Another Soros-Funded Study!
Tags: Kooks, media bias, President Bush.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
It never ceases to amaze me what the Associated Press considers to be newsworthy. They’ve recently reported about a study “by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.”
Who are the two so-called nonprofit organizations? The Center for Public Integrity, and the Fund for Independence in Journalism. And guess what? They’re funded by none other than George Soros. Imagine that.
As bad as it was that the Associated Press thought this was news, the actual “data” for the study is laughable. It might as well have been Media Matters who put the study out.
More at Right Voices.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Does anyone have a link to the actual study? I’ve been trying to find it over at their website with no luck…
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: Yes, Mark… here’s the link.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
84 Responses to “Another Soros-Funded Study!”
Caucus of Corruption
Rally the troops Matt. Blow your bugle loud. Loud enough for the dead to hear for they are the only true believers that still buy into the garbage that you are selling. The fact of the matter is that the group of people most responsible for the subject of this report is Dick Cheney and GWB. If they hadn’t manipulated public opinion then you and your faith based ilk wouldn’t have the source to attempt to pin “blame” on.
The report is dead on accurate. Deny all you want but until you buy a plane ticket to Bagdad and investigate for yourself….first hand…you and the rest of the B4V’ers are nothing more than a shrill group of mindless syncopants.
The era of GWB is dying it’s much deserved death and I for one am glad that it is being broadcast publically.
Who do you think you are kidding Matt?
George Soros my rear. Gather the villagers with their pitchforks to attack the truth.
Do yourself a favor. Get a copy of the latest Newsweek and read.
Oh MR BILLLLLLL
why dont you actualy document some of those accusations?
why is it that liberal squaters always chase with accusations and never bring facts with them?
Its like going to a gun fight with a pair of chop sticks, ya know what i mean MR BILLLLLL
“Only a demented liberal would compare Fox News to a Soros funded story.”
Why is that exactly? Rupert Murdoch only is a huge contributor to conservative candidates, a friend of Ronald Reagans, and a huge backer of Pat Robertson.
The President of Fox News Roger Ailes was a media consultant for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, he also served in the same capacity for Rudy Giuliani.
So we have Soros who gives money to democratic causes, and we have Ailes and Murdoch who run a television empire dedicated to pushing conservative causes.
“The issue here is a Soros funded organization trying to appear objective….moron.”
Like the “Fair and Balanced” Fox Noise? You really don’t realize how ridiculous you sound do you?
Mark,
We really must move the needle on the debate. Unfortunately as long as the reality challenged Diane, Diana, SteaM, libT, Joe, etc. continue to post their repetitive, continuously debunked liberal propaganda, the needle will be stuck on stupid.
Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
“While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon,” stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
“I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq,” stated Shaw.
Shaw’s assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 11:07pm GMT 24/01/2004
David Kay, the former head of the coalition’s hunt for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
Work on that SteaM.
It could well be true. I really dont thing anyone has any actual documentation that shows Rumsfeld or any of the Bush Administration intentionaly lied to us.
Real fact is, this intelligence comes from several sources. Why didnt we find WMD? Because it was moved. Pretty basic. Is it in Syria for sure? Want to invade and find out? What about the Russian Jets we found quite by accident, buried in the Iraq desert? Thats a huge desert too. There could be a substantial quantity of WMD in Iraq still, but until someone comes forward and tells about it, its still missing.
Did I say “missing”? Ya, it did exist. Even Saddam told us it had existed at one point. They said it was also destroyed. Funny thing though, about destroying that kind of stuff. You can analyze it for decades and figure out what it was originally. Forensics really got thier act together. Did they find the sites where the stuff was destroyed? nope. Was it destroyed for sure? Probably not. After they claimed they destroyed all that stuff, Saddams son in law ratted him out, 95 he told all about this stuff. Caught Saddam in the lie.
SO whats it all prove? We cant say it was destroyed. We saw massive shipments going into Syria before the Invasion. We know the Russians were very active right up to and during the invasion.
Whats probable? That Saddam didnt lie to us? That is not worth the risk to our allies in the region. Saddam was caught with about 500 chemical missles still. We got them. We also were crunching missiles that violated UN Sanctions when we invaded.
We also got alot of documents written in Arabic, millions of them.
So far, we know Saddam had WMD programs.
I know these are facts. I really dont care what you think, if you want to tell me facts, the do it.
But simply put, have a guess that Bush and Co. lied is nothing. Your strapped, could haves would haves and should haves do not prove intent. Rumsfeld may have had intel to the effect that WMD was stored in a region/area/township. Until you can prove that wrong, you dont have any basis calling him a liar. Facts, not your feelings, is what you need to deal with. All your feelings add up to squat. Rumor and gossip, what a show SteaM.
You amazed that he wanted to resign? Its probably because of rabid dogs spreading gossip and rumors and lies. I sure wouldnt want to stick around.
neocon,
Thanks for contributing to Mark’s ongoing demonstration project for how uncivil and hateful the left is.
It’s interesting that you should characterize my quoting President Bush via the White House’s website as being an example of being “reality challenged”. Lots of food for thought there.
Plant,
You might have missed the following.
CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2100 L Street, N.W. * Suite 300 * Washington, D.C. 20037 * 202-223-2942
December 21, 2007
Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
41. Diana Powe
Gee Diana.
Your pretty well cooked on that one. DO you see him say Oh, we will be out tomorrow? Nope. Regime change, what was it?
We are not going to leave until they are stable? Are you one of them demoncrats that wanted to pull our troops out last fall and run?
Get real. Your half witted accusations just dont hold any weight.
“What would anyone else do? Our troops are being fired on regularly by Saddams forces.”
And by forces you mean our planes. Planes patrolling no-fly zones that Iraq NEVER agreed to. Whether you like it or not Iraq was perfectly justified in firing at foreign fighter planes flying over it’s territory. We would do the exact same thing.
“Our Intel tells us that ground units are still active in the no fly zone, killing innocent civilians.”
First of all there isn’t any evidence of widespread killing of Iraq civilians within the no fly zones. Second of all, you really don’t have a point considering that,
“But the southern zone has never actually contributed anything to the safety of the civilian population. In fact, the role assigned to the mission was to “observe” violations, not to stop them. As early as 1994, the US State Department’s annual report on the human rights situation in Iraq acknowledged that, although the no-fly zone prevented aerial attacks on the southern marshes, it did not prevent artillery attacks or other army actions.”
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero022001.html
“The Oil being smuggled out of Iraq through its pourous borders is funneling substantial cash into Saddams hands.”
And who was funneling that cash into Saddams hands again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
“A report released in 2004 by an investigator at the Central Intelligence Agency listed five American companies that bought oil through the program: the Coastal Corporation, a subsidiary of El Paso; Chevron; Texaco; BayOil, and Mobil, now part of Exxon Mobil.”
“No. I dont think most reasonable people would have been irresponsible enough to let this go on much further.”
Most sane people would realize that Iraq had a perfectly logical reason for firing on our planes patrolling the no fly zone. We were the ones doing the provoking, not the other way around.
“We were being lied to and decieved, even his son in law defected and told us they had WMD programs in violation of cease fire agreement in 95.”
Sigh. It’s amazing that people will simply choose to believe a comlete fairy tale over reality.
“During the interview, Major Izz al-Din al-Majid (transliterated as Major Ezzeddin) joins the discussion (p.10). Izz al-Din is Saddam Hussein’s cousin, and defected together with the Kamel brothers. He did not return with them to Iraq in 1996, moving instead to Jordan and now to an unknown European country.
In the transcript of the interview, Kamel states categorically:
“I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons – biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed”
(p. 13).
Kamel specifically discussed the significance of anthrax, which he portrayed as the “main focus” of the biological programme (pp.7-8). Smidovich asked Kamel: “were weapons and agents destroyed?”
Kamel replied: “nothing remained”.
He confirmed that destruction took place “after visits of inspection teams. You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.” (p.7)”
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
Saddams cousin actually contradicted your main assertion.
SteaM
Really, I dont see any factual information that anyone lied.
You post some statements, but you dont post any evidence that these people actually lied one time.
Your feelings? Thats nothing, if feelings were fact, we would all feel rich and then find a million dollars in our pockets. Feelings schmeelings!!
Facts dude, just the facts. No more rants.
Diana,
How is calling you reality challenged hateful? It’s just a fact, as evidenced by your hyper-sensitive response.
And yes, I am calling you reality challenged solely based on the WH links. ???
If you examine that statement, you might realize why I do call you reality challneged. More food for thought.
[...] pretty much sums up what is happening with the latest Soros-funded study that claims to document all the so-called “lies” that we were told leading up to the [...]
“CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2100 L Street, N.W. * Suite 300 * Washington, D.C. 20037 * 202-223-2942
December 21, 2007″
Well, according your blogsforvictory criterea it doesn’t matter what the survey says. It was conducted by the CMPA, a group led by Robert Lichter who held a chair at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and who is funded by the conservative Scaife, and Olin foundations.
See how easy that is! You don’t even have to address the substance. Just the mere fact of who it’s funded by is enough to discredit the entire study. Using your logic of course.
There isn’t a sane person who can honestly think that Fox News is balanced. And no study that attempts to look at some subjective definition of favorable, and unfavorable coverage is going to change it. A study done in 2001 of each cable stations signature political news shows showed that on FoxNews’ Special Report with Brit Hume 89% of partisan guests were self identified Republicans. 89%!
Seventy-one percent of all guests were avowed conservatives.
The numbers haven’t changed a whole lot.
That some “balance”!
Plant,
Thank you for taking the bait. On a thread speaking to a Soros funded study and the objectivity thereof, which by the way has been defended by all of our resident liberals, you have the audacity to denigrate a study you disagree with by questioning the motives of the source.
That’s the very definition of hypocrite.
Plant,
Read my post #54. You have moved to the front of the line.
“Thank you for taking the bait. On a thread speaking to a Soros funded study and the objectivity thereof, which by the way has been defended by all of our resident liberals, you have the audacity to denigrate a study you disagree with by questioning the motives of the source.
That’s the very definition of hypocrite.”
Wow! That one went right over your head didn’t it?
In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic. Pointing out how if you can dismiss a study based on who funded it, why can’t I do the same?
Next time, try to pay attention.
“Really, I dont see any factual information that anyone lied.”
That’s because it’s easier for you to ignore things like this.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html
“Five top German intelligence officers say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly ignored warnings about the veracity of the information that an Iraqi informant named ‘Curveball’ was giving about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The Los Angeles Times, in a massive report published Sunday, reports that “the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq.” They also say that ‘Curveball,’ whom the Germans described as “not a psychologically stable guy,” never claimed that he had produced germ weapons, nor had he ever seen anyone do it.
According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball’s information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball’s accounts in his prewar presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.
Curveball’s German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. “This was not substantial evidence,” said a senior German intelligence official. “We made clear we could not verify the things he said.”"
And this…
“An investigation by the Los Angeles Times, based on interviews since May with about 30 current and former intelligence officials in the United States, Germany, England, Iraq, and the United Nations showed that US bungling in the Curveball case was far worse than official reports had estimated.
The White House, for example, ignored evidence that UN weapons inspectors had disproved virtually all of Curveball’s accounts before the war.
As war approached, President Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraqi germ weapons as the invasion neared, even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed.
At the CIA, senior officials embraced Curveball’s claims, even though they could not verify them or interview him until a year after the invasion.”
And this….
“After the CIA vouched for Curveball’s information, President Bush warned in his State of the Union Speech in January 2003 that Iraq had ”mobile biological weapons labs” designed to produce ”germ warfare agents.” The next month, Bush said in a radio address and a statement that Iraq ”has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.
Curveball told his German handlers, however, that he had assembled equipment on only one truck and had heard secondhand about other sites. Moreover, he could not identify what the equipment was designed to produce.”
I’ve come to expect the cult like mentality that allows people to believe that the administration was completely honest and forthcoming about everything despite all of the evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.
“Read my post #54. You have moved to the front of the line.”
The irony of course is that it is YOU that completely missed the point I was making.
My bad then. But of course you went on to claim that any “sane” person couldn’t believe it. So which is it? A viable study or not.
66. Faceplant | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“Really, I dont see any factual information that anyone lied.”
That’s because it’s easier for you to ignore things like this.
————————
There isnt any real evidence of a lie there. You put down more gossip and rumor. Not even a good effort.
Let me define this for you, ok?
American Heritage Dictionary –
Lie n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lī’ĭng), lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
Just like “bubbba” huh? Your just clueless. Without proof of intent, you got nothing. You actually need to prove that Bush knowingly mislead the nation to prove he lied. To do this, you have to prove that the information he recieved from his subordinates (which you really wont be able to do) was “NOT” wrong. This includes the political motivations of the NIE, CIA and other Intelligence agencies (which, you also will not be able to do).
So, in effect, unless you have a collection of documents that never were released because they deal with national security, then you really dont stand a chance proving squat.
All you can do is gossip and spread rumors, which seems to be all we are getting here. Dont worry, you follow a long line of bumbling liberals. Not one time have you folks been up to par, not once.
“He was just throwing out facts without being able to back them up. He knew that. That’s misleading.”
Tractius his usual???
Trouble with the English language, Kahn? Perhaps you can find a middle-school student to assist you.
Now these people had access to the same information as the administration and came to the same conclusions.
Yeah, funny how that works–the administration cooks the intelligence, then feeds it to Congress. Congress makes the terrible mistake of trusting the administration and goes along with it. Then Congress realizes that “intelligence” was a bunch of crap and says so. I expect this concept will be too tough for you to comprehend, but give it a try anyway. I promise nobody will take your guns away if you try, mkay?
Or, conversely, you can just get mad and rant. My money’s on that option.
factplant,
Bush’s statements concerning curveball and the mobile labs were made in May of 2003. The report
that “debunked” the mobile labs and questioned cureballs reliability was not issued until a month AFTER the President made his statements.
Also,why is this part of your evidence about pre-war
intel when these statements were made AFTER we had gone to war with Iraq.
The fact that liberals whinned and cried about the
charges leveled at John Kerry by the Swift Boats as
a bunch of right wing hacks without being able to debunk what over 200 men in uniform that served there stated and a refusal of Kerry to even debate some of these men make their dismissal of Soros being behind this study even more laughable.
Or even better is every time one of the many scientist comes out against Gore and his
ecofundamentalist crew they are accused of being the mouth piece of big oil,just ignore what they say.
The fact that liberals will take a study funded by
a man(Soros,a convicted felon in France) that spent almost 30 million in 04 to bring down Bush,over 50,000 to fund the debunked Lancet study and now
is pushing a study that is supposed to prove the
President lied about pre-war intel by including comments he made about WMD/Al-Qaeda that all
your democratic friends also made but somehow could not find room in the study, show how desperate liberals have become.
Remeber liberals,it was your hero leaders in the
senate and house that stated first thing in 06′ that
“impeachment is off the table”.
It was the democrats that shot down your hero
Kucuinich’s impeachment resolution in the senate,not the Republicans.Republicans voted to bring this to
the floor,we want this debate.We want to refresh
the nation about how strong a case Bill/Hillary clinton,John Kerry,John Edwards,Harry Reid,Al Gore,Richard Clarke,Albright,Nytimes,the CIA,
State Dept. and many others about Saddam’s WMD/
Nuclear program,ties to Al-Qaeda,genocide of his own people,and overall threat that he posed to the
region and to the west.
The Democrats have the power to do this,just like
they had the power to pull out of the Iraq war.
IT’S PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME!!
But be careful what you wish for liberal.you want be able to spin and cut and paste your talking points under oath and on the senate floor.If you want to
convict Bush/Cheney based on studies by Soros and
cut and paste information,than EVERYBODY that made these statements and voted to send our men and women to war are going to go down.
Bush could not have gone to war without congressional approval,and a lot of your liberal heroes in the previous administration and the current
one made the same statements and stronger ones.
The fact that you don’t want them held accountable
in your witch hunt only shows how pathetic and ideologically corrupt you liberals really are.
But hey,keep up the drumbeat for impeachment,it
has done wonders for the Kucuinich campain .
Once again, completely independent of the merit of its contents, Baxter demonstrates the histrionics of denouncing this study because George Soros is “pushing” it. What is the evidence for George Soros having anything at all to do with this study? Why, his past activities including being one of a large number of donors to the Center For Public Integrity.
Why aren’t all the other donors being attacked? Perhaps one of them gave the CFPI a sum of money and said, “I want you to produce an independent [wink-wink] study that says the Administration lied about Iraq prior to the invasion.” Since we know that the CFPI is a fraud and a sham then wouldn’t it be just as plausible that one of their many other donors is the evildoer in this case?
Baxter, can you tell me when the next Two Minutes Hate is scheduled?
“Bush’s statements concerning curveball and the mobile labs were made in May of 2003. The report
that “debunked” the mobile labs and questioned cureballs reliability was not issued until a month AFTER the President made his statements.
Also,why is this part of your evidence about pre-war
intel when these statements were made AFTER we had gone to war with Iraq.”
Do you even bother to read the article before you respond? Let’s try this again.
“German officials said that they had warned American colleagues WELL BEFORE the Iraq war that Curveball’s information was not credible – but the warning was ignored.”
They were warned before the war started that he was not credible, and they ran with what he said anyway. You can try and pretend that this didn’t happen, but it did.
“The fact that liberals whinned and cried about the
charges leveled at John Kerry by the Swift Boats as
a bunch of right wing hacks without being able to debunk what over 200 men in uniform that served there stated and a refusal of Kerry to even debate some of these men make their dismissal of Soros being behind this study even more laughable.”
Oh, I think it was proven false quite easily.
“Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, “on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies.”[49] ABC News’s The Note opined, “the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry’s medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false.”[50] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[51] stated, “Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false.” The editorial argued this position on the basis that “Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation.” On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: “An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry’s accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.”
“In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry’s claim that the Massachusetts Democrat’s boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow’s military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire” directed at “all units” of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat “despite enemy bullets flying about him.”"
The only people who think the Swiftboaters were teling the truth, are the people who only hear what they want to.
“It was the democrats that shot down your hero
Kucuinich’s impeachment resolution in the senate,not the Republicans.”
LOL! I love how people try to pretend that Dennis Kucinich is some beloved liberal hero. If that’s the case you would think he could get more than 1% of the vote in the primaries.
“But be careful what you wish for liberal.you want be able to spin and cut and paste your talking points under oath and on the senate floor.”
No, I’ll just claim “executive privelege” for EVERYTHING and not show up. I mean it’s worked for Herriet Miers didn’t it?
“If you want to
convict Bush/Cheney based on studies by Soros and
cut and paste information,than EVERYBODY that made these statements and voted to send our men and women to war are going to go down.”
Good. The Democrats who voted for this war are just as guilty as the Republicans who did. The only difference is that your party is the one who STILL thinks they were right, despite being proven wrong about everything.
You done having your meltdown now Baxter?
“There isnt any real evidence of a lie there. You put down more gossip and rumor. Not even a good effort.”
So the German intelligence is just making up a story that they told the US that Curveball wasn’t reliable over and over. The ability of the neocon to completely ditatch from any rational interpretation of events is amazing.
So let’s recap. The US starts basing it’s prewar claims on the statements of one man. The Germans warn the Americans that the source isn’t credible, and nothing he says can be verified. In response the US makes the claims with increasing frequency.
Knowing that, please tell me what conclusion any rational person could possibly come to.
I’m just glad that it appears history is well on it’s way to remembering this administration the way it deserves to be remembered.
Diane,
The fact that you and your liberal friends have
dismissed the Swift Boat Vets,Scientist debunking Al-Gore,proponents against surrender in Iraq as a bunch of right wing,neocon puppets of the bush administration for years but swallow Soro’s funded propaganda whole simply shows you have no objectivity or credibility discussing the issues.
If it fits your”I hate Bush “agenda you carry the water with the rest of your party:
Bush lied
Bush stole the 2000,2004 election
Bush did 9/11
Bush killed millions of people for oil
Bush blew up the levee’s in New Orleans
Bush is Hitler
and all of the other really objective,intelligent and
progressive positions super intelligent liberals and the democratic party they represent have put forth
over the last 7 years.
But hey,keep it up.This new BDS “Bush lied” line is
only going to rile up the left wing base even more to
demand the democrats in congress to do something they know they can’t successfully do,Impeach President Bush and VP Cheney.
When the Democrats don’t come through,the left wing base will turn the hate they have for Bush onto your democratic friends in congress.Add this to your
Democratic heroes failures to stop the war and the
“two minutes hate”your projecting on me will be a walk in the park compared to the hate your
liberal friends will be directing at everybody in government.
Just look at the blog comments from liberal sites,they are foaming at the mouth over this.
It is obvious with this new propaganda campaign
that the left is worried more than ever about the
success in Iraq and the upcoming testimony by
Gen.Petraeus.
As much as you liberals have done everything in your power to ensure surrender in Iraq and turning it over to Al-Qaeda and Iran,you are going to have to suffer through the next year of a free Iraq doing it’s best to bring a representative government and free
society where there never has been one.
But just keep your hands over your ears and keep
yelling”but Bush lied”all day long and you want have
to face how you sold out your country,our Soldiers, and the people of Iraq just so you could gain political
power and hang failure around our Presidents neck.
Can you tell me when you will hold the people in your own party accountable for the same crimes you
whine on and on about that President Bush is supposed to have committed.
Faceplant,
Your Post editorial does not in any way dismiss the fact that the first time Kerry debated o’neil he got his ass handed to him and to this day will not debate o’neil now.But hey, what the hell do a few hundred Soldiers know,right.Kind of the same way Kerry said on Imus that he would reveal his entire record to the public and then gave it to the Boston Globe and LA times.Not the same thing is it,just another lie that liberals like you look right past because they have a D beside their name.Their are so many inconsistencies with Kerry from his Christmas in Cambodia,accusations about atrocities that were supposed to have happened but were shown later to be lies, that if you want to stand with
“I was for the war before I was against it”Kerry,it’s certainly fits the liberal way of believing only what fits your agenda and ignoring all the facts against it.
After all,I am sure you are as proud of Kerry’s picture hanging in that N. Vietnam museum thanking
him for helping the communist win the war against America as Jane Fonda is.
Curve ball lied about many things,but a lot of what
he said jived with French,Russian,British and American intelligence concerning Saddam’s WMD program.Whether some of Germany’s intelligence agents disagreements made it all the way to Bush
does not seem to jive with the head of the CIA telling Bush it was a “slam dunk” concerning Saddam’s WMD programs.
Gathering comments made here and there and using evaluations concerning Pre-war intel that were
validated after we had gone into Iraq(which by the way is the only way we could verify Saddam’s WMD/Nuclear capabilities remember) is not basis or prof that the Bush Administration,Democrats,
Republicans and the worlds intelligence agencies lied or manipulated intelligence.
You can keep acting like you know more than everybody else in government,and our intelligence agencies but the actions of your democratic heroes in congress and every bi-partisan report done on
pre-war intelligence don’t support your “Bush lied”
propaganda.
Good luck with this and be prepared to get the same results out of this latest leftest propaganda ride that you got out of your Bush did 9/11,Bush
stole the 2000 and 2004 election……Yada,Yada,Yada.
As in the words of Ol’ Slick: ‘This is the biggest fairy-tale I’ve ever seen.’
Left-wing = Hate-wing.
–Jeremiah–
Suppose, for just one minute, that no matter WHO gave money, suppose this study is correct…
Just suppose…
And suppose Soros didn’t fund James Hansen $720,000 as the chief researcher for Global Warming, or suppose Soros didn’t fund the Johns Hopkins “study” finding 650,000 deaths in Iraq. Just suppose Soros and his simpleton parrots had not been discovered.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros
Just suppose this study is driven by an anti-Bush agenda, just suppose …
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/debunking_the_cpi_report.php
It’s interesting that Bob Owens at Pajamas Media doesn’t take the leap that Matt did here in calling the report “another Soros-funded study”. Rather, it was “heavily funded by left-leaning foundations and individuals”. Apparently, he hasn’t been paying enough attention in the Two Minutes Hate.
j.s.,
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
I have a question for you. Since we both agree with, and have verified, the definition of “lie” now.
What is it called when someone says:
A) We know where they are.
- or -
B) We believe, or, feel like we know where they are.
The difference is huge. It is a deliberately misleading and untrue to say “we know” versus to say “we think we know”.
Because one is definitive and can be backed up as it is presented as fact.
The other is a speculation and cannot be backed up as fact however it might be true … it might not.
Pretty careless stuff when you are talking about how we are going to utilize out honrable men and woman who serve our country… don’t you think?
Futhermore,
I speculate based on my research which includes novels such as Bob Woodwards’ “State of Denial” that Vice President Dick Cheney and/or President George Bush pushed this through from the beginning. They wanted this war so bad they could taste it. Even before 9-11.
So they put then SecDef Don Rumsfeld in charge of post-war operations.
Instead of the State Dept being in charge of post-war planning the President or VP (or both) decided to put it in the hands of the Pentagon. Therefore they put SecDef Don Rumsfeld in charge.
At the very beginning ORHA was in charge of the post-war planning. From what has been reported so far, what we now know, this operation looked to be fairly organized but was not given the manpower or the time to truely take what was to be a huge taks of running the Iraqi government once it was vacated by those whom we deposed and/or fired and banned from government service (known as “debaathification” which I think was Paul Bremer’s decision, but more on that in a bit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority
Jay Garner put together a team of people who’s job it was to run the Iraqi government. They had very inadequate resources and therefore they had to work with what they had. Which was very little. This is where the statement is verfied that there truely was no post-war planning or that it was mismanaged. That’s because it was not given the tools it needed for success. Probably because we thought this would be a “cake walk” or that we would be “greeted as liberators” so why put so much focus on post-war planning?
Anyways, so Jay Garner did an excellent job of getting people together to run the government. By the time they got to Iraq, having little resources and few if any translators, they encountered government building which had been looted. They had no supplies, no paperwork, nothing in these buildings. They literally went around on the streets asking if anyone knew anyone who used to work in the vital government positions. THe only government building which was protected by our military was the Ministry of OIL.
Garner was replaced shortly afterward by Paul Bremer. This was President Bush’s decision however it might have been influenced by Cheney or Rumsfeld.
It was a bad idea. Bremer immediatly fired and banned the government workers from their jobs. He dismantely the military which pissed off millions of armed men who used to honorably serve their country. They would have to try to provide for their families all of the sudden. This become the insurgency.
This is not just my “feelings”. This is what has been documented and is what happened.