Bush Lied, The Smear Continues

^
Wake up they all lie, it's the only way that Americans will go along with globalism and the destruction of everything that the founders fought for and the constitution stands for. How else do you expect them to overide the protections against a government take over? Beg? say pritty please?

The Downing Street Memo is a proven fraud. If it had any shred of truth to it the media would have crucified Bush already.

you mean the corprate controlled mass media?
or the media that you never belive because it does not show up on the magic picture box?

Originally posted by Carseller4
The Downing Street Memo is a proven fraud. If it had any shred of truth to it the media would have crucified Bush already.

Downing Street Memo Posted on ATS

Originally posted by Carseller4
The Downing Street Memo is a proven fraud. If it had any shred of truth to it the media would have crucified Bush already.

Links? They have had articles about it on fox news(viva la Bush station). I can assure it is not an fraud.

www.captainsquartersblog.com...

The link above brings up that the Downing Street Memos may be fake.

Thanks to Dan Rather, no media outlet wants to be linked to faked documents. That is why the Downing Street Memo is not reported on.

It is a fake and a fraud! The media knows it and don't want nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by NR
AmericanMadman you can complain about me or Iran all day but we all know U.S wont even come near us or come close into seeing us, that is just a fantasy for some members like you and skippy.

I think you missunderstand me. I do not want any type of problem with Iran. I certainly do not want a war with them, or anyone else for that matter.

The thing is, I see the wrighting on the wall here. Iran, like it or not, is considered a threat by the majority of the western world. Hell, the UK, France, and Germany have just as big of a (if not a bigger) problem with Iran then the US does.

Frankly speaking, the Iranian government has some major policy problems. They are the only country in the world I can think of that has a publically stated goal to destroy another nation (Isreal). They are run by Islamic extremists in every sense of the word. Surely you can understand why western Europe and the US would be fearfull of such a government obtaining nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at this in real life, i saw alot of articles which happend to be true that our navy sometimes even come to iraqi water and help out U.S troops with search and rescure missions or even supply you guys with equipment when needed, Iranian troops and U.S marines also bumped into each other across our borders and we still cooperated with each other like long-term allies. Lets face it in reality Iranian-American people get along with each other just fine. I myself am in Austin,Texas and i have alot of freinds here that are american and we go clubbin so theres nothing wrong with Iran.

I hope you enjoy your stay in my country.

As much as your government and military may (or may not) be helping ours, Iran is none the less a very real problem in the minds of the US, UK, France, and Germany. It is because of Irans nuclear program. Now, there are obviously many ways to handle this situation by all sides. However, I must say that if an agreement can not be reached, and mutual understanding achieved, then the western world WILL attack Iran.

This is not a "wish" of mine, but simply how I see it actually playing out. Our governments will not allow yours to gain nuclear technology - there are simply too many risks involved from our side.

I do know that Iran has a lot of very well educated people - particularly young people - who are very inclined towards the western ways of secular democracy. I do hope that the liberal movements in your country win out (bet no one here would have thought I'd be on the liberal side of anything ), because I see a lot of potential in Iran as friends. Unfortunatly under their current rule they never will be.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by American Mad Man]

You guys are so funny arguing over who lied and who didn't.

ALL politicians lie, deceive, corrupt, always have always will.
Just look at the history of government, as far back as it goes, it's FULL OF IT!

How can anybody say for sure that ANY politician didn't lie?
All you are doing is justifying your support of someone you really have NO clue about.

Truths are manipulated to fit agendas. Info is taken out of context to fit agendas.
How can any of you trust ANY of "them"?

They’re laughing at your naive thinking all the way to the bank.

AP&F...Take your life back.

Originally posted by Carseller4
www.captainsquartersblog.com...

The link above brings up that the Downing Street Memos may be fake.

Thanks to Dan Rather, no media outlet wants to be linked to faked documents. That is why the Downing Street Memo is not reported on.

It is a fake and a fraud! The media knows it and don't want nothing to do with it.

So captainquartersblog ran by a die hard bush bot says it might be fake. I don't consider that to be an good source.

www.rollingstone.com...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Don't you think that if it was fake that fox news wouldn't run an article about it or try to disprove it? British government haven't denied that it is real. You can continue to believe that Bush is an God when hes nothing more then an liar.

Some responses to my original post were predictable. They are
just regurgitations of previous lies put forth by the anti terror
war crowd.

Several people have made statements like,
Bush lied, Everyone knows that Bush lied, etc.

The one thing they have in common is that they attack
Bush and they give no background information whatever
to support their view.

In my original post I pointed out the fact that every
thing I said was witnessed by millions. Check it out.
You can't find anything in my post that was not
witnessed by millions. On the other hand the "Bush Lied"
crowd have given not one piece of evidence that he lied.

As I stated in my post, to cut it down to the bare
facts for all those that refute but yet have no evidence,
here are the key points.

(1) Bush claimed that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear weapons
program. It was part of why he insisted UN inspections
and actions be taken.

(2) Iraq stonewalled on the nuclear scientist interview
and refused proper interview of the scientists.

(3) For this reason UN inspections failed.

(4) After the war Iraq's chief scientist confirmed that
in fact Iraq had been hiding their nuclear program, just
as Bush feared. The scientist confirmed that he had done
this under orders from the top.

This chain of events proved that Bush was correct. I
can't make it any more simple. If you can refute any
of these facts you have a chance at proving Bush lied.
No one has refuted one of these facts.

Also all of these facts were witnessed by millions and
still have plenty of documentation to prove them, like
the copies of Bush's speeches and the UN archives.

If you can prove that Iraq's top nuclear scientist is
lying then you might have a case also. None of you are
doing this. I suspect that you realize, that Saddam's
top nuclear scientist probably knew more about what
they were hiding than John Kerry did, yet you keep
quoting John Kerry. Why would anyone believe John
Kerry above Saddam's top nuclear scientist, when the
scientist lays it out detail by detail, chapter after
chapter. This was real substance. He handed over the
complete saved plans and diagrams and the prototypes
of centrifuges that had been the key to successfully
enriching uranium. He had to be correct, otherwise
how did Iraq obtain the enriched uranium that was
confiscated. Yet people still keep quoting that
"Bush Lied".

If it WASN'T FOR the United States, Saddam would not have been able to have used nerve gas on his own people and millions of Iranians. Bush says Iraq is guilty of purchasing WMDS, but who is guilty of giving the materials and instructions on how to make WMDs to use on the masses in the first place???

(Don't even say that it was the French or the Germans because IT WASN'T!)

One theme that has occurred in several rebuttals to my
post is this:

"where were the weapons of mass destruction?"

This proves one of the following points.
(1) You did not read my post.
or
(2) You did not understand the basic premise of my
original post.

My entire first post was tuned to this point
exactly. That was the theme of it. It was all about
the fact the UN inspections failed because Saddam was
hiding a program for development of weapons of mass
destruction, not weapons of mass destruction themselves.

Since my premise was that Bush was charging that Iraq
was hiding a development program, then why can't you
follow this simple point? Why do you keep insisting
that Bush said Iraq had nuclear weapons? He did not
say that. He did say that Iraq was suspected of
hiding a program to develop them.

You really sound misinformed, when you keep making this argument
that no weapons were found, when, in fact, Bush did
not even say Iraq had nukes. He said they were not
cooperating in UN requirments to shut down this development
program entirely.

Facts prove that Bush was correct. These facts were
witnessed by millions. It was witnessed by millions
with TV coverage that Saddam refused the questioning
of his scientist as required by the UN. We all saw
it as it transpired with CNN and Foxnews coverage.
It was witnessed by millions when Saddam kicked
UN inspectors out. What is it about these facts that
can't be understood and verified?

Facts finally showed, after the war, that Saddam
was hidding the program, and their top scientist
handed it all over. He explained in detail every
facet of the deception of how, where, and when. He
had all the plans, blue prints, and details confirming
his story. He wrote out the entire story in a
terrific book. By the way, nobody refuted one fact
put forth in the book. One lame comment was made
the book was not selling well, a very lame comment,
indeed. Notice they did not make any serious argument
against the accuracy of the book, only that its
sales were down. They can't really attack the
accuracy of the book. Too many things in the book
verify its authenticity by being easily verifiable
facts. If they had one piece of information showing
that the book was in error, that would be a legitmate
point, but of course they have no such information,
simply because it does not exist.

Mod Edit: Decorum.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

[edit on 25/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Then if Bush is right, I must have missed some very important things. First off, we have been over there for no reason looking for these damn weapons and we haven't found hide nor hair of them! If Saddam did have WMDs, then he surely wouldn't have left them in Iraq for us to find them. Oh wait a minute, I forgot, Saddam got his WMDs from our beloved country back in the 1980s and 1990s during the Iran/Iraq War and The Gulf War.

gimmefootball,

Yes, Bush is right and you did miss some very important things.
I suspect that if you go back and read my posts, you will miss
them again. Some people just can't handle facts.

MajorCee,

You sound very misinformed. You are the one giving no links to support your claims other then a book off Amazon. Bush lied about the WMD's. Iraq was not an threat at all, their are many countires much farther in nuclear production then Iraq ever was.


No WMD's found.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.cnn.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Aluminum tubes found were not for enriching uranium

www.washingtonpost.com...

I can't seem to think of the name of that book you are referring to. It must have slipped my mind or maybe I DON'T CARE what a lying, cheating, and stealing conservative has to say.

Too much cognitive dissonance on here. Only humility will be our saving grace. I went through this process a while back.

These above links that were referenced above about no weapons
found are completely immaterial. My post never ascerted
that weapons were found, to the contrary, I noted the
fact myself.

Also the link about aluminum tubes being for rockets is
immaterial. My link to the book covered this also, and
yes those tubes were for rockets, not for nuclear bomb
program, but the bomb program existed never the less
even without these aluminum tubes.

For the people who keep insisting that Bush lied because
no weapons of mass destruction were found:

READ THIS QUOTE FROM MY ORIGINAL POST:
============================================================
The fact that no weapons ever turned up was beside the point.
It was never stated that Iraq had nuclear weapons, NEVER!
It was stated that he was probably hiding a nuclear weapons
program for development.
============================================================

It does you no good to keep insisting that no weapons were
found; therefore, Bush lied.

The point is Bush never said there were Nuclear weapons in
Iraq, as the New York Times article insisted that he said
and as all the imbeciles that keep insisting that Bush said it.
The point is Bush said that Saddam was suspected of hiding
a nuclear weapons program. The point is that UN inspections
failed because Saddam refused cooperation on the interview
of nuclear scientist. Go back and read it, its all there.
Whats more I do not need links to prove this. It is fresh
enough in most peoples mind that they remember once their
memory is jogged. This was witnessed by millions right on
the news. Also remember, if Saddam had complied with
the UN inspectors for interview of the nuclear scientist,
the invasion would never have taken place, because he
appeared to be cooperating with the inspectors as far
as chemical and biological weapons were concerned.

You want a link that proved what Bush said, OK, here are
some quotes from his speech of "October 7, 2002"

"It is seeking nuclear weapons".......(the It is Iraq)

"why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq
developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror."

Notice in the two above quotes it was not said that Iraq
had nuclear weapons. It made reference to developing them.
It was noted in the speech Saddams past use of chemical
and other weapons also, but these had been established
facts and were used in the context which had advocated
getting UN inspectors back in to clear up these charges
along with the ones of developing nuclear weapons.
A link to the speech if you want to read it all is:
www.whitehouse.gov...

I can give some other links also, if needed, and probably
even better ones than this, but I found this one in
about 2 minutes. Mostly I was going on what Bush said
in news broadcasts, on Fox, CNN, etc.

So there is a link with Bushes actual words showing
his fear that Iraq was hiding a program to develop
nuclear weapons, and I gave a link in the original post
to the book published by Iraq's top nuclear scientist
that, in fact, Bush's fear had been correct.

I know people are going to keep insisting that no weapons
were found, but it means nothing since Bush never did say
the weapons (nukes) were there. As far as the chemical weapons
were concerned, it was an established fact that they had
had them. It was an established fact that Saddam kicked
UN inspectors out before these charges and inspections
could be played out, so suspicion here was warranted also.
It was an established fact, as I said, witnessed by
millions, that the 2nd UN inspections broke down because
Iraq refused to comply with UN inspections on the
interview of nuclear scientist away from the control
of the Iraqi leadership. It is an established fact
that the nuclear program had been hidden away under
orders from the top in Iraq, as proved when the program
information, plans, drawings, and prototype centrifuges were
dug up and the top scientist laid out all the details.
All these facts are established; therefore, Bush was
correct, not lying when he said that Iraq was suspected
of hiding a nuclear program.

about WMD's in Iraq shows.......

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/04/06/wpois06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixnewstop.html

Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river
By David Harrison in Nasiriyah
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Mustard gas and cyanide have been found in river water in the Iraqi city of Nasiriyah, coalition forces said yesterday.

'click link for full story'



And another example:

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=WMLTQHAFRCUZRQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2003/03/31/wchem31.xml




[edit on 26-10-2005 by ferretman]