I'll say this with ABSOLUTE confidence... Everything Bush says in public is a bold-faced lie.
Iraq had 0% to do with 9/11 and was the same threat to the US.

It's an interesting cherry-picked statement that doesn't mean or say a whole lot, so I'll just comfortably ignore it.

More fodder:
Latest zogby poll indicates of the 1,104 likely voters polled, almost half are morons.
UT: GWB and his admin were terrific at spin. Since his initial speechwriter left, they've been having some difficulty (which hasn't been helped by the little issue of the spin having NO relation to reality for six years).
Also, it didn't take much to scare the American people into action (any action) after 9/11. Lots and lots of people were afraid of terruhrists coming and blowing shit up in the US again (to which I say, suck it up).
The point of this little bit of oddity is: GWB & Co. didn't have to be master manipulators to start a war shortly after 9/11. They could be stupid about their reasoning (which they were) by implying a link between AQ and SH which would scare the US electorate into supporting the invasion. The politicians could smell which way the wind was blowing (in 2003), and hopped on the bandwagon to war. Now that the excrement is hitting the other wall from the other fan, they're jumping ship again. That's enough mixed metaphors for now. What do you disagree with? ;)

Of course you will ignore it. As I keep demonstrating by example, you only see and post what conforms to a political agenda. UT, I have watched you change drastically over the decades. 10 years ago, I would never have pegged you for one to be blind to all facts but those that represent a pre-ordained conclusion.

Reality is that If this was not true, then UT could cite quotes in the 9/11 Commission report. He cannot because Iraq had 0% to do with 9/11 - except that a lying president tied the two together to justify a "Pearl Harboring" of Iraq.

Today the same lying president conceded to reality. America has been kidnapping people throughout the world and operating secret CIA prisons in other nations so that American laws and international treaties signed by America could be violated. UT will have to deny that reality - put a spin on it. And yet the facts remain. George Jr also lied about those prisons AND George Jr did so to intentionally circumvent American laws and violate treaties.

And since people like UT are so hardened to extremist rhetoric, they will not demand this as another article of impeachment.

Impeach? Arrest.

Yes, but remember, you can't read. Whom did I vote for?

And can you point to one post you've made in favor of the Rs? I can point to many posts in both directions.

I am literally not sure? You have this bad happen of believing a president who lies repeatedly.

Let's take today's speech. It was about Hamdan - bin Laden's driver. George Jr has the driver hyped as a bodyguard. Therefore we should have hung Hitler's butler? Same logic. Hamdan is completely devoid of rights in direct violation of the US Constitution and Geneva Convention. George Jr administration threw most everything at Hamdan's legal team to make his defense almost impossible. They even insisted the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.

Well the Supreme Court threw out almost every George Jr administration claim with forceful language because obviously George Jr administration has been even violating the Geneva Convention. As a result of laws that the Supreme Court said the White House must comply with - George Jr was now forced to admit the US is kidnapping people all over the world AND the US is running secret CIA prisons in other nations. Major admission from an administration that lied about this repeatedly. This George Jr admission was with spin so that it does not sound so bad. But look. He openly admitted he was lying.

OK - where do we find any reason to ever trust anything from George Jr? He even lied about torture authorized by his administration. When do we say "Fool me once, shame on you...."? George Jr is a persistent liar.

Meanwhile we take a quote right from his speech today: IOW American soldiers can now sodomize with a broomstick Abner Louima, a farmer found on the battlefield and suspect of being Al Qaeda. Those three military officers cannot be prosecuted in a complaint by Louima. Under this George Jr law, Abner Louima has no protection as defined by a Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights. George Jr wants laws changed so that Hamdan cannot sue in Supreme Court to get his rights back. With this law, Supreme Court could no longer do what it just did - protect American principles. Did you hear what this president is proposing? He wants to make violations of the Geneva Convention legal because there are no consequences. You tell me UT. Is this the kind of man that tells the truth? No. This is a man whose fundamental principles are to corrupt the American way of life.

Anything that scumbag president - just like Richard Nixon - says is suspect. He has his extremist agenda and we are just bait for his legacy. Did you hear what he has proposed in today's speech - or was his spin so good that some of us actually thought he was being honest?

The man wants to make it impossible for the Supreme Court to even stop torture. This scumbag president has no respect for judicial review - be it wire tapping, Geneva Convention, or Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights. Judges would get in the way of Armageddon? You trust a single thing that scumbag says?

Notice how, over each year, after each anti-American event, my words get sharper. You have never heard me so critical of any other American politican. Closest might have been Clinton's bribe of Marjorie Margolis-Mezvinsky. Consider this - you lurkers who foolishly think for one minute this is based in emotion. I even considered voting for George Jr when he first ran. Some will remember my post about how he worked often with Democrats as Governor of TX. Reality: the man (actually Cheney) is clearly as dangerous as Nixon. He is working to restrict Supreme Court powers so that the presidency can violate human rights. The man even sees enemies everywhere - a worldwide network of terrorism - where none exists.

George Jr who cannot be trusted to tell the truth is repeatedly a liar. He even wanted Saddam to be blamed for 9/11. He even declared "Mission Accomplished". Was he honest? If so, then we know his real agenda. Nothing wrong with 20,000 dead and physically disabled Americans to promote a president's legacy.

This is your response to my asking for point one post you've made in favor of the Rs?

You only see and post what conforms to a political agenda.

I voted for Kerry. You can't read.

Interesting to see that every quote that doesn't match your point is cherry picked and need to be ignored. You're in a state of denial.

Talking about denial, the updated version of the WH report "Combating Terrorism" doesn't even mentioned bin-Laden anymore. Bin-who?

I am amazed UT... So you didn't believed the Swift Boat Liars?

George W. Bush is not only a compulsive, illiterate, religious fanatic liar and a moron to boot, but he is personally responsible for the current global state of affairs and alo for the probably most severe times of global anti-Americanism ever. This will take years, if not decades to restore any US credibillity in the world. I expect an answer something like "we don't need y'all anyways" from the usual suspects, but by God, you need your allies. His dynasty will be remembered as the worst in US history, probably only to be compared with Nero in the Roman empire days. An empire that once was invincable.

The economy is doing well!

I'm not certain the Swift Boat guys were lying. I just didn't think it was all that meaningful. Kerry fibbed about a number of things in regard to his military record. It's good to know the truth, but we have to acknowledge that there are no utterly clean people in the race for President, and all politicians are relentless self-promoters who put the best possible light on their past.

I felt there was a serious leadership problem all through 2004 and that the administration was unable to get out of its own way on most things.

I was really offended by the administration's re-start of the culture war in mid-2004 when they offered a Constitutional amendment to define marriage. Politicians have to do political things, but the Constitution should be off-limits in that regard.

I felt it was very important, and still do, for the Ds to take their turn at leading the nation during the GWoT. The nation needs to see this as a problem addressed by both sides.

Can you define that a little more specifically?

Productivity/GNP continues to increase, inflation is in check despite fuel costs, unemployment is very low, even wages are coming around and government receipts are up. By all important measures, the economy is doing well.

I disagree. Most indicators might be favorable, but the result is that the rich are just getting richer.

I know that's true for me personally. While my salary increase last year was greater than the "official" inflation rate, I actually had virtually the same take home pay because of increases in medical insurance premiums. Add increased energy costs and other inflation to the mix, and I think I'm making less this year than last year. We're spending less as a result. We spent about $4000 on two trips last year, and only about $800 this year.

From my personal point of view, the economy is very stagnant.

Wow, what's it like to go on a trip?

Some things are not what it seem...

According State of Working America: the US economy is at best on crossroads.

"One path leads to a broad-based, balanced recovery, where tight labor markets ensure widely shared real wage and income growth; where the benefits of the faster productivity regime that began in the mid-1990s flow freely to all income classes; where inequality is held at bay and poverty rates are driven down by a growing economy that provides quality jobs to even the least-advantaged worker.

The other path leads to an economy more like that of the 1980s, although with faster productivity growth. Throughout those years—which were characterized by large and growing budget deficits, high average unemployment, sharply growing inequality, and declining real wages and incomes for many in the bottom half—the living standards of far too many working families were stagnant at best."

Actually, we live extremely frugal lives. (I bring PB&J sandwiches to work for lunch to save money.) Trips are our only "extra" expense. That's why I used them as an example.

It's always simple to find measures that make a good economy look bad and a bad economy look good.

In 2004 it was job creation. You might remember how the Times and every single other media outlet were mad because although the economy looked like it was turning around and getting stronger, the "Bush job deficit" was a signal that things were secretly bad.

But job creation was a lagging indicator. Now that 3 million jobs have been created, you don't hear much about it. Now you hear about inequality -- the new signal that things are secretly bad.

Inequality will turn out to be another lagging indicator, as this quarter wages increased really fast. In fact they rose so fast in the past six months, the AP had to use them as a signal that things are secretly bad. Wages are an expense, and, oh no, employers might raise prices to pay for labor costs and that would be inflation! This quarter's economic news:

Return to late 1960s and early 1970s. We were also leaching money everywhere in an economy that was not productive. Massive Vietnam war spending (something like $1million per day) was hidden in special appropriation bills, etc so that it was not part of the budget. US debt was climbing. US equities were being sold for cash. But plenty of jobs. GDP was strong and growing. Yes. That happens when an economy is spending massively on war. Economic spread sheets then look good.

Debts come due many years later. Massive Vietnam spending in mid and late 1960s, and in early 1970s created the brutal economic downturn all through the 1970s. Stagflation. Eventually interest rated climbed approaching 20%. Suddenly no jobs. We had to pay those debts ten years later.

Currently Fed Governors are asking if recession has already started. They are very concerned about significantly rising inflation already at 2.7%. And have you been the grocery store this summer? Notice the higher prices for fruits and vegatables when those prices traditionally fall in the winter? When recessions begin, everything looks good - as just before a 1920 stock market crash.

In the later 1960s, economy was booming but the stock market was flat. Same was a problem in years before the great depression. Today the economy is booming -and stock market has no growth for over five years. Classic of an economy leaching money everywhere. In last few years, American incomes have been decreasing except among the top 10%. When did this occur previously? Just before the 1920s stock market crash.

From the BBC - is this a healthy economy or one simply burning itself out on war:

More examples of an economy that is growing? Whose future is robust? From the NY Times of 7 Sept 2006: As American incomes fall for so many, among some of the first to suffer would be those who don't appear in those economic statistic until so many years later. Short term economics statistics suggest that this is the best it gets? That is not what the long term indicators suggest complete with a Federal Reserve that is even discussing the worse of economic conditions - stagflation.

Right. When the economy slows, the last to lose income are the wealthy, when the economy rebounds, the first to regain income are the wealthy.

And then we learn from history. When America was in a war based on lies and when the war was not being won, the military readiness was both poor - and not acknowledged. When the war is not being won, when the military does not even have a strategic objective (and no exit strategy), and when top government officials lie about this, then the military has severe problems in both manpower and equipment.

That just well proven by history. And then we move forward to see what America's first line units are doing. From the NY Times of 25 Sept 2006 is what Vietnam also proved: Let's see. Last time the administration and right wing extremists lied - denied the war was unwinnable and denied the military was stretched so thin .... Deja Vue Vietnam.

Military equipment so worn, so few, and ... well back in Vietnam, the nation's first line combat units when not actively deployed also had same severe shortages of troops and working equipment. What then happened? The Draft.

Why do I keep posting in direct contradiction to those who somehow always know only using a political agenda?

I was in a machine shop that was resurfacing some of the largest drum brakes I have ever seen. What were they from? Studebaker trucks. A local Army transport unit was reconditioning their Studebaker trucks for deployment to Iraq. The US military is reaching that far down into equipment to maintain the war in Iraq. UT says otherwise. But the engineer has this damn blasted tendency to look at technical facts and details - and see what he also saw in 1969 - Deja Vue Vietnam.

I have no political agenda. I am a centrist which means reality is more important. 2nd Brigade does not even have equipment to train. The 3rd ID is one this nations fast reaction forces. And yet they don't even have half their men. UT tells us that America was never stronger - in direct contradiction to facts from the NY Times AND from lessons in history - Vietnam.

Am I blunt and rude? Yes, I am that honest about reality – especially when extremist political agendas would so harm America. Military stretched so thin as to even send Studebaker trucks to Iraq. Next step - the draft.