Lies and Damned Lies

[Trish]

Although always present, the cacophony of voices crying out to the heavens about the many sins of the U.S. regarding the Iraq War is growing increasingly strident and shrill. The list of transgressions are varied and many.

Bush and his neocon, warmongering administration lied to us all claiming that WMD was THE reason for going to war in Iraq, while all along they were conspiring to steal Iraq’s oil. The U.S. ignored the UN, and the peace loving nations pursuing diplomatic solutions to Hussein’s decade long history of noncompliance with UN sanctions. If only the arrogant, capitalistic, imperialistic, greedy, dishonest U.S. had listened to the humble, altruistic, charitable, and honest peacemakers of the UN then this illegal war could have been avoided!

Well let’s take a look shall we at all this altruism and honesty – let’s take a look at WHO was and is calling Bush a liar?


“Oil-for-Food was the United Nations' biggest program anywhere in the world. As Claudia Rosett pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, the U.N. oversaw "a flow of funds averaging at least $15 billion a year, more than five times the U.N.'s core annual budget."3 Oil-for-Food was administered by 10 U.N. agencies employing over 1,000 staff internationally and in New York, as well as 3,000 Iraqi nationals. The U.N. collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold, generating more than $1 billion in revenue.
Until 2001, all Iraqi oil revenues were held in an escrow account run solely by Banque Nationale de Paris. The money was later kept by several unnamed international banks, all approved by Saddam's regime.
The program was shrouded in secrecy, with little transparency or public accountability. There was no system of external auditing or publishing of accounts. The identity of the banks holding the Iraqi funds was kept secret. Oil-for-Food became a cash cow for the U.N. and a lucrative source of contracts for Russian and French companies. The Times of London calculated that from 1996 to 2003, Russian companies received $7.3 billion of business through Oil-for-Food, and French firms earned $3.7 billion.4
Between 1997 and 2002, the Oil-for-Food program generated over $67 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. With little U.N. oversight, the Iraqi dictatorship was able to circumvent and exploit the program.
Emerging from the evidence is a mosaic of international corruption involving a patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the Oil-for-Food program and helped to keep Hussein in power.
Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country's oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq's oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.11
According to reports in the London Sunday Telegraph:
Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders. Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries.12
The Russians are also believed to have sold arms to Iraq illegally right up until the outbreak of war with the United States in March 2003. The Bush Administration has accused Russian arms dealers of selling anti-tank guided missiles, electronic jamming equipment, and thousands of night vision goggles to the Iraqis in open violation of U.N. sanctions.13 During Hussein's dictatorship, Russia reportedly provided him with $14 billion worth of arms shipments.14
Evidence has also come to light of intimate political cooperation between Paris and Baghdad in the period leading up to the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein. Documents found in the wreckage of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry reveal that "Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington."15
Officials in the French Foreign Office reportedly shared information with their Iraqi counterparts on a sensitive meeting between former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell following the terrorist attacks on September 11. Details of talks between French President Jacques Chirac and President George W. Bush were also reportedly passed on to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry by the French ambassador in Baghdad. http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

“HOW TO BUY A FRENCH VETO; SEDUCED BY SADDAM OIL-FOR-FOOD: THE U.N. SCANDAL
New York Post - New York, N.Y.
Author: DICK MORRIS
Date: Apr 28, 2004
Start Page: 031
Section: PostOpinion
Text Word Count: 697

Anyone who pines for genuine international multilateralism would do well to follow the bribes now being uncovered in the United Nations' Oil-for- Food scandal.

Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime? And why did they press constantly, throughout the '90s, for an expansion of Iraqi oil sales? Was it their empathy for the starving children of that impoverished nation? Their desire to stop the United States from arrogantly imposing its vision upon the Middle East?

It now looks like that it was simply because they were on the take. Saddam was their cash cow. If President Bush has suffered some discredit over his apparently false — but not disingenuous — claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the lapse is minor compared to the outright personal selfishness and criminality that appears to have motivated many of those who opposed his efforts to rid the world of one of its worst dictators.

Throughout the '90s, France and Russia badgered the United States and Britain to increase Iraqi oil production. President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair fought them at each step, but then reluctantly gave way. First Iraq was allowed to sell 500,000 barrels daily. Then, on Franco-Russian insistence, it was raised to 1 million, then to 2 million and, finally, to 3 million barrels a day.

Each time, America and Britain — the nations now accused of coveting Iraqi oil — resisted the increases in Iraqi production and urged tighter controls over the program. Each time, the French and the Russians prattled on about the rights of Iraqi sovereignty and the need to feed the children.

Now we know why the French and Russians were so insistent. Iraqi government documents (leaked to the Baghdad newspaper Al Mada) list at least 270 individuals and entities who got vouchers allowing them to sell Iraqi oil — and to keep much of the money. These vouchers, and the promise of instant great wealth they carried with them, bought vital support in the United Nations to let Saddam stay in power. …

The defect of international coalitions is that they include the just and the unjust, the bribed and the honest, the democratic and the autocratic. And their members cannot be trusted equally. The group that stood up and backed the invasion of Iraq was nicknamed "the Coalition of the Willing." Now it appears it was also "the Coalition of the Honest." (You can pay to view the complete article at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/624691701.html?dids=624691701:624691701&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+28%2C+2004&author=DICK+MORRIS&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=031&desc=HOW+TO+BUY+A+FRENCH+VETO%3B+SEDUCED+BY+SADDAM +OIL-FOR-FOOD%3A+THE+U.N.+SCANDAL)
Now if all of that isn’t enough to convince anyone of who the liars are, where the hidden agendas are, who was after Iraqi oil, why the US didn’t get UN approval for the war, look at the figures listed above as to who was profiting from Iraqi oil, how much they got over what time period and then take a look at what the war is costing us.

“A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week” http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

Do the freaking math for yourself. As much as some people want to call George Bush stupid, no one is that damn stupid.

Greed for Iraq’s oil certainly did play a part in the decision about war – but it wasn’t the US’ greed for oil pushing us to war, it was the oil greed of the UN, France, and Russia that was intent on keeping Hussein in power. So call Bush a liar about WMD if you want. It would appear that on the list of liars, he’s a long way from the top.

[Tsky]

George Bush is no saint. His actions (initiating the war) have caused the deaths of thousands of soliders and probably hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. And you say the reason for all the carnage is oil? I believe you.

So while you consider him far from the top in the lying category, can he get the top spot for the murder category?

Me thinks murder trumps lying.

[Truth_and_Power]

The heritage foundation article presents facts that do not surprise me, but I would like to hear them from a source that is less known for leaning to the right.

As for the opinion piece

If President Bush has suffered some discredit over his apparently false — but not disingenuous — claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

HAHAHAHAH phew ok. Thanks for that.



Despite being a "terrorist loving librul", I'm usually the first to point out that putin and russia are no better than the neocons, just less powerful. This is just another article that talks about how bad putin is for supporting saddaam after we stopped supporting him. Apparently our support determines mortality. When the US stops supporting a corrupt dictator, anyone who continues to support him is a bad person/country.

[Trish]

The heritage foundation article presents facts that do not surprise me, but I would like to hear them from a source that is less known for leaning to the right.

As for the opinion piece

If President Bush has suffered some discredit over his apparently false — but not disingenuous — claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

HAHAHAHAH phew ok. Thanks for that.



Despite being a "terrorist loving librul", I'm usually the first to point out that putin and russia are no better than the neocons, just less powerful. This is just another article that talks about how bad putin is for supporting saddaam after we stopped supporting him. Apparently our support determines mortality. When the US stops supporting a corrupt dictator, anyone who continues to support him is a bad person/country.



The sources for the first piece can be found at the end of the article. I left the citation numbers in the text specifically for that purpose so that the original sources could be checked out.

As to your comment "our support determines mortality" (and yes, I know you meant morality) I would counter with - moral is as moral does. We've been told ad nauseum that the US is involved in an "illegal" war because the UN did not sanction military intervention in Iraq. That line is lapped up like cream and regurgitated endlessly. It is generally completely ignored that the legal authority of the UN has been vacated by the UN's own illegal actions in Iraq. Then we have Russia and France - talk about disingenuous. Holding themselves up as some sort of diplomatic paragons of altruism fighting the greedy arrogance of US imperialism. Their noble efforts to avert war are now revealed to be nothing more than a desperate attempt to not only hide their illegal acts, but to perpetuate them. Yet these are the "authorities" that were to grant the US the magic cloak of legality in Iraq.

I just think that before we continue to heap burning coals upon the head of the US, we should take a real long look at who's stoking the fire. The point is not that the US is a saint - just that we're not always quite the sinner we're portrayed to be!

[ViolaLee]

I think Trish is a DINO.

[Tsky]

Trish -

The actions of ALL OF THE ABOVE equal a smoking.hot.mess.

Your attempts to separate culpability still brings us back to the fact that it was the U.S. that proposed war against Iraq using faulty intelligence. Russia, France and the U.N. did not engage Iraq in war. Russia and France were content to an extent with the way things were because the actually had deals with Saddam, except for the fact that Saddam was an unpredicatable megalomaniac. Because of the war all of them stood to benefit from the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq but of course there was resentment on the parts of Russia and France b/c the U.S. used September 11th to exert their own power over Mid East oil. I'm sure they were thinking, 'why didn't we think of this first?'

All of it is disgusting and the U.S.'s actions are just as disgusting as everyone else's and actually a little worse b/c lives were lost because of our President's actions.

[Jaaaman]

I think Trish is a DINO.


Democrat in name only? I am sure she will love your new label for her...:rolleyes:

[Deadshot]

Bush and Co. FUBAR'd the war. If you want to keep score, fine. But in the end Bush will have shot the GOP in the foot and hurt his party.

Ergo, the Dems will be back in power, mostly on the burnt coat tails of Republicans and there cacaphony of, not just lies, but stupidity and the arrogance to amost never question a decision from above.

[Trish]

I am a registered Democrat and have been for quite a number of years. That does not mean that I blindly accept whatever the Democratic party espouses just as I do not blindly accept what Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, or any other political party espouses. I do my utmost to keep myself informed, aware, educated, and in touch with not only what is happening in the U.S. but in the world at large. I try to look at historical context, perspective, motivation, goals, agendas, and every other contingency I can think of that might impart bias to reports and articles. I rarely take one report or view as "gospel" about anything. I try and look at not only what is said, but who is saying it, and just as importantly, who is not saying it. I learned a long time ago that perspective has a way of changing night into day or vice versa. I try to look at as complete a picture as I can formulate about an issue rather than simply one "side" or political stance. If I am unfamiliar with an issue I make the effort to try and educate myself as much as possible before forming an opinion. I try to look at the sources for information I read rather than simply taking an article or report at face value. Often I have found that what is reported in one article, story, or report as having been said or done has not be reported accurately but rather with significant additions and/or deletions which change the whole context. Please note that the operative word in this narrative is "try."

As to being a DINO - I flatly refuse to be an idealogical sheep and that includes being a Democratic one.

[Tsky]

I don't think anyone has a problem with using different sources to find information that is what a honest debater does. What is interesting is the way you chose to interpret the information.

I read the same information you read and came away thinking: All of them are a bunch of lying scoundrels but Bush actually initiated the war so of course he will take most of the flack.

You came away thinking: "Do the freaking math for yourself. As much as some people want to call George Bush stupid, no one is that damn stupid. Greed for Iraq’s oil certainly did play a part in the decision about war – but it wasn’t the US’ greed for oil pushing us to war, it was the oil greed of the UN, France, and Russia that was intent on keeping Hussein in power. So call Bush a liar about WMD if you want. It would appear that on the list of liars, he’s a long way from the top."

That doesn't sound like fair and balanced reasoning to be honest with you.

P.S. - I'd also like to add that France, Russian and the U.N.'s opinion that the war was illegal, while at the same time standing to gain depending upon the success of the war, doesn't mean that their opinion that the war was illegal is invalid, it just means they are hypocrites.

[Trish]

Your attempts to separate culpability still brings us back to the fact that it was the U.S. that proposed war against Iraq using faulty intelligence.


I do not have and have never had my head buried in the sand as to the U.S., what it does, has done, or the whys and wherefores behind its decisions. I have not, am not, and will not ever contend that the U.S. is some perfect utopia without fault or transgression. I know better. However, I also know how wide a brush is often used to paint the US negatively. As I said in my earlier post....the U.S. is certainly no saint - but neither is it as big a sinner as it is often portrayed.

[Tsky]

Your attempts to separate culpability still brings us back to the fact that it was the U.S. that proposed war against Iraq using faulty intelligence.


I do not have and have never had my head buried in the sand as to the U.S., what it does, has done, or the whys and wherefores behind its decisions. I have not, am not, and will not ever contend that the U.S. is some perfect utopia without fault or transgression. I know better. However, I also know how wide a brush is often used to paint the US negatively. As I said in my earlier post....the U.S. is certainly no saint - but neither is it as big a sinner as it is often portrayed.


Well, that's a very general and vague statement and some people could say the same about Saddam Hussein, he wasn't all bad, there was SOME good.

I like getting to the bottom line and not dealing in vague generalities. Any negative impression outsiders or insiders have of the U.S. at this point in time is because of the actions of one, George W. Bush, Jr. Because of his actions, failures, lies and illiteracy (yes I said illiteracy), I do not feel that I am able to justify much of what he has done during his presidency. If his record were stellar and his approval rating were thru the roof then it could be said that I am a biased liberal. However, I feel strongly that his actions have given me credible reason to be skeptical about just about everything he says and does and his actions have rendered me incapable of faulting anyone who thinks he is mentally disabled.

My focus is not on France, Russian or the U.N., my focus is on GWB.

That the real deal.

[Truth_and_Power]

Tsky, don't forget, bush was elected twice, and he didn't act alone. At the very least, the responsibility for his actions fall on a majority of americans.

Trish, I agree with Tsky that although your attempt to gain perspective is valid, your conclusions came out a little less than level headed. France and Russia are the only countries to consider economic motives when evaluating peace and war? I'm sure Bush's oil baron supporters wanted a piece of that pie.. or keish. Now who's the hypocrite? This is just global powers playing games with each other, fighting for their piece. Everybody is evil in this, but as far as I can see we're the only ones that are warring over it, unless you consider Russia's problems near the baltic.

[Tsky]

Tsky, don't forget, bush was elected twice, and he didn't act alone. At the very least, the responsibility for his actions fall on a majority of americans.

Trish, I agree with Tsky that although your attempt to gain perspective is valid, your conclusions came out a little less than level headed. France and Russia are the only countries to consider economic motives when evaluating peace and war? I'm sure Bush's oil baron supporters wanted a piece of that pie.. or keish. Now who's the hypocrite? This is just global powers playing games with each other, fighting for their piece. Everybody is evil in this, but as far as I can see we're the only ones that are warring over it, unless you consider Russia's problems near the baltic.


You are right about the election unless you believe he really didn't win to begin with....:evil:

But even still the Frontline program last night reinforced my thought that he wanted and got absolute power. The Congress, OLC and Justice Department couldn't stop Bush so I doubt he would let a little thing called the 'voting process' get in his way.

Oh boy. I just re-read what I said. I guess I should be hanging out in the Conspiracy thread huh? :lmao:

[Labrocca]

Nice post...and maybe if France, Russia, and the Corrupt UN were doing their legitimate job in helping to curb Saddam instead of help him we would never have gone to war. The French were easily the most vocal about not going to war but they weren't forthcoming with all their informaion. They just didn't want to see their pot of gold ruined.

Russia has enough of it's own oil BUT..I think they were happy to be selling Iraq arms. It's good business for Russia if there is a long drawn out war. Putin is tough imho to understand. He has his own agenda imho that he hides from everyone. He is a smart and slick man.

It's tiring hearing every day that it's Bush that created the war. It's just not reality.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

Dems have spun away from their early positions to make it APPEAR they were against any war. It's spin and it's ridiculous.

[Tsky]

Nice post...and maybe if France, Russia, and the Corrupt UN were doing their legitimate job in helping to curb Saddam instead of help him we would never have gone to war. The French were easily the most vocal about not going to war but they weren't forthcoming with all their informaion. They just didn't want to see their pot of gold ruined.

Russia has enough of it's own oil BUT..I think they were happy to be selling Iraq arms. It's good business for Russia if there is a long drawn out war. Putin is tough imho to understand. He has his own agenda imho that he hides from everyone. He is a smart and slick man.

It's tiring hearing every day that it's Bush that created the war. It's just not reality.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

Dems have spun away from their early positions to make it APPEAR they were against any war. It's spin and it's ridiculous.



Labrocca - They are all a bunch of liars, on that much we agree.

However what I notice from listening to the Dems in the link you provided is that they were repeating information they had heard from the President. They were not quoting their own intelligence sources. The President said that the Congress and the Dems had access to the same intelligence he used and they could have read it for themselves to see if what he was saying was true. That is true to an extent but the President did not and has not made public confidential information he used to make the decision to go to Iraq. I have heard reports that some of that information included reports that said Iraq DID NOT have WMD's, however, the President did not include those reports in his reasons for war. I also take issue with the notion that the President expected Congress to proofread his work so to speak, as if he wouldn’t have proceeded with this war without their consent. Remember, broad legislation had already been drafted giving the President the authority to proceed with this war, the authorization from Congress was incidental, IMHO.

For the above reasons, I have a problem faulting anyone besides our President for the ridiculous situation American finds itself in on a political, religious and social front.

[ECW]

Well let’s take a look shall we at all this altruism and honesty – let’s take a look at WHO was and is calling Bush a liar?

Well, you listed France, Russia and the UN using the Heritage Foundation and Dick "I Loves My Hookers" Morris as the source of the damnation. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your points and not very convincing, truth be told. You failed to demonstrate the lies that Russia, France and the UN are telling and how that translates into calling Bush a liar. As someone already declared, you make a good case for hypocrisy but not for lying.

There's only one problem with this little critique that you left out: the people who are out front in calling George Walker Bush a liar belong to the anti-war movement. Not all of them are lefties or Democrats but they all share one characteristic: they were against this war from the beginning. The Johnny-Come-Latelies are welcome but they do not have as much pull as those of us who knew from the start that this would be a disaster and saw the lies that were told to everyone involved. They saw the lies being told when no one else did. They put together the pieces of the puzzle while the neocons were still snatching corner pieces and putting them in their pockets to keep the truth away from the American people. Now, as the facts slowly come out, everyone is realizing that Bush lied thru his teeth to get us into a war where the exit strategy is death and nothing else.

Add to this the arrogance of the war effort on the part of George Walker Bush and his Band of Flying Monkeys: only those who belonged to the coalition of the Willing were allowed to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq (such that it is). That means that other nations who have a stake in a vital Middle East were squeezed out of the equation before the puzzle was solved. Nations like Germany and Japan who had capital to spend were not invited to play either. Two years into the quagmire, Bush then went to the UN and appealed to our allies to help with the costs of the war in Iraq, allies that he arrogantly pushed aside when he thought he could do it alone, and they quietly ignored his request. The lies he told to coerce nations to play along with his Cowboy Diplomacy was coming undone before his eyes.

None of our allies will come right out and say that Bush lied because they see, domestically, what those who spoke out are subjected to. They see General Shinseki. They see Richard Clarke. They see Joe Wilson. They see Valerie Plame. They see John Kerry. They see every anti-war activist. They are not stupid enough to speak the truth when they see how petty and vindictive this president and his neocon minions can be. He can say whatever bullshit he wants to about me because I will stand up to say what many will not: George Bush is a liar.

However, I also know how wide a brush is often used to paint the US negatively. As I said in my earlier post....the U.S. is certainly no saint - but neither is it as big a sinner as it is often portrayed.

That broad brush is used more to paint George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney as liars than it is to tar the United States on the whole. Most of the world remembers the time when we engendered respect around most of the world and they remember what took place to change that perception. They remember when a president's word was good as gold. They remember when when we were a beacon of light, not a glaring spotlight. They remember how we fought for human rights, not for subjugating human rights. They understand that the direction of the team comes from the manager and his coaches. They don't hate the players because the manager is a liar.

It's tiring hearing every day that it's Bush that created the war. It's just not reality.

In fact, it IS the glaring reality. It wasn't called the "rush to war" because we took our time getting there. From 9/11 on, Bush & Cheney were planning to go after Saddam. Richard Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton years, made this very point in his book about the gear up for war within the WH and the desire to get Saddam no matter what. OBL was the excuse. All the evidence you need is in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan where a murdering bastard still roams free and the greatest nation in the world is bogged down in ANOTHER land war in Asia.

http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx

Dems have spun away from their early positions to make it APPEAR they were against any war. It's spin and it's ridiculous.

This Liberal hasn't. There are a number of lefties who saw the truth from the beginning. Others bought into the Bush spin and felt pressured by the Fear Mongering Machine. Damn those Democrats all you want. I'll give them credit for seeing the light, albeit belatedly. The only light in George Bush's tunnel is the #120 engine's headlight coming down the track heading straight for him.

The lies of not only this president but his vice-president and the neocon minions are numerous and widespread and many of them are still being told despite being refuted with facts over and over again. It is DF being played out on the world stage. Just a few of them off the top of my head for your edification in somewhat cronological order...

*The war would be paid for with oil revenue
*It would cost 1$ billion
*We would be welcomed as liberators
*We would close down the horrors of Saddam's regime
*Iraq would be a beacon of freedom and democracy
*Reconstruction will come from oil revenues
*Benchmarks are not a good thing
*Saddam was constructing nukes
*Saddam had trailers that were involved with mobile biological weapons production
*AQ was working with Saddam to orchestrate 9/11
*AQ operated in Iraq before the war
*OBL would be found and brought to justice
*Mission Accomplished meant major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
*Disbanding Saddam's military and civil authority would speed recovery of Iraqi society
*We do not torture
*We do not spy on Americans
*American troops have all the equipment they need to fight in Iraq
*No one has to buy body armor before they go into the war zone
*Returning troops are well cared for and their health care is our primary concern
*Privatizing soldiers' health care has not negatively affected their health
*This is not a civil war
*The Surge will bring the war to a speedier end
*When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down
and my favorite...
*Stay The Course. We've never been stay the course.

Let me get a good night's sleep and I can probably come up with another couple thousand but I probably won't have to. I think I made my point with these.

[tony mitra]

Former American fugitive Marc Rich was a middleman for several of Iraq's suspect oil deals in February 2001, just one month after his pardon from President Clinton, according to oil industry shipping records obtained by ABC News.

Another broker was New York oil trader Ben Pollner, head of Taurus Oil, who investigators said handled several billion dollars worth of the transactions now under investigation.

Rich is likely still hiding in Switzerland.

The roles of several American oil companies, including ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, are also under investigation. ChevronTexaco received subpoenas requesting information for two separate grand jury proceedings, and said they were cooperating fully with both investigations.

In fact, hundreds of people around the world used the oil for food program to line their pockets, Russians, French, Americans, Indians, and no doubt Iraqi folks too.

There are thieves everywhere.

Bush, however, is not just a thief. His invasion has caused a million dead Iraqi, another 2 million refugees to Jordan and Syria, and another 2 million internally displaced - thats one fifth of the Iraqi population. This equates with 60 million Americans being dead, refugees or homeless because of an invasion.

For sure the little thieves are no match.

Cheers.
:)

[Drocket]

Just a few of them off the top of my head for your edification in somewhat cronological order...

Admit it: you copied this from Olbermann :P

[ECW]

Just a few of them off the top of my head for your edification in somewhat cronological order...

Admit it: you copied this from Olbermann :P


Guilty. The attitude of outrage is vintage KO but the words and the thoughts behind them are all mine.

[Deadshot]

It's tiring hearing every day that it's Bush that created the war. It's just not reality.

Dems have spun away from their early positions to make it APPEAR they were against any war. It's spin and it's ridiculous.


But Bush is the person who is our leader, right? We can't control the actions of France, Russia and/or the U.N. but, theorhetically, we can control the actions of the USA.

As for Democratic spin, that's politics. But I would remind you, and point your attention to the fact that even for someone like Hillary, who hasn't said her original vote to go to war was wrong, AT LEAST she points to things being wrong now and the war being a failed policy. That is something that the Bush Admin, and many in the GOP, refuse to even contemplate which is more sad and disgusting, then ridiculous.

The reality is that at any time our President could begin to rachet back the troop levels and begin to pull men and women out of harms way. The reality is that even though the POTUS, VPOTUS, SecState, SecDef and a host of other White House staff said the war would be over soon and that we'd be welcomed as heroes, those thing haven't happened. The reality is that Bush and Co. are planning for this to work 40 years in the future, and don't really care about today. The reality is that my 12 year old daughter and 10 year old daughter could someday have to serve in Iraq, because we won't CAN'T get out of there anytime in the next decade or so. The reality is that BUSH and Co. have led us down a path that has no exit strategy all the while telling us that things are fine. The reality is that Bush and Co., in their arrogance and inability to see the other side, have damned themselves and brought the reign of the GOP to an end - the only good thing to come out of the war so far.

[Pogo]

As to your comment "our support determines mortality" (and yes, I know you meant morality) I would counter with - moral is as moral does. We've been told ad nauseum that the US is involved in an "illegal" war because the UN did not sanction military intervention in Iraq. That line is lapped up like cream and regurgitated endlessly. It is generally completely ignored that the legal authority of the UN has been vacated by the UN's own illegal actions in Iraq. Then we have Russia and France - talk about disingenuous. Holding themselves up as some sort of diplomatic paragons of altruism fighting the greedy arrogance of US imperialism. Their noble efforts to avert war are now revealed to be nothing more than a desperate attempt to not only hide their illegal acts, but to perpetuate them. Yet these are the "authorities" that were to grant the US the magic cloak of legality in Iraq.

Has Blix been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal?

If not, your position falls apart, as Blix's last report to the UNSC stated that Iraq was complying with the inspections to such a degree that warranted their continuance. That's the point in time where Bush decided to pull the trigger.

Yes, the five permanent members of the UNSC are slimebuckets, but there's nothing to indicate that Blix was France's or Russia's lapdog.

[ECW]

I guess listing 24 lies told by Bush or someone like him is enough to prove once and for all that Bush is the liar here while Russia, France and the UN are just a bunch of hypocrites.

[Wndrtch]

*The war would be paid for with oil revenue
*It would cost 1$ billion
*We would be welcomed as liberators
*We would close down the horrors of Saddam's regime
*Iraq would be a beacon of freedom and democracy
*Reconstruction will come from oil revenues
*Benchmarks are not a good thing
*Saddam was constructing nukes
*Saddam had trailers that were involved with mobile biological weapons production
*AQ was working with Saddam to orchestrate 9/11
*AQ operated in Iraq before the war
*OBL would be found and brought to justice
*Mission Accomplished meant major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
*Disbanding Saddam's military and civil authority would speed recovery of Iraqi society
*We do not torture
*We do not spy on Americans
*American troops have all the equipment they need to fight in Iraq
*No one has to buy body armor before they go into the war zone
*Returning troops are well cared for and their health care is our primary concern
*Privatizing soldiers' health care has not negatively affected their health
*This is not a civil war
*The Surge will bring the war to a speedier end
*When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down
and my favorite...
*Stay The Course. We've never been stay the course.

Let me get a good night's sleep and I can probably come up with another couple thousand but I probably won't have to. I think I made my point with these.


*The war would be paid for with oil revenue
And what makes you think it won’t?

*It would cost 1$ billion
Show me where he said this, as $1Bill isn’t enough to wipe a Senators ass, let alone run a war. Link please.

*We would be welcomed as liberators
We were, unless you think the images of Iraqis toppling Saddams statue was manufactured. Wait, of course you do.

*We would close down the horrors of Saddam's regime
Umm, we did.

*Iraq would be a beacon of freedom and democracy
It will.

*Reconstruction will come from oil revenues
Once the oil is flowing freely, it will.

*Benchmarks are not a good thing
So, telling the enemy how and when you will withdraw is a GOOD plan to you then?

*Saddam was constructing nukes
He wanted too, and thought he was. Too bad his underlings were lying to him, to save their skin. Failure was met with death, so the scientists would often lie about progress. That is why we had an Intel failure.

*AQ was working with Saddam to orchestrate 9/11
Now who’s lying? This was never said by the President. Provide a link to the contrary. The claims at the time were that Saddam had hi level talks with key members of AQ, to discuss POSSIBLE cooperation.

*OBL would be found and brought to justice
And will.

*Mission Accomplished meant major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
“Major” combat operations did end. Not “all”. (Words mean things)

*Disbanding Saddam's military and civil authority would speed recovery of Iraqi society
This was an oversight, not a lie.

*We do not torture
We don’t. So sad that you think our soldiers would do this.

*We do not spy on Americans
Neither does Hillary.

“In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “…Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty…. she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.“…Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”

At least our guys are trying to discover who among us, are in league with terrorist. They can listen-in to my conversation anytime they want. I’m not friends with any terrorists.

*American troops have all the equipment they need to fight in Iraq
That’s been resolved, and you know it. Besides, the Dems are considering cutting the funding for the War, so what do you think will happen then?

*No one has to buy body armor before they go into the war zone
But will have to, if Congress cuts funds.

*Returning troops are well cared for and their health care is our primary concern
So, you’re a mind reader now?

*Privatizing soldiers' health care has not negatively affected their health
Link please.

*This is not a civil war
“We are fighting multiple factions in Iraq. First, we're fighting plain old street thugs. As you may recall, just before the liberation of Iraq, Saddam Hussein freed 50,000 Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to destabilize the escalating situation. Now those criminals are back on the streets forming gangs and inciting indiscriminate violence.
We're fighting former members of the Baath party who lost the political power they had under Saddam. Their attacks are an effort to undermine the government in hopes of regaining political power.
Third, we're fighting Iranian-backed Islamic fundamentalists. They also are trying to use the fragile situation in Iraq for their own political gain.

Finally, and most importantly for the United States, we're fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq. These people are terrorists and they're targeting Americans. They want Iraq to remain weak and for the American presence to disappear, so they can use the country to plan and launch terror attacks against the West. The Iraqis, American diplomats, and military members all agreed that Iraq was not in a civil war, even though we hear that repeatedly in the United States. They all said that overstates and oversimplifies the complex nature of the issue.”

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/OPINION02/710200328/1014/OPINION

*The Surge will bring the war to a speedier end
And it isn’t?

*When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down
I can agree with you on this one. We will not pull troops, even when Iraq settles down. We are building a HUGE military base there. Who do you thik will man it? Not Iraqis.

*Stay The Course. We've never been stay the course.
I can agree with this as well. We held onto Rumsfeld, way too long.

As far as lies go, how about Dems promissing to retreat/withdraw, if they get control of Congress?

[Elrathin]

As far as lies go, how about Dems promissing to retreat/withdraw, if they get control of Congress?


That's a lot of Dems you are claiming said this. Go ahead and quote each one where they said this.

[nevadamedic]

Although always present, the cacophony of voices crying out to the heavens about the many sins of the U.S. regarding the Iraq War is growing increasingly strident and shrill. The list of transgressions are varied and many.

Bush and his neocon, warmongering administration lied to us all claiming that WMD was THE reason for going to war in Iraq, while all along they were conspiring to steal Iraq’s oil. The U.S. ignored the UN, and the peace loving nations pursuing diplomatic solutions to Hussein’s decade long history of noncompliance with UN sanctions. If only the arrogant, capitalistic, imperialistic, greedy, dishonest U.S. had listened to the humble, altruistic, charitable, and honest peacemakers of the UN then this illegal war could have been avoided!

Well let’s take a look shall we at all this altruism and honesty – let’s take a look at WHO was and is calling Bush a liar?


“Oil-for-Food was the United Nations' biggest program anywhere in the world. As Claudia Rosett pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, the U.N. oversaw "a flow of funds averaging at least $15 billion a year, more than five times the U.N.'s core annual budget."3 Oil-for-Food was administered by 10 U.N. agencies employing over 1,000 staff internationally and in New York, as well as 3,000 Iraqi nationals. The U.N. collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold, generating more than $1 billion in revenue.
Until 2001, all Iraqi oil revenues were held in an escrow account run solely by Banque Nationale de Paris. The money was later kept by several unnamed international banks, all approved by Saddam's regime.
The program was shrouded in secrecy, with little transparency or public accountability. There was no system of external auditing or publishing of accounts. The identity of the banks holding the Iraqi funds was kept secret. Oil-for-Food became a cash cow for the U.N. and a lucrative source of contracts for Russian and French companies. The Times of London calculated that from 1996 to 2003, Russian companies received $7.3 billion of business through Oil-for-Food, and French firms earned $3.7 billion.4
Between 1997 and 2002, the Oil-for-Food program generated over $67 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. With little U.N. oversight, the Iraqi dictatorship was able to circumvent and exploit the program.
Emerging from the evidence is a mosaic of international corruption involving a patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the Oil-for-Food program and helped to keep Hussein in power.
Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country's oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq's oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.11
According to reports in the London Sunday Telegraph:
Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders. Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries.12
The Russians are also believed to have sold arms to Iraq illegally right up until the outbreak of war with the United States in March 2003. The Bush Administration has accused Russian arms dealers of selling anti-tank guided missiles, electronic jamming equipment, and thousands of night vision goggles to the Iraqis in open violation of U.N. sanctions.13 During Hussein's dictatorship, Russia reportedly provided him with $14 billion worth of arms shipments.14
Evidence has also come to light of intimate political cooperation between Paris and Baghdad in the period leading up to the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein. Documents found in the wreckage of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry reveal that "Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington."15
Officials in the French Foreign Office reportedly shared information with their Iraqi counterparts on a sensitive meeting between former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell following the terrorist attacks on September 11. Details of talks between French President Jacques Chirac and President George W. Bush were also reportedly passed on to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry by the French ambassador in Baghdad. http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

“HOW TO BUY A FRENCH VETO; SEDUCED BY SADDAM OIL-FOR-FOOD: THE U.N. SCANDAL
New York Post - New York, N.Y.
Author: DICK MORRIS
Date: Apr 28, 2004
Start Page: 031
Section: PostOpinion
Text Word Count: 697

Anyone who pines for genuine international multilateralism would do well to follow the bribes now being uncovered in the United Nations' Oil-for- Food scandal.

Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime? And why did they press constantly, throughout the '90s, for an expansion of Iraqi oil sales? Was it their empathy for the starving children of that impoverished nation? Their desire to stop the United States from arrogantly imposing its vision upon the Middle East?

It now looks like that it was simply because they were on the take. Saddam was their cash cow. If President Bush has suffered some discredit over his apparently false — but not disingenuous — claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the lapse is minor compared to the outright personal selfishness and criminality that appears to have motivated many of those who opposed his efforts to rid the world of one of its worst dictators.

Throughout the '90s, France and Russia badgered the United States and Britain to increase Iraqi oil production. President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair fought them at each step, but then reluctantly gave way. First Iraq was allowed to sell 500,000 barrels daily. Then, on Franco-Russian insistence, it was raised to 1 million, then to 2 million and, finally, to 3 million barrels a day.

Each time, America and Britain — the nations now accused of coveting Iraqi oil — resisted the increases in Iraqi production and urged tighter controls over the program. Each time, the French and the Russians prattled on about the rights of Iraqi sovereignty and the need to feed the children.

Now we know why the French and Russians were so insistent. Iraqi government documents (leaked to the Baghdad newspaper Al Mada) list at least 270 individuals and entities who got vouchers allowing them to sell Iraqi oil — and to keep much of the money. These vouchers, and the promise of instant great wealth they carried with them, bought vital support in the United Nations to let Saddam stay in power. …

The defect of international coalitions is that they include the just and the unjust, the bribed and the honest, the democratic and the autocratic. And their members cannot be trusted equally. The group that stood up and backed the invasion of Iraq was nicknamed "the Coalition of the Willing." Now it appears it was also "the Coalition of the Honest." (You can pay to view the complete article at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/624691701.html?dids=624691701:624691701&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Apr+28%2C+2004&author=DICK+MORRIS&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=031&desc=HOW+TO+BUY+A+FRENCH+VETO%3B+SEDUCED+BY+SADDAM +OIL-FOR-FOOD%3A+THE+U.N.+SCANDAL)
Now if all of that isn’t enough to convince anyone of who the liars are, where the hidden agendas are, who was after Iraqi oil, why the US didn’t get UN approval for the war, look at the figures listed above as to who was profiting from Iraqi oil, how much they got over what time period and then take a look at what the war is costing us.

“A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week” http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

Do the freaking math for yourself. As much as some people want to call George Bush stupid, no one is that damn stupid.

Greed for Iraq’s oil certainly did play a part in the decision about war – but it wasn’t the US’ greed for oil pushing us to war, it was the oil greed of the UN, France, and Russia that was intent on keeping Hussein in power. So call Bush a liar about WMD if you want. It would appear that on the list of liars, he’s a long way from the top.


We tried Diplomatic relations for over a decade, he still slaughtered millions of people. Countless women got raped by Saddam and his sons, but I guess thats ok with you.

[Elrathin]

We tried Diplomatic relations for over a decade, he still slaughtered millions of people. Countless women got raped by Saddam and his sons, but I guess thats ok with you.


Millions? Nice exaggeration, try less than 300,000.

[Wndrtch]

We tried Diplomatic relations for over a decade, he still slaughtered millions of people. Countless women got raped by Saddam and his sons, but I guess thats ok with you.


Millions? Nice exaggeration, try less than 300,000.


LOL!!! :madlaugh:

Oh, like that REALLY changes things.

So, am I to assume you have a "thresh-hold" regarding Human death at the hands of a dictator? If he only kills/murders 300,000, he's ok to leave in power, but if he hits 500,000 watch out, here we come?

That really sucks for the 499,999.

[Elrathin]

LOL!!! :madlaugh:

Oh, like that REALLY changes things.

So, am I to assume you have a "thresh-hold" regarding Human death at the hands of a dictator? If he only kills/murders 300,000, he's ok to leave in power, but if he hits 500,000 watch out, here we come?

That really sucks for the 499,999.


No, just correcting a GROSS exaggeration of the truth, much like most of the things some conservatives on this board like to spout off all the time.

[AnnEsthesia]

Of course, if this war really was because of the people Saddam killed, we probably should have gotten around to it before more than a decade passed.

[Drocket]

Of course, if this war really was because of the people Saddam killed, we probably should have gotten around to it before more than a decade passed.

We also probably shouldn't have been giving him the weapons to do it, and praising his amazing ability to keep peace in his country. Wait, we can't buy his oil anymore? He's a monster! Kill him!

[ECW]

*The war would be paid for with oil revenue
And what makes you think it won’t?

It hasn't been so far. The Iraqi oil business has been crippled and barely meets the levels it had before the war much less the increased level it would have to meet to pay for this fiasco. Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this, pal.

*It would cost 1$ billion
Show me where he said this, as $1Bill isn’t enough to wipe a Senators ass, let alone run a war. Link please.

Here ya go. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/iraq/koppel.htm)

"But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." said ANDREW NATSIOS, head of USAID who was to be in charge of the Iraq Rebuilding program.

*We would be welcomed as liberators
We were, unless you think the images of Iraqis toppling Saddams statue was manufactured. Wait, of course you do.

It was. Sorry to burst your bubble. (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641)

*We would close down the horrors of Saddam's regime
Umm, we did.

And re-opened it up under new management. Ours. Can you say Abu Gharaib?

*Iraq would be a beacon of freedom and democracy
It will.

It's a beacon for terrorist training with American troops as targets. Freedom and democracy are distant memories.

*Reconstruction will come from oil revenues
Once the oil is flowing freely, it will.

Once pigs have wings they will fly to the moon and eat green cheese, too.

*Benchmarks are not a good thing
So, telling the enemy how and when you will withdraw is a GOOD plan to you then?

Benchmarks are more than withdrawal plans. They are plans for the Iraqi government to meet certain criterion (like local elections, job creation, oil revenue sharing, etc) that have not been met. None of them.

*Saddam was constructing nukes
He wanted too, and thought he was. Too bad his underlings were lying to him, to save their skin. Failure was met with death, so the scientists would often lie about progress. That is why we had an Intel failure.

In the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the Intelligence Community (IC) reported to the President and Congress that although Saddam did not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, that he remained intent on acquiring them. The NIE claimed that, "most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors depart - December 1998." The report concluded that the speed with which Iraq could obtain its first nuclear weapon would depend on when it acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material: if Baghdad acquired sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. Without such material from abroad, NIE stated that Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

This conclusion, though presented as the opinion of the Intelligence Community, was not shared by the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR). INR stated that it believed that although Saddam still desired nucelar weapons and pursued at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities, the evidence at hand was not enough to conclude that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program. Specifically, INR disagreed with CIA and DIA regarding the nature of aluminum tubes procured by Iraq.~link~ (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/nuke-prewar_intel_2003.htm)

The Bushies took the part of the intel they wanted to use and left the rest on the cutting room floor. That's where your intel failure came from: the Bushbots themselves.

*AQ was working with Saddam to orchestrate 9/11
Now who’s lying? This was never said by the President. Provide a link to the contrary. The claims at the time were that Saddam had hi level talks with key members of AQ, to discuss POSSIBLE cooperation.

Claims are not proof. This is proof. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807EFDD1F3FF933A05753C1A9639C8B 63)

That Mr. Cheney and his office sparred with the C.I.A. before the invasion of Iraq has never been a secret. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby made repeated trips to C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., in the months before the American invasion in March 2003, and Mr. Libby was often on the phone with senior C.I.A. officials to challenge the agency's intelligence reports on Iraq. A principal focus, former intelligence officials say, was the question of whether Al Qaeda had had a close, collaborative relationship with Saddam Hussein's government, an argument advanced publicly by Mr. Cheney but rejected by the C.I.A. intelligence analysts.

*OBL would be found and brought to justice
And will.

Six years is a long time to be hunting for someone in a war zone and failing to find him. Saddam had a lot more resources and was able to hide out only a few months. He's still running free.

*Mission Accomplished meant major combat operations in Iraq have ended.
“Major” combat operations did end. Not “all”. (Words mean things)

Looked at the paper lately? 160,000 troops in a war zone isn't major combat operations? What the hell is it then? A police action?

*Disbanding Saddam's military and civil authority would speed recovery of Iraqi society
This was an oversight, not a lie.

It was a lie because disbanding those forces was not done for logistical reasons. It was done for the politics of it because neocons thought all of Saddam's troops were corrupt and had to go. Turns out all of the neocons were corrupt instead.

*We do not torture
We don’t. So sad that you think our soldiers would do this.

It's not only our soldiers but our contracors and our intelligence agencies. Violating international law is no laughting matter and there are more links than I could count on this one...

*We do not spy on Americans
Neither does Hillary.

“In their book about Clinton’s rise to power, Her Way, Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at The New York Times, and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, wrote: “…Hillary’s defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty…. she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.“…Bill’s supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.”

At least our guys are trying to discover who among us, are in league with terrorist. They can listen-in to my conversation anytime they want. I’m not friends with any terrorists.

Your Hillary Infatuation Syndrome is not the issue here. Bush's lies are. His creation of the extra-legal NSA spy program which went around the FISA law was just such an example.

*American troops have all the equipment they need to fight in Iraq
That’s been resolved, and you know it. Besides, the Dems are considering cutting the funding for the War, so what do you think will happen then?

This says you are wrong. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/opinion/15thur1.html) Cutting the funding is not the issue here. Bush's lies (and the lies of the people who told them on his behalf) is the issue.

*No one has to buy body armor before they go into the war zone
But will have to, if Congress cuts funds.

But they have had to do it so they are not killed within hours of arriving in country. Again, this is not about Congress cutting funds. It is about Bush's lies.

*Returning troops are well cared for and their health care is our primary concern
So, you’re a mind reader now?

Nope. I'm (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19155614/) a (http://newsblaze.com/story/20070308135257tsop.np/newsblaze/NEWSWIRE/story.html) citation (http://www.courant.com/news/specials/hc-soldiers-sg,0,4734856.storygallery) reader. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6593000) Look closely here. There are four citations for this one.

*Privatizing soldiers' health care has not negatively affected their health
Link please.

I'm surprised you haven't heard about the fiasco at Walter Reed. Shame. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html)

*This is not a civil war
“We are fighting multiple factions in Iraq. First, we're fighting plain old street thugs. As you may recall, just before the liberation of Iraq, Saddam Hussein freed 50,000 Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to destabilize the escalating situation. Now those criminals are back on the streets forming gangs and inciting indiscriminate violence.
We're fighting former members of the Baath party who lost the political power they had under Saddam. Their attacks are an effort to undermine the government in hopes of regaining political power.
Third, we're fighting Iranian-backed Islamic fundamentalists. They also are trying to use the fragile situation in Iraq for their own political gain.

Finally, and most importantly for the United States, we're fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq. These people are terrorists and they're targeting Americans. They want Iraq to remain weak and for the American presence to disappear, so they can use the country to plan and launch terror attacks against the West. The Iraqis, American diplomats, and military members all agreed that Iraq was not in a civil war, even though we hear that repeatedly in the United States. They all said that overstates and oversimplifies the complex nature of the issue.”

http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/OPINION02/710200328/1014/OPINION

You go with a Republican congressman that represents a rural district in Ohio for your proof. I'll go with a historian writing in Foreign Affairs, a respected journal, who doesn't have a political axe to grind or a vindictive president to support.

In fact, there is a civil war in progress in Iraq, one comparable in important respects to other civil wars that have occurred in postcolonial states with weak political institutions. Those cases suggest that the Bush administration's political objective in Iraq -- creating a stable, peaceful, somewhat democratic regime that can survive the departure of U.S. troops -- is unrealistic. Given this unrealistic political objective, military strategy of any sort is doomed to fail almost regardless of whether the administration goes with the "surge" option, as President George W. Bush has proposed, or shifts toward a pure training mission, as advised by the Iraq Study Group.~link~ (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html)

*The Surge will bring the war to a speedier end
And it isn’t?

Not to my figuring. American troop deaths have reached over 100 a month four times since the surge began ten months ago while they only breeched 100 four times prior to that since the war started. More Iraqi deaths are occurring due to the civil war that we are not able to stop. More terrorist recruits are pouring into the country to fight Americans every day. The Surge was a PR move that was a poke in the eye to the Democrats who won the 2006 elections and little else.

*When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down
I can agree with you on this one. We will not pull troops, even when Iraq settles down. We are building a HUGE military base there. Who do you thik will man it? Not Iraqis.

One of many lies that George Bush has told about this war.

*Stay The Course. We've never been stay the course.
I can agree with this as well. We held onto Rumsfeld, way too long.

Stay The Course was Bush-speak for not winding down the war and doing what we have been doing for the last four years. Then he tried to say that he never said that phrase. Liar.

As far as lies go, how about Dems promissing to retreat/withdraw, if they get control of Congress?


One last time. This isn't about Congress, Hillary or anyone else except for George Bush and his lies. Start a thread about Congress and bring a citation or two. I'll be sure to jump on in.

[throowrocks]

:nana:I'm not irritated. I'm not impressed. When I see the pictures i skip to the next post.

[Scorpion]

:dizzy: The pictures you display with your posts are adolescent. Your opinion jaded and juvenile.Please spend more time on your high school work and less time reveling your political cancer.


Is it possible for you to discuss the topic at hand instead of constantly spewing foolish insults?

[Pogo]

Millions? Nice exaggeration, try less than 300,000.


LOL!!! :madlaugh:

Oh, like that REALLY changes things.

So, am I to assume you have a "thresh-hold" regarding Human death at the hands of a dictator? If he only kills/murders 300,000, he's ok to leave in power, but if he hits 500,000 watch out, here we come?

That really sucks for the 499,999.


If the Bush administration gave a damn about Iraqi citizens they would have gone in with sufficient force to secure Iraq. They didn't, case closed.