• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Lets talk about a significant lie

Goodpasture

Well-known member
www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/documents/NWCRW05.pdf

According to Barnett, the invasion of Iraq was justified because “Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime was dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world—from our rule sets, our norms, and all the ties that bind the Core together in mutually assured dependence. He was the Demon of Disconnectedness and he deserves death for all his sins against humanity over the years.”Wow!

These words are eerily reminiscent of what President George W. Bush said on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003, in his infamous “mission accomplished”speech. In remarks on board the carrier the president claimed that “the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th,2001” and that the defeat of Saddam Hussein was “a crucial advance in the campaign against terror.”

It does not seem to matter to Barnett or his strategic view that the reasons the president gave for invading Iraq were spurious or that the war in Iraq represented a substantial setback in the struggle against al-Qa’ida. The unnecessary invasion of Iraq not only diverted attention away from Afghanistan, thus damaging the prospects for crippling al-Qa’ida, but created a new justification among the radical jihadists for attacking Westerners, drained the reservoir of goodwill that the United States enjoyed in the global community, and in the eyes of many Muslims transformed the war against terrorism into a war against Islam

I know, quoting a Naval War College review is like quoting the Rolling Stone.....it is such a bastion of liberal thinking. But the fact is, Bush's lies has cost us thousands of dead soldiers, tens of thousands of injured soldiers, Trillions of dollars, the good will of all nations everywhere, and turned every Muslim in the world from a potential ally to a potential terrorist.

Now tell me about the effect or potential effect of Obama's embellishments....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Why is it so easy for liberals to accept their leaders lying to them? You're even coddling him tempering his comments by calling them "embellishments" instead of lies. If he killed his child and ate it, would that be called a "snack"? Bill raised the bar for lying, Hillary and Barak seem to be trying to catch up. Why are your standards so low for your politicians?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Bill lied about a bj. no one got hurt. no one died.

Dubya lied and 3000 died. When you hold your heros accountable, you then have room to talk to me about ours.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Bill lied about a bj. no one got hurt. no one died.

Dubya lied and 3000 died. When you hold your heros accountable, you then have room to talk to me about ours.

Oh how we forget that Clinton's cowardly inaction contibuted to hundreds of thousands of deaths in Rawanda.

But, he was exonerated because he later apologized. :lol:
******************************************************
"The most egregious example was reporters' routine portrayal of the conflict in Rwanda as simply an explosion of senseless tribal violence between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The political context of the fighting - a hard-line group of Hutu officials seeking to jettison a power-sharing agreement that would have included Tutsi and pro-democracy Hutu parties - was generally ignored. The media also largely overlooked the Clinton administration's laissez faire approach to the crisis, most shamefully in its May 16 decision to prevent UN intervention in Rwanda. In another cynical move, the administration in mid-June instructed officials to abstain from using the word genocide when discussing the killings in Rwanda, though, with up to 400,000 people murdered by that time, almost all Tutsi, that's precisely what was taking place.

Clinton feared that the use of the word might fan public passions and increase pressure on his government to stop the carnage. "Some American officials acknowledge that the administration's posture lacks candor," said The New York Times. "But many argue that the land-locked African nation has no ties to the U.S. and no oil or other resources that would make American intervention worth the cost."

That same type of logic also helps explain why the press, until a few months ago, treated Rwanda as merely the "Home of the Mountain Gorillas."
***********************************************

This is your piece of $hit hero.............. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
and turned every Muslim in the world from a potential ally to a potential terrorist.

Come on.. every Muslim?

isn't that a little judgmental?isn't that the same thinking that led to the internment of the Japanese during WWII?

I am sure that every well-adjusted Muslim would find your comment offensive...

As for those who would become a potential terrorist.. I am sure that had Bush not continued the war against Iraq, the poor potential terrorists would have found another reason to hate US...

BTW your link doesn't work..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Did Bush Lie Us into War?

The factual answer would have to be no.. because we were already at war with Iraq... and had been for more the nine years..

But to answer your allegations..

President George W. Bush,... made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

"Now" it is clear that many of those statements appear to be false.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

If it is so clear in your mind that he actually lied, then why can't your elected liberal democratic leadership see the evidence?

Your democratic congress has failed to act... why?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Steve said:
Why are your standards so low for your politicians?

Might also ask why are GP's standards are so low as well?

You talking about GB (Bush?) I've never voted for him - never would unless it was between him and Hillary and I had a gun to my head. He's not smart enough to know when he's lying and when he isn't. Is that the case with Obama and the Clintons?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Steve said:
Why are your standards so low for your politicians?

Might also ask why are GP's standards are so low as well?

You talking about GB (Bush?) I've never voted for him - never would unless it was between him and Hillary and I had a gun to my head. He's not smart enough to know when he's lying and when he isn't. Is that the case with Obama and the Clintons?

NO, GoodPasture...

as for Obama.. I am sure he knows if he is lying..
 

passin thru

Well-known member
and turned every Muslim in the world from a potential ally to a potential terrorist
Yes and the muslim attacks even befor GW took office were just "horsin around"

Do you libs even listen to what you are saying.




Bill lied about a bj
Wrong, he was being investigated on RAPE charges. So do you think raping a woman is acceptable?
If a bj is no big deal..............why did he commit perjury then.
 
Top