| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Once Again, Bush is Lying to America |
Topic: Once Again, Bush is Lying to America
| Author | Message |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 4/3/2007 11:37:18 AM | show profile You have to wonder if Bush even knows the truth anymore. In a press conference this AM, Bush said this: "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds." "The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said. "Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to." It's all lies. In fact, the troops presently in Iraq are fully funded until July at the earliest even if Congress didn't commit another dime. Secondly, families are ALREADY waiting for their loved ones to come home--tours have been extended, home leaves shortened, and stop loss has been used for years, which has nothing to do with Congressional funding and everything to do with stretching the military too thin because of piss-poor planning on the part of the White House. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 4/3/2007 11:44:30 AM | show profile this is why the guy should be caged... |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 4/3/2007 12:07:22 PM | show profile And wouldn't Bush's veto of the Democrat bill delay the funds to the troops even longer? He would then be guilty of what he claims the Dems are guilty of. |
| mailbag | Posted – 4/3/2007 12:57:59 PM | show profile | email poster intentional I was watching a Hollywood reel clip from 1950 (extra on a DVD from Warner) dedicated to how successful and powerful our military was at the time - mainly following WWII. Very patriotic - almost thought of waving a flag to the music. So, we won against Japan and Germany. We lost against Iraq. At this point I'm convinced our loss was intentional. This isn't a slam to Iraq's people, for I believe they are good people in general; but no dice on comparing them to Japanese and Germans -- Iraqis can't fight worth a damn. And yet the USA still lost - how is that - unless that was the goal. How different were our military generals in the 1940s than they are today? I can't believe they are much different. Were our successes in WWII really only due to FDR and Truman? |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 4/3/2007 1:21:38 PM | show profile No comparison between the wars. From a military standpoint, the US won the Iraq invasion within a few weeks, which was a no-brainer. That's one reason BushCo invaded; Iraq had no serious military defense to speak of. It's the peace BushCo lost. The cause being the stunning hubris of the neoclowns who misplanned the whole adventure: ignoring warnings from their own Pentagon and State Department experts, flipping the bird to allies, going in understaffed, not securing Saddam's many weapons stockpiles (explosives from which have been killing US soldiers ever since), disbanding the Iraqi Army thus dumping hundreds of thousands of young, militarily trained men on unemployment, firing all the Baathists (who had been running Iraq for decades), and so much more. The Second World War was one of necessity to save the world. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice to steal its oil and grab a new military launchpad in the MidEast, and the only people on the planet who don't know that are in the US. |
| A~ | Posted – 4/3/2007 2:07:29 PM | show profile My response: Quickly now: Who got us into Somalia? Bill Clinton? (Wrong. It was Bush's daddy.) How did we get out of Somalia? Bill Clinton reluctantly ordered the troops out because Americans freak out when US soldiers die. (Partially true -- we LOST in Somalia because of the Black Hawk incident. America also turned tail in Rwanda, alongside the French, leaving a Canadian General and a few hundred South Asian multinational troops to witness helplessly the murder of 800,000 people in five months.) The full answer: The Republicans cut funding for the operations in Somalia in order to force Clinton to pull the troops out. End of debate! PS - The CIA works with the Sudan rregime in counter-terrorism operations. (It's a non-sequiter, but worth mentioning.) |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 4/3/2007 3:22:34 PM | show profile Good point, A. And this latest Bush "emergency funding" bill also begs the question: we've been stuck in Iraq for 4 years, yet the Bush Adminstration has never once allocated funds for the Iraq/Afghanistan ops in the regular defense budget, even though it stopped being "emergency" funding at least 3 years ago. Why? Because the regular budget has to provide details in far greater depth, and is much more scrutinized, than the "emergency funding" bills. BushCo doesn't want anyone looking too closely at where that $400 billion poured into Iraq has actually been going. Wonder why. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 4/3/2007 6:52:14 PM | show profile Bush can talk tough (and continue to lie) but 6+ years of him and we all know his game. He has no credibility. He's been a complete failure at everything he's touched. His incompetency has resulted in the loss of probably a hundred thousand lives or so. How many more? It's clear he wants to leave office with the mess in full swing so someone else can be blamed for how poorly it ended. |
| keltoi | Posted – 4/4/2007 12:43:37 AM | show profile That's just what he intends, Ugo. He wants to drag out the US presence there until 2009 when another president will be stuck with getting the US out, all so Bush can say "I didn't lose Iraq." And that oil thing, of course. |
| harryfred | Posted – 4/4/2007 6:57:15 AM | show profile Bush's forthcoming veto of the Iraq war spending bill may itself be the end of the war, because I cannot see how the Democrats can cobble together a majority to pass anything with less teeth. Republicans will not vote for anything but a blank check. Personally, I am emailing my Rep. and Sens. that if the Iraq war is ongoing in fall 2008, I am voting independent. That being said, I saw a FrontLine PBS documentary on the Year 1 of the Iraq war a few months ago, and they detailed how George W Bush replaced all the experienced generals just after the invasion with some nobodies, including that Gen. Sanchez guy who had commanded NATO troops in Europe (big deal). Of course some generals also resigned. Secondly, Paul Brenner in charge of Iraq reconstruction was basically a glorified secretary at Henry Kissenger & Company. Rumsfeld (according to the same documentary) was more tactically concerned about being in charge (as oppose to Colin Powell and the CIA) than victory. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 4/4/2007 7:31:41 AM | show profile Loyal Bushies. That's all that matters to him. |
| keltoi | Posted – 4/4/2007 11:38:53 PM | show profile OK, so today George told some troops that the Democrat plan for leaving Iraq would "spawn danger". Well hell, George--you were told invading Iraq would spawn danger, but that didn't stop YOU. And you've been doing a helluvalot of danger spawning over there ever since. |
| Nikongirl | Posted – 4/5/2007 1:32:59 AM | show profile >>Once Again, Bush is Lying to America<, When ISN'T the shrub lying to America? |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 4/6/2007 2:36:32 PM | show profile Possibly when he's sleeping, nikon, but that's not confirmed. Of course, if he talks in his sleep then all bets are off. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 4/6/2007 3:21:40 PM | show profile I loved the Pentagon's take on Saddam's dcouments showing no connection with Al Quada as Dick 'the lyin' shit' Cheney was lecturing once again about the relationship. I swear if any one person deserved a prison sentence - it would be the Buckshot Face Killer. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 4/6/2007 4:29:45 PM | show profile But it was "Mission Accomplished" for Cheney, Jazz. Cheney intentionally spun his BS at the moment the DoD report comes out, and the lockstep "liberal" US media focuses on Dick's rantings rather than the truth. Dick's lies (though the media never dares call them that) get the headlines, and the truth once again gets stuck below the fold, if reported at all. Interesting to compare the US nooz with foreign media on stories like this. The foreign media almost always cover what's really going on, while their US counterparts once again fall into the gossipy "he said, she said" "controversy" BS, burying the real news once again. |
