't have the time, host. The onus is on you to sift through your "references" to make sure they aren't shit, especially in light of the amount of them. This was a discussion board before you showed up. It hurts my wrists to even scroll through one of your posts. I'm frankly amazed you haven't been banned for spamming, because essentially - and at least according to one mod, that's what your presence amounts to.

09-07-2005, 07:31 PM	#37 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	4 articles to support what, 3 senteces of his own. I've contributed all this thread deserves. As Lebell said I " have seen too many examples of his taking questionable sources and posting them as "fact" for me to spend much time with them anymore." I glance through this for peoples thoughts, not to polish up what i've missed in my last visit to the democratic undergrounds latest update to their database.