Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

[demsformd]

The soldiers in Iraq are true American heroes and they deserve the complete admiration of the entire populace. But doesn't it bother you that the military misled us and fabricated Jessica Lynch's story beyond recognition? What about the integrity that President Bush said he would restore in the White House?

Bush said that he is not breaking a campaign promise when he allows the national debt to increase to almost a trillion dollars. No, he believes that he said he would only allow the deficit to occur during war, recession, or national emergency. Wrong again buddy, your opponent Mr. Gore said that. During the tax break episode, Bush cited reports that the tax cut would create 2 million jobs. There is no such report.

And how about the lack of weapons of mass destruction? Was the public misled about the severity of the Iraqi weapons programs?

How much lying is the Bush White House doing?

 

[migtig]

Okay sometimes I am a little slow on the uptake, so ccould you tell me WTF you are talking about and give me some links to some credible sources.

 

[demsformd]

Take a look at this opinion article in the Baltimore Sun...

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.values02jun02,0,6557295.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by demsformd
Take a look at this opinion article in the Baltimore Sun...

Well, by God, I'm sure going to take the opinion of some editorialist over my government! Yessireebob!

Dems, doesn't it embarrass you to do stuff like that? Base your opinions on the rantings of someone you don't even know? Do you believe everything George Will says, too, or just when it's a columnist making accusations against Bush? How about Howard Stern? Are his opinions the gospel as well?

 

[migtig]

Originally posted by demsformd
Take a look at this opinion article in the Baltimore Sun...

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.values02jun02,0,6557295.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines

Sorry I thought I asked for something that's actually accredited. This is just ramblings that make no sense to me. I am a very literal thinker. I need facts and figures not supposition.

 

[Kain99]

But doesn't it bother you that the military misled us and fabricated Jessica Lynch's story beyond recognition? What about the integrity that President Bush said he would restore in the White House?

Ya know, I read all of this nonsense last week. I think It's utterly disgusting that anyone took this heroic story and turned it upside down.

It makes me sick to my stomach. Jessica Lynch would be dead if our soldiers hadn't rescued her.

 

[demsformd]

Sheesh, can't wait here huh?

Here's some more...
The Seattle Times
In the process of finding some more sources for you but well the ole wife just made me a great dinner.

 

[demsformd]

NBC News: When President Bush told Congress in January that Iraq had bought uranium, the State department had warned him that the credibility of the story was questionable.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by demsformd
How much lying is the Bush White House doing?

If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Re: Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

Originally posted by Ken King
If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.

Funny how it always goes back to Clinton. I wonder what the republicans would be saying if clinton had not set such a precedent? What excuses would they have then? Should be fun come campaign time. It could have been easy for the republicans. Could have brought up Clinton, thus making Bush look like an angel. But instead, I guess it will be full of "Well, Clinton did it also, so what?". Could have been such a glorious time, but I guess he's just your typical politician after all.

 

[SmallTown]

and the WMD issue came out days ago. A congress team, led my republicans, is launching an investigation to see if they and the country were misled in terms of using WMD as a justification for war. It will be interesting to see the findings.

 

[vraiblonde]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62949-2003May31.html

In an interview with Britain's Sky Television at a Russia-European Union summit, Blair said he had already seen plenty of information that his critics had not, but would in due course.

"Over the coming weeks and months we will assemble this evidence and then we will give it to people," he said. "I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there."

But of course, Saddam Hussein is innocent and right and Blair and Bush are guilty and lying. How like you, ST and Dems, to take the word of a vicious dictator over the word of two leaders of free countries.

 

[vraiblonde]

And another:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1054416347356&p=1012571727085

Forget the headline - it has nothing to do with the content of the article.

The new report by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, revealed that Baghdad supplied information on its illicit weapons programmes up to the eve of military hostilities. But, even at the end, Iraq failed to alleviate fundamental suspicions that it had something to hide.

Unmovic, the UN inspection commission, has continued to analyse data in spite of its sidelining from the weapons hunt. In its latest quarterly report, it said Iraq proffered information on unmanned aircraft and its claimed destruction of anthrax as late as 19 March, hours before the first air strikes.

But while "inspections, declarations and documents submitted by Iraq contributed to a better understanding of past weapons programmes, the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for was (not) shortened", the report says.

 

[Toxick]

Re: Re: Re: Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny how it always goes back to Clinton. I wonder what the republicans would be saying if clinton had not set such a precedent?

As opposed to democrats who never look back upon the Reagan and Bush I era, and make the very same sorts of comments?

 

[vraiblonde]

Re: Re: Re: Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny how it always goes back to Clinton.

Who mentioned Clinton? The only person I saw post his name was you, ST. In fact, you wrote his name 4 times in one post. Talk about obsessed!

 

[Frank]

Uuuh, can someone show even the tiniest bit of evidence that the whole Lynch thing was staged, even after the soldiers and others have testified before the press, blow by blow what happened? And clarified what the press *kept getting wrong* about it? (I mean, c'mon - who are you going to believe, the soldiers themselves, or Jayson Blair of the New York Times?).

What's worse, calling the Lynch thing a lie, or taking some rant as *truth*?

 

[Heretic]

People won't let Clinton rest because Clinton won't let himself rest. Notice how Carter is hardly brought up. If Bill would just stay out of the picture Im sure the instances of his name would just fade out like Bush 1, Regan, Carter, Ford.....of course nobody will ever stop talking about Nixon butt he deserves it.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62949-2003May31.html

But of course, Saddam Hussein is innocent and right and Blair and Bush are guilty and lying. How like you, ST and Dems, to take the word of a vicious dictator over the word of two leaders of free countries.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I only passed along the information regarding the investigation. The person leading up the investigation in Warner, who of course is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Who mentioned Clinton? The only person I saw post his name was you, ST. In fact, you wrote his name 4 times in one post. Talk about obsessed!

Originally posted by Ken King

If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.

Sorry Vrai, I was mistaken. Just when people normally discuss lying in court and under oath during his term, they are normally referencing Clinton. I'm sure Ken King was thinking of other people when he posted that

 

[Bruzilla]

Dems, before you go burning your Bush effigy, here are a few facts to consider IRT the Lynch rescue:

1. This whole "staged" thing came about because of one article, written by the BBC, an organization that was against the war from the start.

2. These reports of no resistance and an unbridled willingness to help this poor soldier were made by Iraqi medical personnel who were found in the company of nine dead Americans, some of whom appear to have been executed and one who was mutilated. If I were found in that position I might want to pass myself off as Mother Teresea as well.

3. At the time of the rescue, the hospital was in enemy-controlled territory. Do you honestly believe that a rescue operation was sent in with blanks??? The Monday-Morning quarterbacks in the media can say all they want about how the Iraqi troops had left the hospital, but that's pretty much worthless information some two months after the fact!

4. Name me one member of central command or the Pentagon who said anything about the events of Lynch's capture. Name me one spokesman or officer who said a word. You can't because the military never said a word besides things like "we're investigating the events..." or "we don't know yet." All of the stories that were reported were dug up by reporters... all wanting to be the first one to get a story, any story, out. How in the heck could anyone know what had happened when the sole witness at the time was zonked out in surgery? Who exactly were these reporters getting their information from? The guy that cleans the bathrooms at Central Command?

This is the exact same thing that we saw with the sniper case. Reporters, out to scoop their competitors, gather information from anyone willing to talk to them. And when that information turns out to be bogus, they blame the official sources, who never released the info in the first place, instead of themselves. Also, you can't attack the Pentagon or White House for not correcting the story, for reasons of wanting to further the war effort, when no one to this day really knows what happened at that ambush.

The bullet holes in the front walls of the hospital didn't get made by blanks, and we got one live American, out of a total of ten, out of that hospital. Unless there was a sudden rash of suicides, at least some of those troops were killed by someone at the hospital. And before you accuse the White House or Pentagon of lying, I would suggest that you find one additional source of info: Find one article or story that claims to be the 100% verified and true account of what happened at the ambush site. How can you expect the White House or Pentagon to say something is true or not until they know what the truth is?

Lastly, please spare us your crocodile tears about how spending is growing. The Dems are pushing for just as much new spending as the Republicans are. If I'm disappointed in anything, it is that sad fact.