First we will look at Iraq and it's withdrawal options and it's threat to the american people. Lies: a) Will Withdraw if Asked President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers. . . . But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "I've, you know, heard the voices of the people that presumably will be in a position of responsibility after these elections, although you never know," Mr. Bush said. "But it seems like most of the leadership there understands that there will be a need for coalition troops at least until Iraqis are able to fight." He did not say who he expected would emerge victorious. But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/politics/28prexy.html?ei=5088&en=4e48e5868e020bea&ex=1264568400&pagewanted=print&position= Facts: The Bush administration has ignored repeated requests to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. June 2005: Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country. The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). “We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,†read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19. November 2005: Leaders of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish majority and Sunni minority call for the withdrawal of foreign troops "according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12155/print
List of lies from the Bush White House 2 The Iraqi threat and the necessity to attack. Lies: The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies, although it would later claim: On January 27, 2004, White House spokesman Scot McClellan claimed that the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. "the media have chose to use the word imminent" to describe the Iraqi threat. Quotes from the White House describing Iraqi threat as imminent: The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02) "There are many dangers in the world; the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. President Bush (10.07.02) "Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02) "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (09.19.02) Facts: The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research stated that "Iraq possessed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States." A January 2004 report by the Army War College concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat and characterized the war as "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deferred Iraq." The Carnegie Endowment for Peace's report on WMD's in Iraq also concluded that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the United States or to global security. Sources: Daily Mis-Lead 02.05.04; Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org 07.11.03, McGovern –AlterNet 06.30.03, NBC News 07.21.03, Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Bounding the Global War on Terror – Army War College.Daily Mis-Lead 01.28.04, CAP Daily Progress Report 01.29.04
Yeah he lied. He promised to pull out as soon as they would ask for it and it turned out to be not the case. As a matter of fact the people that tried to hold Bush accountable for that promise were called "cut-and-runners" by the administration.
List of lies from the Bush White House 3 Lies: The Bush administration repeatedly has constantly tried to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks. In fact, Bush submitted the following certification to Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq: I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Facts: Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found “no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.†The Commission stressed that “it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks.†At the same time as the release of the 9-11 Report, a former Bush intelligence official revealed that the White House knew there was no basis for the link. Former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman stated that the intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to Al Qaeda†and reported this to the White House.†The CIA, FBI and British intelligence have found no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One FBI official stated that “[w]e’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and . . . we just don’t think its there.†British intelligence reports that Hussein and fundamentalist Bin Laden are ideological enemies. (2) The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research dismissed the alleged link, claiming that the Bush administration “has had a faith based intelligence attitude.†(3) In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence†linking Iraq to 9-11. (4). Of course, that did not stop Vice Presidednt Cheney. Cheney should read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report which found: Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. [p. 109] Sources: (1) Marquis – New York Times 01.09.04; Sirota & Harvey – In These Times 08.03.04; CAP Progress Report 07.07.04; (2) Risen & Johnston - New York Times 02.02.03, BBC News 05.03.03, AP – Washington Times 07.12.03, Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Gilliard – Daily Kos 07.25.03; (3) Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org 07.11.03, McGovern –AlternNet 06.30.03, NBC News 07.21.03, Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; (4) Corn – The Nation 09.15.03, Washington - Boston Globe 09,18.03, Daily Mis-Lead 09.23.03
You play right into the terrorists hand just like the liberal press here in America and abroad. Cindy Sheehan requested that America withdraw from Iraq also but guess what she is no more the Iraqi collective government than "leaders" are. Individuals when singled out in a country as corrupt as Iraq can be made by a terrorist organization to say whatever you would like them to say. You want "leaders" in Iraq to claim the world is flat and shaped like a saucer. They will absolutely say just that publicly and to a group of reporters even though they know good and well it is not true. The collective Iraq never asked Bush to withdraw and your desperation in digging up ONE just ONE lie is becoming obvious.
BIRMINGHAM, Sept. 28 -- In his sharpest partisan attack of this election campaign, President Bush denounced Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Thursday and said "the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run." Seeking to rebut Democrats who say a new intelligence report indicates that Iraq is fueling terrorism rather than helping to counter it, Bush said voters face a choice "between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror." Republicans "understand the nature of the enemy," he said. "We know the enemy wants to attack us again," whereas Democrats "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801844.html
Yeah right, to critize the war is to be in league with the terrorists . Never heard that one before. Funny how conservatives attack Obama because they want to stop him from doing the "wrong" thing, but when democrats do the same to a republican leader they suddenly play into terrorist hands. I called bullshit on the war so it probably means that Talibans will invade Canada tomorrow huh? Come on Joe, you dislike Bush as much as the rest of the world, why standing up for him?
:biggrin: No! BUSH One Bush lie Just one. Bush informed us of a threat a very real and proven threat. Were chemical weapons found, cataloged, inventoried in Iraq? Were large stockpiles of weapons and huge (on a global scale) stockpiles of explosives found in Iraq? The irrefutable answer is YES. I do not give a rats ass if a political opponent of George Bush did a "study" that confirmed whatever. Bush's own opponents such as Joe Wilson for example bumbling idiots as they are conformed Hussein nuclear ambitions. It does not take much fore-site at all to see that a war on one front in Iraq while cleaning house in Afghanistan was tactically ingenious. Going into Afghanistan by itself without simultaneously taking on Iraq would have been reckless and stupid. Do I need to point out why to you?
Because : BIRMINGHAM, Sept. 28 -- In his sharpest partisan attack of this election campaign, President Bush denounced Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Thursday and said "the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run." Seeking to rebut Democrats who say a new intelligence report indicates that Iraq is fueling terrorism rather than helping to counter it, Bush said voters face a choice "between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror." Republicans "understand the nature of the enemy," he said. "We know the enemy wants to attack us again," whereas Democrats "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092801844.html Democrats are pansies of the worst type. Bush for all his liberal spending and dereliction of duty in stopping the liberal social policies that caused economic crisis. At least had some balls and stood his ground.
A liberal Clinton appointed henchman stated that "Iraq possessed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States." A January 2004 report by a liberal front group concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat and characterized the war as "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deferred Iraq." Socialist propaganda group's report on WMD's in Iraq also concluded that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat to the United States or to global security. And guess what ? Still NO LIE.
GWB: "Canada doesnt suck." On a serious note, I cant be upset at GWB for lying about withdrawal, I have used that one a few times myself.
Bush said intelligence reports indicate that Iraq has WMD's. You telling me this was not a true statement? Joe Wilson himself indicated that Saddam Hussein was pursuing the purchase of yellow cake uranium from Nigeria I believe it was. Chemical munitions were found as well as the ingredients for chemical munitions. Saddam was under order to publicly destroy HUNDREDS OF TONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS STOCKPILES and refused to comply. Yet the stupid Bush political opponents and some teenagers at a war school (not a consensus mind you) did not see the importance of protecting their flanks in Iraq while taking care of Afghanistan. I think the real atrocity for the Democrats with the war on terror is that it was not a Vietnam type quagmire that they wanted at least not under Bush. Now with Obama at the helm this is sure to be a different story.
Nerve gas is a WMD everywhere. UN inspectors found nothing when they went and forbid the US to attack. You have to respect the findings of an organization that you belong to, otherwise what's the point?
I saw this documentary the other day called: "Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden?" Interesting, in the movie the film maker interviewed a brother of one of the hijackers. The brother said that Al Quaeda always hated the US and that they knew that they couldn't fight on US soil, so they attacked the WTC to draw the americans to them. They figured that they would have an advantage in the mountainous areas and harsh climate. It's a unique perspective on the war on terror. It's a well made movie and it doesn't have a political slant to it. Also, if Saddam Hussein was indeed fucking things up over there why did the US stop with him? Someone said that they had to protect US flanks in Afghanistan but what about Iraq flanks? Like Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden's birthplace and the single most Islam fanatic country in the world). What about Darfur? Hundreds of thousands have died due to systematic genocide, or Turkmenistan; ruled by a dictator that slaughters his ennemies by the thousands. North-Korea; showing off missiles and launching nuclear program with communist China's back-up? This is what pissed people off. Why focus on a turd like Saddam when we have way bigger fish to fry? I'm a whole lot more worried about Pakistan, haven for all kinds of maniacs and they just happen to have the nuke.
Ok so why play into their hand when you can call the shots forcing them into a war on two fronts. Luring foreign fighters into Iraq where you have a strategic advantage like putting a roach motel in the middle of the kitchen floor while you take care of the rats in the den. We sure did not need Iraqi weapons supplying thousands of foreign fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan. But Bush cannot just go on the news and tell everyone including the Muslim extremist his strategy now can he?
I see your point but so far we have been unable to deal critical blows to their organization. I have a book at home called: "Guerilla Warfare"; it's a history book on the origins and major events in the history of guerilla warfare. One way for terrorists to be succeful is to have isolated cells controled by local leaders. Killing Zarqawi basically did nothing to Al-Quaeda because he was only responsible for a fraction of the insurgency and a replacement was put in place probably minutes after he was announced to be dead. It's a tough war because there is no army per se, only civilians ready to blow themselves up to kill a handful of people. The recruitments are done in schools and town halls. When you mix religious devotion and pro-war propaganda you end up with fanaticism and the cycle never ends. If you make one mistake like blowing up the wrong house, you create more insurgency; the villagers are mad that an innocent family died and who comes to the rescue? Al-Quaeda. It's not a quagmire like Viet-Nam was but it's a wasp's nest just the same. I think that money should be better spent now that the US is facing a financial crisis. The same thing happened to the russians when they invaded Afghanistan; it became too costly and the insurgency was too efficient, that was also the birth of Al-Quaeda. When they have no one to fight they just go into sleeper mode; which is a much more vulnerable position to be in. Guerillas need popular support to exist, if you take that support away by withdrawing you can then send in a squad to pick them off one at a time.
