Why do LWers persist in lying about Bush?

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I would have been more impressed if I hadn't heard it on webtv eight years ago.:rolleyes:
Come to think of it, I finally remembered where I saw it in print, spelled that way: some Stephen King novel, many years back. (I think it may have been It... one of the characters says, "Yeah, Richie, you're a real laff riot.")
 

rubberwilli

Experimental Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Posts
575
Media
33
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
Chicago, IL USA
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Well our little JQ went and got himself labeled with the new kindler gentler lower case unbolded and simple black is slimming "Banned" so hopefully the normal decorum will return to the site....

Speaking of normal decorum, where was that fleshpile with Condi, Rummy & Gonzales? Wasn't that in a corner over here somewhere? :rolleyes:
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
So, while we are on the subject of WMD: if that was our primary reason for invading Iraq, and the WMD were not found, why are we not invading other countries whom we KNOW have WMD? Should we invade our own country? The US has the world's largest stockpile of WMD, and we do know for certain that several other countries have them. So, why Iraq?

I'm waiting for Pakistan to become a "problem".

Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's government has, by all appearances accounts, lost control of the rural territories bordering Afghanistan. This suggests a substantial amount of sympathy among the locals for the Taliban/OBL/et al.

Beyond that, of course, Pakistan is primarily Islamic. There's always going to be a dislike for the US so long as Bush keeps using words like "crusade".

And Musharaff seems to be trying to tightrope between pleasing his "buddy", Bush, and not offending the more radical groups in his country.

If something happens to Musharaff... who will be running the place in his stead? :confused:

And, in case you didn't notice, Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
 

Dockerking

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Posts
19
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
LA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Thank heavens I joined lpsg when I did. I never fully appreciated what a god-awful country I lived in.

Madeline Albright was correct when she said that it is unhealthy for America to be the only super power. Things are already more equal now that Pakistan has the bomb. The world will be a much better place and Bush will not be so cocky when Iran and North Korea also have nuclear weapons. Maybe we will finally stop trying to impose our sick way of life on others.

After Bush is gone, the Muslims will no longer hate us and we will no longer be the pariah we are now.

At any rate, it is indeed the trillion dollar question as to what right we have to interfere in any other country that has weapons of mass destruction. While we might not want to attack ourselves, as suggested, if we are not going to attack England or France for their WMD, why on earth would we interfere with any other countries quest to get WMD? After all, what’s the difference between England, Iran and North Korea?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response

<...>
At any rate, it is indeed the trillion dollar question as to what right we have to interfere in any other country that has weapons of mass destruction. While we might not want to attack ourselves, as suggested, if we are not going to attack England or France for their WMD, why on earth would we interfere with any other countries quest to get WMD? After all, what’s the difference between England, Iran and North Korea?
You got it! Why have we not invaded France (they do have wmd) or China (they are communist, we need to overthrow them and set up a democracy) or France again (they hate Americans) or China again (human rights violations!!!)??? Either one of these exhibits, to a much greater degree, the reasons claimed for invading Iraq.

Oh, I think we know the answer.
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,963
Media
3
Likes
19,699
Points
643
Gender
Male
While we might not want to attack ourselves, as suggested, if we are not going to attack England or France for their WMD, why on earth would we interfere with any other countries quest to get WMD? After all, what’s the difference between England, Iran and North Korea?

The difference for Britain and France is that they, and the U.S.A., are members of NATO.

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As such military attacks on other member states of NATO are prohibited. If ever (hopefully never) the nuclear weapons of those countries are used they would have to rely on a U.S. satellite guidance system for targeting.

Disarmament Diplomacy: In The News (or Should Be) - US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
The difference for Britain and France is that they, and the U.S.A., are members of NATO.

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As such military attacks on other member states of NATO are prohibited. If ever (hopefully never) the nuclear weapons of those countries are used they would have to rely on a U.S. satellite guidance system for targeting.

Disarmament Diplomacy: In The News (or Should Be) - US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal
Yes, dreamer, that's right... at least for now. Don't be deluded into complacency, though, or think that it couldn't happen. All countries, most notably the USA, tend to ignore agreements, conventions, alliances, treaties, and international law - if it suits their purpose to do so. If "faulty intelligence" indicated that France was situated atop the richest oil deposit in the world, it would be a US colony in no time.
 

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,331
Media
108
Likes
17,265
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
As usual, it's only a matter of time before the truth comes out as government information is declassified. Internal government audits are starting to confirm that the Dept of Defense inappropriately "massaged" intelligence from the CIA to create an alleged Iran-Al Quaeda link. So, to respond to the (bogus) OP, we are now seeing that US govt's own internal reports are implicating Bush's staff in a process of pre-war fabrication - evidence that Bush used to justify war with Iraq.


From the NYTimes , April 6, 2007:
Cheney Reasserts al - Qaida - Saddam Link

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
...
However, a declassified Pentagon report released Thursday said that interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion.


The Sept. 11 Commission's 2004 report also found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network during that period
...
The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President Bush took the country to war.


Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaida, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or

long-term relationships.

Sometimes, the truth just hurts ... :cool:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
If we would have just planted an American flag on top of Kuwait when we had the opportunity and the right we wouldn't have to be losing lives over Iraqi oil.:rolleyes:
Don't worry, history does tend to repeat itself... so we should get another chance on that one.

I also would not be too terribly surprised to see another ayatollah deposed, and a sympathetic shah put in his place...

Now, back on topic. Sure, I suppose I am lying when I say bush says some incredibly stupid things. I suppose I am lying when I say that he takes bad advice from his poorly-chosen, buddies-from-way-back cabinet. Of course, it's always the left-wingers who have never told the truth, and the right-wingers who have never told a lie.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Don't worry, history does tend to repeat itself... so we should get another chance on that one.

I also would not be too terribly surprised to see another ayatollah deposed, and a sympathetic shah put in his place...

Now, back on topic. Sure, I suppose I am lying when I say bush says some incredibly stupid things. I suppose I am lying when I say that he takes bad advice from his poorly-chosen, buddies-from-way-back cabinet. Of course, it's always the left-wingers who have never told the truth, and the right-wingers who have never told a lie.

People really just don't recognise patterns, unless they are creating them, and this is at the root of the problem. History repeats itself, because first we are loath to read it, but then we lack the ability to interpret with any degree of accuracy unless it serves our personal needs. Reality is separate from any person or group's ego- it just is what it is. Very few people are actually very interested in reality, preferring their own comforts, whatever they be, instead.

Partisan politics would have "the other side" just shrieking "You do it too!!!!111!!!" as if that addresses any part of the problem- it does not.
You and I just spoke for hours, I am not a lifelong democrat- I am one by default. At the present time, they are less dangerous, and that's my concern. What philosophical differences I may have with the party as a whole, they are more likely to save lives of Americans, and I place higher value on that than serving the ideological bloodbath of a psychopath. This makes no comment on how I feel the economy should be handled, or any of our social issues- you'll find me pretty split down the middle on those things, but CURRENT REPUBLICAN LEADERS OF THE BUSH ADMINSITRATION are hypocrites, thieves, false christians, liars, frauds and severaly emotionally damaged people. These are not the kinds of people ANYONE should feel good about having in positions of leadership. How many frauds will have to be exposed before the average guy just fucking gets the point? Why are people so goddamned slow to make very simple connections?

Saying THIS ADMINISTRATION is an unprecedented group of corrupt cronies does not make me anti- repub- it makes me anti corruption. And don't go trying to pick up on every tiny piece of dogshit the dems have ever done because I already know they're corrupt too. The difference is in degrees, and in politics there sure as fuck ARE big and little sins. Other people die from big sins. Duh.

Apparently this few piece jigsaw puzzle is just too complicated.
 

36DD

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
1,766
Media
2
Likes
16
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
You make it sound like there was a long list of Clinton lies, I'm simply asking you to be more specific. I'm not defending him, I'm asking you to defend your statements. Beyond the blow-job lie, the only one you mention is AIDS-tainted blood, and if you claim it was a Clinton lie to allow it into the country, you are basically saying he requested a tainted supply, then passed it off as clean. I doubt that happened. Perhaps he got some bad intelligence reports about it? I wasn't really aware that the President was responsible for the minutiae of the blood supply; I would think that would be more the domain of the Surgeon General, the NIH, the CDC, or whatever.

And you never did answer my main question - how can you compare jq's posts with those of any other member, and conclude that the liberals are more prone to bashing and name-calling than the conservatives?

And jq, (or 36DD, either), I'm still curious about how you define liberal, libertarian, and conservative. You have both used those terms, but I'm not sure what you mean when you use them.
DC, I'm not ignoring your post, I'm looking for info on the tainted blood, but it was so long ago and I'm getting frustrated. I did find some other articles pertaining to lies but I'll pm you with those if that's ok, don't want to start a WWIII with anyone...just don't have the fight in me right now I guess. April is a horrible month for me and I probably won't be on much due to work and other issues more personal in nature. This monday will be the 1+1/2 marker since my daughter's death, and in a couple of weeks, it would have been her birthday...I'm going to go crawl under the covers for awhile and try to pretend my life doesn't suck right now...