Obama, Guns & Paranoia

[Tim H]

OK, this whole Bush lied to start a war propaganda, has made a nice slogan for liberals and has been very effective. Now that Bush is coming out of office let's have some TRUTH from the liberals.

What lie is it that the liberals refer to when they say "Bush Lied"? I would like you to quote exact words that came out of President Bush's mouth and site your source.
Where did he get that information? Give references.
Who is responsible according to the constitution to authorize a declaration of war?
How many Democrats are in congress?
Which ones of them put enough time and concern into their decision to vote to go to war to find out whether the intelligence being given to them was accurate? (They had the same info Bush did.)
If they didn't conclude from the intelligence they were given (Again, the same info Bush had) that there were weapons of mass destruction then why did they vote to go to war? Did they too, have a father almost killed by Saddam?

Now since telling a lie is the criteria used by liberals as the basis for judging the worthiness of a President why on earth did you vote for Obama? The Clintons of course are a shining example of TRUTH telling in the liberal world. Now that Obama has brought the Clintons into his cabinet, I'm sure TRUTH will just pour out of that administration. Will the liberal TRUTH seekers bring up "Hillary under sniper fire" "Bill not having sexual relations with that woman" "I was not in church on any of the days Rev Wright said those incendiary comments."

[bluegrass]

Couldn't have said it better myself...



Tony

[tommyg]

Tim H fact is America has a different Moral standard than it did even 10 years ago. Now the Moral standard is if it feels good do it. Liberals are bottom feeders that whine and then the Liberal media throws it in the peoples face,the people don't even look at the issues and vote for who the Media is backing thinking that that person on the tube does all the research and would never lie. The media elects presidents and sorry to say in this country 90% or better of the media is liberal. You never heard any reporting on the issues just attacks on the Republicans. This country is in a sorry state and its going to get worse because people don't research their canidates and find out where the stand on the issues,mostly its about who can save them money. Obama is a puppet for the Liberals-he is in over his head and the Old Washington insiders will rule his world-he will be the second comeing of Jimmy Carter,the absolute worst President this nation ever had.

[Dr. Chris]

OK, this whole Bush lied to start a war propaganda, has made a nice slogan for liberals and has been very effective. Now that Bush is coming out of office let's have some TRUTH from the liberals.

What lie is it that the liberals refer to when they say "Bush Lied"?

Propaganda ? You use the word "Liberal" a lot. This is not something that just "liberals" are saying. This is a well known fact that Republicans, Democrats and every other political leader from around the world knows. Thats why John McCain would not have anything to do with Bush during his whole election. He is tainted and made a mockery and a joke of the presidency because of his lies and the poor job that he did. But I will answer your questions.

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).

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 “they 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.” This finding led Jon Stewart to state, “Mr. Vice President, it’s my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire.”

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 “we’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. 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.”

Bush Quotes: {lies} - "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." President Bush (10.02.03)

"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)

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." President Bush (10.16.02)

"There is a real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to America in the form of Saddam Hussein." President Bush (10.28.02)

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"Today the world is...uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." President Bush (11.01.02)

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush (11.23.02)

In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence” linking Iraq to 9-11.

The 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report found that:

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}]

Findings do not support the 2002 NIE judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program.
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa.
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons.
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons."
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq likely retained covert SCUD SRBMs.
Findings do not support the 2002 NIE assessment that Iraq and developed a program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to deliver biological agents.

Similarly, the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq concluded that Iraq:

HAD NO WMD’s.
“had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended
Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.”
“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”
In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”

This is not or never was a Republican or Democrat thing, it's much "bigger" than that. This is a president who lied, and because of his lies, we went to war for no reason, many lives were lost and the real criminal who was "in charge" of 911, is still walking around and laughing at our ignorance for believing and backing George Bush and his administration. And when I say his administration, I am not just talking about Republicans or his appointed leaders, I am talking about everybody that had an influence and vote, that was "for" and supported this "crock" of a war. Regardless if they were Republican or Democrat. It was all a lie. Soldiers and Americans did their duty and supported, had faith in and followed the leadership of a liar because it is the "right" patriotic thing to do, and many lives were either ended or ruined because of it and Osama is still free. Clinton and other presidents may have lied, but not when the stakes are so high. Lying about sex or money or about a mistake in the past, is bad and wrong, but Bush took it to another level and his administration lied and went along with him and it cost many lives for nothing.

George Bush will be known as the worst President ever to hold the office.

Before I forget: Sources: 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

[lab]

You are right Carter was one of the worst presidents we ever had and Bush will go down right in front or behind him as being a bad president. I do agree with Wildhare about why we got into this war. Bush was trying to finish something that his Dad could not finish. Everyone knows that Chaney has ran this country the last 8 years. On 9/11 they were more worried about hiding Chaney then Bush from the terrorists. The other day while Bush was being asked about going into Iraq about all the bombs that Iraq was suppose to have , Bush said his intellingents were wrong and gave him the wrong facts about all these mass destruction bombs that Iraq was suppose to have. Ask if he knew the truth would he declare war again and he did not answer. Myself we should of gave iraq more time before we just jumped in and started bombing. They told us they did not have any mass destruction bombs but we went on in and started bombing believing they were lying to us and after we got over there and found out they did not have what we thought they had ,then we thought of a better excuse why we declared war on them (Hussain) Bush or his old man did not like him so young Bush was not going to look the fool so he went after hussain and got him. But many young men and women have died over a useless war in my opionion so the bush family could get hussain. Someone mention that the President cannot declare War but remember his title his the Commander in Chief and that gives him the right to go to war for so many days and with the approval of Congress they can declare war against that country. Not many congress will go against any president that wants to declare war on another country. Especially during Bush time coming out of 9/11. Bush had a good rating after 9/11 but because he did not think this war thru he helped break this country along with the approval of Congress and the War and the effects of other things Bush rating went way down. Many people out there in the United States is hurting bad. No jobs, cannot pay bills , don't know what to expect next and yes we can blame it on our spending but aot of us baby boomers did not have to go thru many hard times so now we are paying the price of overspending and believing in a stock market for our future. I believe right now people just want the economy to get going and get their jobs back and most of all feel secure. I hope this economy gets going again and in a couple of years we can get back on here and talk about the good times.

[Tim H]

Dr. Chris, your cut and paste skills have always helped you cloud the issues. I guess you figure if you paste a whole bunch of propaganda no one will be able to decipher the truth or fiction out of what you paste. A quick glance at your "sources" indicate where you locate a lot of your cut and paste material.

Here is the reason I ask for sources. I will list yours below and let people decide if you are cutting and pasting liberal propaganda or just giving your opinion with unbiased sources to support your position.

Marquis – New York Times . Pretty sure they are liberal. Endorsed Obama.
Sirota & Harvey – In These Times- Liberal Magazine
CAP Progress Report – Center for American Progress- A liberal website you can look up to verify.
Risen & Johnston - New York Times-Once again pretty sure they’re liberals.
BBC News-Now there’s an unbiased group, right?
Washington Times – One source that could not be pegged as liberal.
Gilliard – Daily Kos- A liberal Blog
Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org –Radical Liberal Blog
McGovern –AlternNet – Liberal Opinion Website
NBC News – The same NBC that has put out the “Yes we can” Barrack Obama DVD.
Krugman – New York Times – See all above comments on the NYT
Corn – The Nation- Self described as the Flagship of the Left (Liberal)
Washington - Boston Globe – Another publication that endorsed Obama
Daily Mis-Lead – Also known as Moveon.org, often even too radical for most liberals.

lab, I would have to agree with you that President Bush may end up right there next to President Carter when it comes to what got done while they were in office. Time will tell. However, you should not so easily dismiss the fact that Congress is more responsible for declaring war than Bush was. Think about this, why is it that congress has to authorize the declaration of war and the President is Commander in Chief? Could it be that it is a check and balance system? If so then shouldn't each branch do their own research before acting on their responsibility? If congress did not authorize the declaration of war IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED no matter how much President Bush wanted it.

It is my belief that President Bush thought Saddam Hussein was a real threat. He could have been misinformed, unaware or misguided in his assessment. Congress however, for the most part were trying to get re-elected and democrats who were former anti-war zealots, decided not to look into the matter far enough to find out about this incredible lie that Bush was telling. No, instead they rushed into their voting position and wanted everyone to see them voting for this war. Who do you see as more culpable in this situation when you consider the above facts?

[Pine Mt Beagles]

[Tim H]

I didn't think his slogan was "survive" for 4 years. I thought he was going to bring "change and hope".

[bluegrass]

DR CHRIS
THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR VERY INFORMED POST ,I THINK PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA IS OFF TO A GOOD START HE WILL HAVE HIS HANDS FULL,IF HE AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE CAN SURVIVE THIS MESS FOR FOUR YEARS HE WILL BE A SUCESS,
PINE MT BEAGLES

I think you mean to say that if WE and the American Way of Life can survive this mess for four years, WE will be a success...if WE can survive four years of Obama and his socialist policies its hard telling what we will look like if we do.


Tony

[Dr. Chris]

Dr. Chris, your cut and paste skills have always helped you cloud the issues. I guess you figure if you paste a whole bunch of propaganda no one will be able to decipher the truth or fiction out of what you paste. A quick glance at your "sources" indicate where you locate a lot of your cut and paste material.

If congress did not authorize the declaration of war IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED no matter how much President Bush wanted it.

Lolol copy and paste? I am sorry if I speak over your head, but regardless where you think I get my ideas from, you can’t ignore the truth. The fact is you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Do you know when we “officially declared war on Iraq? Do you know when we “officially” were no longer in the state of war with Iraq? Congress has declared war only five times in American history. But Presidents have been doing what ever they want to do for a long time, costing lives and money. Just like Bush did with Iraq! We have only “declared war five times, but we have been at war, calling it something else more times than you could count. Have you ever heard of “The War Powers Resolution”? It was passed in 1973. The act prescribes procedures for consulting, reporting, and terminating deployment of U.S. armed forces unauthorized by Congress. The president is required to: (1) consult Congress “in every possible instance” before deploying forces abroad; (2) report to both houses within forty eight hours and periodically about the circumstances and estimated duration of a deployment; and (3) terminate deployment within sixty days of the initial report unless Congress specifically approves or the president requests a thirty day extension to protect the safety of personnel. The problem is that the guidelines have not worked well in encouraging presidents getting permission from congress to start wars. “Covert Operations” are exempt unless regular U.S. military forces are involved. “Act now, inform later” has been the dominant presidential practice. Examples of “Covert Operations” include Jimmy Carter's abortive attempt to rescue embassy hostages from Iran (1980); Ronald Reagan's interventions in Lebanon (1982), Grenada (1983), and the Persian Gulf (1987–1988); George H. W. Bush's remove President Noriega of Panama from his power “just like his son did in Iraq” (1989), and Bill Clinton's interventions in the civil wars of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia (1993–2000). This is why James Baker and Warren Christopher have been begging for a new “War Powers Act”. The National War Powers Commission, has unanimously concluded after a year of study that the law purporting to govern the decision to engage in war “the 1973 War Powers Resolution” should be replaced by a new law that would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war and sending troops, without actually calling it “war” but calling it “Covert Operations” or giving it any other name so the president can use loopholes to send troops do go and do what ever he decides. And I agree that Jimmy Carter was not a good President, but he was a good moral man. Outside of being President he has done and is responsible for many great things. George Bush failed as a business man, part ownership in the Texas Rangers, worst statistically “Texas” Governor, ever! And he failed as President. Everything he touches or is involved in fails. If he did not have his father to bail him out of all the messes that he has gotten into, he would be nowhere. And if his family was not so rich and tied up in Oil Companies “another Iraq coincidence” he would be broke. So no, I don’t think you could compare him to even Jimmy Carter, who was one of the worst. George Bush is the bottom of the barrel and will go down as “The worst President ever”.

[tommyg]

Dr. Chris, your cut and paste skills have always helped you cloud the issues. I guess you figure if you paste a whole bunch of propaganda no one will be able to decipher the truth or fiction out of what you paste. A quick glance at your "sources" indicate where you locate a lot of your cut and paste material.

If congress did not authorize the declaration of war IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED no matter how much President Bush wanted it.

Lolol copy and paste? I am sorry if I speak over your head, but regardless where you think I get my ideas from, you can’t ignore the truth. The fact is you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Do you know when we “officially declared war on Iraq? Do you know when we “officially” were no longer in the state of war with Iraq? Congress has declared war only five times in American history. But Presidents have been doing what ever they want to do for a long time, costing lives and money. Just like Bush did with Iraq! We have only “declared war five times, but we have been at war, calling it something else more times than you could count. Have you ever heard of “The War Powers Resolution”? It was passed in 1973. The act prescribes procedures for consulting, reporting, and terminating deployment of U.S. armed forces unauthorized by Congress. The president is required to: (1) consult Congress “in every possible instance” before deploying forces abroad; (2) report to both houses within forty eight hours and periodically about the circumstances and estimated duration of a deployment; and (3) terminate deployment within sixty days of the initial report unless Congress specifically approves or the president requests a thirty day extension to protect the safety of personnel. The problem is that the guidelines have not worked well in encouraging presidents getting permission from congress to start wars. “Covert Operations” are exempt unless regular U.S. military forces are involved. “Act now, inform later” has been the dominant presidential practice. Examples of “Covert Operations” include Jimmy Carter's abortive attempt to rescue embassy hostages from Iran (1980); Ronald Reagan's interventions in Lebanon (1982), Grenada (1983), and the Persian Gulf (1987–1988); George H. W. Bush's remove President Noriega of Panama from his power “just like his son did in Iraq” (1989), and Bill Clinton's interventions in the civil wars of Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia (1993–2000). This is why James Baker and Warren Christopher have been begging for a new “War Powers Act”. The National War Powers Commission, has unanimously concluded after a year of study that the law purporting to govern the decision to engage in war “the 1973 War Powers Resolution” should be replaced by a new law that would, except for emergencies, require the president and Congressional leaders to discuss the matter before going to war and sending troops, without actually calling it “war” but calling it “Covert Operations” or giving it any other name so the president can use loopholes to send troops do go and do what ever he decides. And I agree that Jimmy Carter was not a good President, but he was a good moral man. Outside of being President he has done and is responsible for many great things. George Bush failed as a business man, part ownership in the Texas Rangers, worst statistically “Texas” Governor, ever! And he failed as President. Everything he touches or is involved in fails. If he did not have his father to bail him out of all the messes that he has gotten into, he would be nowhere. And if his family was not so rich and tied up in Oil Companies “another Iraq coincidence” he would be broke. So no, I don’t think you could compare him to even Jimmy Carter, who was one of the worst. George Bush is the bottom of the barrel and will go down as “The worst President ever”.

[Rabbithoundjb]

I actually think the president elect is making some good discisions so far. He's staying basically with the Bush tax plan until it lapses in 2010 and he is going with the Bush agreement with Iraq to be out by the end of 2011 before if possible, of course he promised 16 months and not 3 years.

Having said that I must say Dr. Chris if you believe the war in the middle east has a more negative effect on the citizens of this country than NAFTA that has cost thousands of americans thier jobs you are a complete idiot.

[bluegrass]

Lolol copy and paste? I am sorry if I speak over your head, but regardless where you think I get my ideas from, you can’t ignore the truth.


Truth from a liberal...now there's an oxymoron for you if I have EVER heard one.

Dr Chris, you have been EXPOSED as a fraud and mental midget time and time again on this site alone, never mind the other sites I have seen your vomit being spewed from.

Pine Mountain Beagles, I dont understand how you can have as a tagline " If the Devil knocks at your door, send Jesus to answer it" and be in absolute LOVE with an abortion supporting moron like obama...


Doesnt make a whole lot of sense....



Tony

[bluegrass]

I actually think the president elect is making some good discisions so far. He's staying basically with the Bush tax plan until it lapses in 2010 and he is going with the Bush agreement with Iraq to be out by the end of 2011 before if possible, of course he promised 16 months and not 3 years.




So much for "Change we can believe in"...obama supporters will support him no matter what he does...he can follow Bush right down to the T and they will nod and agree that its what needs to be done...I have contended all along to friends that if this were Bill Clinton waging this war the libs would be screaming about how just and right it is...but since its Bush they hate everything it stands for...and I agree that NAFTA has been a bigger disaster for the US than this war. The damage is just beginning to be felt and I am afraid will reverberate for YEARS down the line.


Tony

[wildhare2]

Everyone keeps going back to congress. THE PRESIDENT SAID THEY HAVE WEAPONS. You should be able to trust the "leader" of the country. PLAIN AND SIMPLE FACT HE LIED AND GOT A WAR GOING AND COMPLETLY FORGOT ABOUT OSAMA didn't he! Don't feed me with this liberal bs. I don't base my vote dependant on the party I vote for the person. I didn't feel either was a good choice. Pick the lesser of the two evils I say. Just keep whining bunch of strait Republicans. We dealt with things YOUR way. Now it is someone elses turn. HELL he couldn't do any worse than that IDIOT of a president.