So Dubya held a press conference today...

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
So Dubya had a press conference today that produced many comical "bushisms" and odd phrases. Some of them include:

Imagine an enemy who kills people to give people freedom?

Let's see here, they told me what to say.

I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just plain wrong.

He (Saddam) didn't let the inspectors in.

My job is to explain to people what is on my mind.

Islamofascists

I don't hear any Dems speaking out against wiretapping.

He also said something about "appreciating congress providing suggestions", not actually working with them. :lol:

I can't wait to hear Chris Matthews gush over Dubya, claiming he's gaining momentum and galvanizing his base. :bomb:

EDIT: Transcript.
 
the only points he scored were on the economy

too bad he can't get much traction on that right now... too overwhelmed with bad news coming in from every side

his biggest blunder was trying to convince people that he wasn't dead set on going to war with Iraq

Helen Thomas: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.

Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers, intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil. It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?

BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect.

QUESTION: And...

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me.

No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.

more spin and lies... the real truth is:

British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003:

A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. [Guardian, 2/3/06]

British Memo — Bush Had Made Up His In July 2002:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. [Downing Street Minutes, 7/23/02]

Bush Suggested War Against Iraq Nine Days After 9/11:

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001. [The Observer, 4/4/04]
 
It's an attempt to rewrite history. For example, Dubya's statement that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, so he had no choice but to invade Iraq -- not true. The inspectors were IN iraq, and had to get out fast because the bombs were dropping.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's an attempt to rewrite history. For example, Dubya's statement that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, so he had no choice but to invade Iraq -- not true. The inspectors were IN iraq, and had to get out fast because the bombs were dropping.[/QUOTE]

the really sad part is that people don't call him on crap like that

fudging the truth is one thing

outright lying about things that are already on the public record is quite another

sheesh
 
They do call him on it, but some poor white girl in a rich red state gets kidnapped, runs from her marriage or is lost and then the american people become glued to their tvs, not realizing the atrocities that are being committed in their name. If all else fails and the normal bait and switches of lost white girls, impending diseases, and shark attacks don't take hold, Dick Cheney will just start shooting people in the face again.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's an attempt to rewrite history. For example, Dubya's statement that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, so he had no choice but to invade Iraq -- not true. The inspectors were IN iraq, and had to get out fast because the bombs were dropping.[/QUOTE]

The really sad thing is that your rewrite of history is thought of as gospel by your commrades. If you would bother to read the resolutions and the inspectors' reports, you wouldn't be able to substantiate your propogandist claims of lying to invade Iraq. The sadder thing is that everyone you preach to hasn't read any of the information for themselves either.

You want to blame someone for the Iraq invasion? Blame Saddam. Or Blame George HW Bush for not completeing the job in 1991. Or blame Clinton for not eliminating him when he had the same evidence of weapons stockpiles and transgressions against the peace accords during his own administration. Much easier to chant "Bush lied, people died", I guess, instead of using your brain.
 
That's right..blame Anyone But Bush... You're pathetic.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

HELEN THOMAS: I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

HELEN THOMAS: -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Click to expand...

C'mon. Bush wasn't talking in the abstract about Saddam's past transgressions. He was specifically talking about the Saddam's reaction to the UN resolution 1441. AND HE WAS LYING. Period. End of discussion.

Inspectors went into Iraq Nov. 18 2002 a mere 10 days after the Security Resolution passed 1441.

On Dec. 7 2002 -Iraq submits a 12,000-page declaration on its chemical, biological and nuclear activities, claiming it has no banned weapons.

The UN continues inspection until a few days before the War starts. They leave as a result of Bush. They find some empty banned warheads.

Now one could make the arguement that Iraq was being difficult with respect to access for inspectors. But Bush didn't

It is very troubling when pointing out a major factual error by the president becomes "rewriting history".
 
[quote name='rabidmonkeys']They do call him on it, but some poor white girl in a rich red state gets kidnapped, runs from her marriage or is lost and then the american people become glued to their tvs, not realizing the atrocities that are being committed in their name. If all else fails and the normal bait and switches of lost white girls, impending diseases, and shark attacks don't take hold, Dick Cheney will just start shooting people in the face again.[/QUOTE]

they HAVE been masterful in their use of the press to distract the general population

like Chris Rock said... "I think Bush sent that girl to Kobe's room..."

lmao
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You want to blame someone for the Iraq invasion? Blame Saddam. Or Blame George HW Bush for not completeing the job in 1991. Or blame Clinton for not eliminating him when he had the same evidence of weapons stockpiles and transgressions against the peace accords during his own administration.[/quote]

Or blame Reagan for giving Iraq weapons, or blame Reagan for selling weapons to Iran, or blame Stalin for the Cold War which led to the whole mess, I wonder how far back we can go with this...;)
 
[quote name='SpazX']Or blame Reagan for giving Iraq weapons, or blame Reagan for selling weapons to Iran, or blame Stalin for the Cold War which led to the whole mess, I wonder how far back we can go with this...;)[/QUOTE]

word to your saddam

rumsfeld_saddam.jpg


:)
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The really sad thing is that your rewrite of history is thought of as gospel by your commrades. If you would bother to read the resolutions and the inspectors' reports, you wouldn't be able to substantiate your propogandist claims of lying to invade Iraq. The sadder thing is that everyone you preach to hasn't read any of the information for themselves either.[/QUOTE]

It takes little to no research to learn that, yes, indeed, there were inspectors in Iraq doing their job immediately prior to the American invasion.

So I must question, bmulligan, exactly who is falling for propaganda in this case.

Here's what I got from a single Google search:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

Or this Golden Oldie:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons.

"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday.

U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.

No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday. Most of the teams' helicopters have left Iraq because their insurance was canceled, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said, and the personnel level was low because of a scheduled rotation home.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how notifying UN inspectors that the invasion is going to start as a courtesy is somehow damning evidence that the US was the one thwarting UN inspections. The warnings were given to Iraq, the compliance was unforthcoming. The timeline was from late november 2002 to march 2003. The shell game Saddam played was brilliant use of misdirection to delay any real or imaginary consequences stated in resolution 1441.

your own coved article states:
The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they've found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

US intelligence reports become outdated as soon as Saddam moves suspected contraband from a reported site to another. Funny how that you, the media, and frustrated inspectors assume US intelligence to be false at every turn, yet you would believe agents of a dictator known to be a master at a "weapons hiding shell game." Perhaps we should take everything Saddam says at face value: We are in total compliance. Oh, you found missles that are non-compliant? Well, except for those, we are in total compliance. Oh, you found a dozen chemical warheads? Well, except for those, we are in total compliance. You want to inspect my presidential palaces? Sorry, you must respect the sanctity of Iraq and give us warning before we grant you unrestricted access. Other than that we will are in total compliance. You want evidence we destroyed 2000lbs of anthrax? We can't find it, but trust us, we are in total compliance.

In 1998, during the clinton administration's tenure when UN inspectors were thrown out of Iraq not to return until 2002:
But in the report to the Security Council last year, UNSCOM reported that Saddam Hussein still possessed more than 2,000 gallons of the deadly bacteria anthrax; 31,000 chemical weapons; more than 600 tons of material to produce the deadly VX nerve agent; and 4,000 tons of additional material that could be used to produce weapons.

All of which, had not been accounted for as being destroyed.


UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler told the UN Security Council that his meetings in Baghdad did not resolve the confrontation regarding UN weapons inspection in Iraq. Butler characterized these meetings as "disturbing and disappointing" compared to previous meetings with senior Iraqi officials, which Butler had referred to as "correct and business-like". Furthermore, Butler found it unacceptable that Iraq has responded with defiance to Security Council resolutions, the UN inspection team, and the international community.

US Ambassador Bill Richardson pointed out that the United States "feels very strongly that there should be full, unfettered access to all sites .. In the next few days we will be consulting with our allies inside and outside the UN Security Council on the next steps". He said that "We want to resolve this issue diplomatically but we are not ruling any option out."
Click to expand...

In october 2002, the Heritage Foundation reported:

Iraq initially denied that many of its suspected weapons programs existed, and was only gradually forced to admit their existence when confronted with irrefutable evidence by U.N. inspectors. Iraq's "cheat and retreat" strategy led it to admit only what the inspectors already knew. Although Baghdad admitted that it possessed missiles, which it had launched against Israel, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, it denied having a nuclear or biological weapons program. Baghdad denied the existence of its biological weapons program to UNSCOM until July 1995, when it grudgingly admitted the existence of such a program after being persistently confronted with evidence by inspectors. Iraq stubbornly denied that it had a nuclear weapons program, despite the fact that U.N. inspectors found the entire payroll ledger for roughly 20,000 Iraqis who worked in that program.5 According to British intelligence, Iraq recalled nuclear scientists to the program after the U.N. inspections ended in 1998, and it "has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."6 Iraq has no nuclear power plants or civil nuclear power program and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.

Saddam had 11 years to fully destroy all previously recorded chemical agents and non-compliant weapons and did not as evidenced by the material breaches, however slight, found by subsequent inspections. Instead of crying about lack of chemical weapons caches found in Iraq, you should be more concerned about where the material has gone and if it has been destroyed at all. The production of a body in a murder case is not always present or necessary for a conviction when enough circumstantial evidence is sufficient. To leave room for reasonable doubt in a case like this could jaepordize the lives of millions of people compared to the thousands of people killed in the effort to dipose Saddam. Lives which could have been saved had it not been for Saddam's unwillingness to cooperate with your world community and our peace accords after his defeat. A UN community which also turned a blind eye to it's own sanctions and subverted justice and safety for profit in illegal oil trading with a sadistic killer giving him no reason to believe in consequences for his actions.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm still trying to figure out how notifying UN inspectors that the invasion is going to start as a courtesy is somehow damning evidence that the US was the one thwarting UN inspections. The warnings were given to Iraq, the compliance was unforthcoming. The timeline was from late november 2002 to march 2003. The shell game Saddam played was brilliant use of misdirection to delay any real or imaginary consequences stated in resolution 1441.[/QUOTE]

Two indisputable facts pretty much destroy this whole argument, bmulligan:

(1) There WERE weapons inspectors in Iraq doing their job when we invaded. Saddam was threatened with invasion, and COMPLIED, allowing them into the country. Had the inspectors been allowed to continue their work, instead of rushed out so the bombs could drop, we would have learned that....

(2) Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. No one has produced any credible evidence that Saddam had huge caches of weapons. The U.S.'s own inspection teams, post-invasion, have said Iraq had no WMDs.

If there were evidence to the contrary, don't you think the Bush Administration would be trumpeting the news? If there were solid evidence showing that the weapons were shipped to another country, wouldn't President Bush have shouted that news to the rooftops in support of his policies?

You are clinging to a fantasy, bmulligan. You are arguing from a position based upon not a single fact. You write:

[quote name='bmulligan']The production of a body in a murder case is not always present or necessary for a conviction when enough circumstantial evidence is sufficient.[/QUOTE]

But there isn't even CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence regarding modern WMDs in Iraq. To use your body analogy, there's no blood, no drag marks, no signs of a struggle, no reason to believe the person was even alive at the time. As far as the Bush Administration knows -- and you know -- the "body" in question died in the mid-1990s due to U.N. sanctions.

And wishing otherwise won't make it so.
 
New Dubya quote said today:

"Other states may have more people, but they have bigger populations"

Really makes you think........how the hell this guy got elected in the first place.
 
Oh I love hearing Helen bitchslap Wolf Blitzer!:

It was the best minute in TV since this morning when Helen embarrassed the President by asking why he planed to invade Iraq even before 9/11. Leslie (aka Wolf) had Helen on to talk down to her about her questions to Bush earlier today. For some strange reason Leslie asked Helen why she thought the US invaded Iraq. Helen gestured toward Les (is our boy Les a neocon?) and said, (paraphrase) "Well because of the neocons at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Their plan was to invade first Iraq, then Syria, then Iran."

Les interrupted with some irrelevancy about all the 9/11 dead, and Helen leaned toward him and said, "They had nothing to do with each other...."

Then Helen said to Leslie, "Come home, you'll be welcomed."

But the best part was as she continued, "You and I were at the WH together and you used to ask tough questions. You asked Clinton why he didn't resign." Les was perturbed, cut her off and said,"That was a different time" and went to commercial.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Helen-Thomas.wmv
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']New Dubya quote said today:

"Other states may have more people, but they have bigger populations"

Really makes you think........how the hell this guy got elected in the first place.[/quote]


Any one of his public appearences would make you wonder that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top