Pat Robertson is talking to God again !?!?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 5 2007, 04:36 AM) [snapback]371166[/snapback]</div>

Is it just me or does that scare the hell out of you too?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 5 2007, 04:36 AM) [snapback]371166[/snapback]</div>

George W. Bush - Like a rock - only dumber
[attachmentid=6150]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 5 2007, 04:36 AM) [snapback]371166[/snapback]</div>

"It's funny, now that I think about it - God's voice sounds just like Dick Cheney!"

 

Pat must be off his meds again. I know several people that when off their meds hear voices.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 5 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]371166[/snapback]</div>

The White House has denied this account from the Palestinian Foreign Minister, as recorded by the BBC in their follow up story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4317498.stm

In the BBC news article where the original statement appears, this is the only supporting quote:

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...r/06/bush.shtml

Those quotes are incredibly different, and poles apart from a western mindset. Given the second quote only, you get an entirely different feel for the conversation. How would a middle eastern mindset interpret and then play back those words in a second language (like English)?

I'm giving Mr. Saath the benefit of the doubt and not calling him a liar.

Since we have the President's people denying it and a press account from a BBC documentary showing a Palestinian Foreign Minister saying its true, we have to decide which one is to be trusted. Who does the left choose? The Palestinian of course!

But the left is evidently wrong, once again:

From http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-den...8563027485.html

Sheesh.

 

Bush said Iraq had WMDs. Saddam said they didn't. In retrospect, we all know who was telling the truth.

When you have a leader who comes in second place to Saddam Hussein in the trustworthiness category, you know you're in trouble. If Bush said "Good morning" to me, I'd check my watch to make sure it wasn't evening.

As for the second Palestinian guy, can you say "backpeddling"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 6 2007, 07:45 AM) [snapback]371735[/snapback]</div>

Again with the WMDs. EVERYONE said he had them, with very few exceptions.

It is very telling that the hatred of Bush clouds the ability to examine a situation and come to a rational conclusion. In any other context it would be called bigotry.

What will the left do once President Bush is out of office? You guys really need to start lining up another whipping boy that you can use to deflect attention from the real issues of the day (for which you have no answers). Have you started assembling the hit list yet? Can you carry on a rational discussion without insulting someone?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 6 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]371814[/snapback]</div>

No, they didn't.

Now let's hear about it's all Clinton's fault again. I never get tired of the Clinton-bashing. Not even after 6 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 6 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]371814[/snapback]</div>

Who cares? What will the right do once Bush is out of office? Maybe nominate a candidate worthy of the job?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 6 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]371814[/snapback]</div>

Don't worry, you won't be able to clean up eight years of mess overnight (look how long it took Clinton to clean up the Reagan/Bush I mess), so patriotic Americans will be cursing Bush II's name for years to come for the giant dump he took over our country.

And can anyone see the contradiction in the quoted paragraph? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 6 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]371852[/snapback]</div>

Me! Me! Pick me!

Would it be: rational conversation without insulting someone?

(More like insulting conversation without rational.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Jan 5 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]371208[/snapback]</div>

And all this time I thought I was the only one who saw that this uncultured madman looked so much like Alfred E...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jandrada @ Jan 6 2007, 06:13 PM) [snapback]371869[/snapback]</div>

It has been noted. more than once.

Meanwhile, Mad Magazine itself has a nice observation about our illustrious Commander-in-Chief.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 6 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]371823[/snapback]</div>

Have you ever seen a post from me bashing President Clinton?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 6 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]371814[/snapback]</div>

Not true at all. The CIA said he didn't have them, so Bush pressured them into changing their report to say he had them. Tony Blair decided to play lapdog to Bush and went along. Then a bunch of media and a bunch of politicians pretended to believe Bush, because it suited their political strategy to pretend to believe, and a lot of the American public believed.

But nobody with any actual information said Iraq had WMDs, except the CIA after Bush put on the pressure.

And the inspectors said they were doing their job, with some obstruction from the Iraqis, but still managing to do their job, and that they had found no evidence at all of any WMDs, and felt it was worthwhile continuing their work.

Of course, if Bush had waited for them to do their work, he would have had no excuse for the invasion, so he jumped in before his own troops were in place and ready, thus leading to many more American deaths than would otherwise have been likely.

So we killed Saddam, a thoroughly evil man, and when the dust settles someone just as evil and ruthless is likely to take his place, and all those Iraqis, and all those Americans, will have died for nothing. Well, not precisely for nothing: They'll have died so that Halliburton can show some spectacular profits.

 

Snopes has a good page where they validated several of the comments about Saddam's WMD programs, and they provide the needed context (read http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp for their analysis).

In many cases the speakers argue against military action right after these statements, or reiterate the need for diplomatic measures rather than military measures. Taken in context, many of the quotes show that the speakers do not favor war at all, as it would appear from the quote taken out of context.

But it is abundantly clear that the speakers in each and every case believe that Saddam either has WMDs or is working on WMD programs. It is simply a lie to say that President Bush, and only President Bush, believed there were WMDs.

There were people in the intelligence agencies, especially the UN's programs, who thought Saddam had scuttled his weapons programs (or that the embargo against Iraq served to cripple them).




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 6 2007, 08:38 PM) [snapback]371954[/snapback]</div>

Okay. So those people actually believed the lies concocted by the Bush administration.

Bush, however, knew they were lies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 7 2007, 06:52 AM) [snapback]372037[/snapback]</div>

I think President Bush truly believed the WMD were there, and hidden. And that we would find them soon. He was wrong, and its fitting to call him on it. But to say he fabricated the idea of WMD, falsified information, and all to help Cheney's old buddies back at HAL is stretching it, I think.

Otherwise, if he were so intent on this grand conspiracy to bring us to war, why wouldn't he simply fabricate the evidence of WMD? The lack of WMD is the main problem this Administration has faced politically, and in my view, the American people would be much more patient about the progress of the war had there been WMD. It would be easy to fabricate the evidence of chemical weapons and solve a major political problem. Why wouldn't they do that?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I also believe that the Bush Administration rushed into the war with Iraq. I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, particularly since it took our focus off rebuilding Afghanistan, which I thought was more important strategically by isolating Iran (a friendly Afghani government, a hostile Iraqi and Syrian government would all tend to isolate Iran). I thought with continued diplomatic pressure, including restrictions on commerce, that Saddam could be at least restrained, and possibly driven from power. I had hopes that the UNs refusal to "authorize" force after Sec. Powell's presentation, which I thought did not make the case strongly enough, would cause us to pause.

But we are there, and the interesting question is not "should we have" but "what do we do now". Whatever our choice, it has to be the choice that results in the least amount of human suffering and loss of life. Unfortunately, what I see is debate that counts only American lives in that equation, and I fear another bloodbath precipitated by hasty actions of the American political class without regard to human life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 7 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]372180[/snapback]</div>

While I would not put it past someone of Bush's intellect to end up believing his own lies, I believe it is clear that he pressured the CIA into changing their report.

Of course, he did not rush to war just to help Haliburton. He had many reasons, but none of them were legitimate. He wanted to settle old family scores. He wanted the U.S. to control Iraqi oil (not so much for domestic consumption, as to be able to pressure Japan, which imports all its oil and with whom we have many trade disputes). He was upset because Hussein had recently begun denominating his oil in euros. You don't hear much about this, but it's a big deal in economic circles: the use of the dollar for the world trade in oil gives the dollar a tremendous artificial boost. A switch to euros would be a big blow to the U.S. economy. Then there's Bush's self-image as a cowboy. A war lets him feel like a man. It's like buying a Hummer, but in spades. And he needed a distraction to his failure to capture bin Laden, and he needed an on-going "enemy" to bolster his assault on civil rights.

Finally, evidence of WMDs would not have been all that easy to fabricate. I'm sure they'd have done it if they'd thought they could get away with it. They could have put it past the American lapdog media. But internationally, they'd have been caught and exposed.

BTW this might be my last post until I get back from Mexico. I may have internet access there, and I may have time to pass on the computer. Or I might not. Take care everyone, and try not to the country fall apart or collapse into fascism while I'm gone.

 

Bush and Pat should just hang out here. Ya'll are just so freakin smart, they could really absorb on the intellect being shown here.

I think ya'll should run as a committee for President in 08. It's a little off the norm to elect a panel of experts for the position, but since ya'll have your heads up each other's a$$es so far, we really can't tell if it's a group or just one of you. So, PC for president in 08!!

:lol: