If Bush lied...so did they!

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by tw

Wacko extremists will post Limbaugh lies with impunity. Ronald Cherrycoke has so little respect for everyone as to ... well those with too much bluster and to little grasp will even claim military service complete with medals. Ronald, your credibility is that diminished. Below is another example of your lying.

The "Lee Hamilton commission" did not agree "that Saddam had some ties to terrorist Al-Qaeda". Ronald glorifies extremism again by inventing reality. Ronald - a soundbyte so that you can understand: "Ronald is lying again".

Only reference to bin Laden by the Iraq Study Group is That is it. No other reference because bin Laden and Saddam had no such alliance - obviously. ISG makes no claim of a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Ronald invented it as only one from the dark side would do. Well Darth Cherrycoke, your claim is only found where anti-American extremist post hatred of both America and the American soldier. You are caught quoting an extremist lie. When will you first read from sources of reality? Why do you instead post wacko extremist propaganda? It is called lying. Others will tell you of my contempt for lies.

Ronald Cherrycoke would also have us believe that bin Laden's Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq and in a long list of other nations. That requires him to ignore (or confuse) what was known long before Iraq - the Muslim Brotherhood. That requires Ronald to believe what George Jr says. How active is bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Iraq? Again the Iraq Study Group: Yes I too can call myself Al Qaeda if to recruit wacko of extremists. Would that make me a member of bin Laden's Al Qaeda? If I call myself Wendy, then I must serve hamburgers? If I wear diapers, then I want Ann Coulter to do me?

Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught and exposed lying about the ISG report. Clearly he need not read before posting. He has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to tell him. Or did Fox News have enough credibility to not report that lie?

Why has Ronald Cherrycoke not yet posted reasons to invade Iran? Ronald is waiting for his extremist newsletter to tell him what to say. Am I kidding? No. Not about extremists who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught lying even about the Iraq Study Group report. Worse? He probably believes his own lies because he could not bother to read. George Jr also believed god told him to invade Iraq. No wonder Ronald loves this president.

This post is not about Ronald Cherrycoke. This post is a warning to others about lies probably in the pipeline - that would explain the sudden deployment (surge) of aircraft carrier task forces to the Iranian coastline.

Wacko extremists will post Limbaugh lies with impunity. Ronald Cherrycoke has so little respect for everyone as to ... well those with too much bluster and to little grasp will even claim military service complete with medals. Ronald, your credibility is that diminished. Below is another example of your lying.



Told you I don`t listen to Limbaugh....the only Wacko extremists I see here is you . As far as military service..I don`t care if you believe me or not...if you got any questions on my service..fire away! But I do know that you as a coward have none.



The "Lee Hamilton commission" did not agree "that Saddam had some ties to terrorist Al-Qaeda". Ronald glorifies extremism again by inventing reality. Ronald - a soundbyte so that you can understand: "Ronald is lying again".

Read again his quote from a legitimate news source (Oh I forgot you don`t read just write)...and then bury your head in the sand again.



Only reference to bin Laden by the Iraq Study Group is That is it. No other reference because bin Laden and Saddam had no such alliance - obviously. ISG makes no claim of a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Ronald invented it as only one from the dark side would do. Well Darth Cherrycoke, your claim is only found where anti-American extremist post hatred of both America and the American soldier. You are caught quoting an extremist lie. When will you first read from sources of reality? Why do you instead post wacko extremist propaganda? It is called lying. Others will tell you of my contempt for lies.

That is it....yep they agreed there was a tie.



Well Darth Cherrycoke, your claim is only found where anti-American extremist post hatred of both America and the American soldier.

Strange stuff indeed...by the way you phrase and write I bet you are not even an American.


Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught and exposed lying about the ISG report. Clearly he need not read before posting. He has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to tell him. Or did Fox News have enough credibility to not report that lie?

No but the MSM "Fake but Accurate" news might have.




Why has Ronald Cherrycoke not yet posted reasons to invade Iran? Ronald is waiting for his extremist newsletter to tell him what to say. Am I kidding? No. Not about extremists who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Ronald Cherrycoke has been caught lying even about the Iraq Study Group report. Worse? He probably believes his own lies because he could not bother to read. George Jr also believed god told him to invade Iraq. No wonder Ronald loves this president.







While you suck up to every slogan Al Franken spews....



This post is not about Ronald Cherrycoke.


Yeah it is...Duh!!!...you go on so long about me...you fear I might offer some truth in a debate and a lefty can`t stand that.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

Told you I don`t listen to Limbaugh....

You said many things also parroted by Limbaugh. Why should I believe a person who even intentionally misquoted Tom Kean for a political agenda? Ronald Cherrycoke - you do exactly what a brown shirt must do; complete with Goebel's techniques to promote lies.

Tom Kean did not say what you have intentionally taken out of context. Saddam and bin Laden had no alliance no matter how often you lie. Hell, you even deny the reality about a "Mission Accomplished" banner - as Rush tells you to do. But then Goebel's purpose also was lies - to pervert and rewrite reality - so that brown shirts would 'feel' they are intelligent. Same type people listen to Limbaugh.

You don't listen to Limbaugh. Oh. Its just an accident that you parrot what Liimbaugh told you to say. But then why should I believe anything Ronald Cherrycoke says. He even intentionally misquotes Tom Kean to promote 'big dic' extremism.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

If I call myself Wendy, then I must serve hamburgers? If I wear diapers, then I want Ann Coulter to do me?


Strange stuff indeed!...But we live in an enlightened society...Go for it Dude!

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." --


Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

THERE WAS NO QUESTION in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Those are the words of Thomas Kean, the Republican co-chairman of the September 11 Commission. He made the statement on July 22, 2004, 10 days after a New York Times headline declared, "9/11 Report Is Said to Dismiss Iraq-Qaeda Alliance," and a month after another headline in the same paper blared, "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

[Urbane Guerrilla]

As you can see, Ronald, tw remains at all times pathetic. He hasn't the stuff to gainsay either of us, he does not think entirely rationally, and were he merely stupid, his errors anent American foreign policy would at least some of the time favor American interests -- but his errors never do. He's got an agenda, and that agenda is vehement antipatriotism. If you're a patriot, particularly if you're a Republican patriot, he'll try and shit on you. Unfortunately, starting as he does from the abyss, it generally only puts him into an absurd posture.

[DanaC]

Gee...I didn`t know that wars kill civilians.
...ever wonder how many civilians.
in occupied Europe died by our bombs liberating them from Hitler?

Too many. But here's the thing.....the Iraqis weren't being liberated from an occupying power....we are the occupying power.

[WabUfvot5]

Bruce, that was downright beautiful.

[Hippikos]

It's not my fault they turned around and fucked me....fucked US. You don't know what they will do... no matter what the Crystal ball says. You listen to the promises and make a choice but it's a crap shoot.

Just follow your common sense. I never believed this Iraq WMD story even before the war started. I just felt there was something wrong with the White House argumentation and started looking around on the internet. Plenty of info that supported my suspicion and the hurry to get the weapon inspectors out of the way was just confirming things.

If your gut says it ain't right, then it ain't right. Always suspect those who want war.

The press is our watch dog, are they bias? They are people, they have opinions that creep into their writing but they are still competing to get the most facts.

The way the press was embedded was unprecendent, look at what happen with Pulitzer Price Winner Judith Miller.

All goes back to the Climate of Fear Cheney and Bush created. In these times nobody wants to be pictured as non-patriotic.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Just follow your common sense. I never believed this Iraq WMD story even before the war started. I just felt there was something wrong with the White House argumentation and started looking around on the internet. Plenty of info that supported my suspicion and the hurry to get the weapon inspectors out of the way was just confirming things.

I had doubts also and left a message, but Bush didn't call me back so I couldn't stop the war.

My point was once I voted him in, there is nothing I can do to prevent him from doing evil..... nothing. I can piss and moan to him and my congressmen, I can bitch to the newspapers, or set myself on fire like a Buddhist Monk, but it wouldn't have one iota of effect on him. Only Cheney, Laura and God can do that.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I had doubts also and left a message, but Bush didn't call me back so I couldn't stop the war.

My point was once I voted him in, there is nothing I can do to prevent him from doing evil..... nothing. I can piss and moan to him and my congressmen, I can bitch to the newspapers, or set myself on fire like a Buddhist Monk, but it wouldn't have one iota of effect on him. Only Cheney, Laura and God can do that.

My point is, when all those who voted for Bush second time thought like you (and me, but that don't count) then he wouldn't be reelected.

The first time he was elected over Al Bore through that FLA fraud, I remember I wondered how someone with such a limited world view, intellect, broad knowledge, could run the Greatest Nation in the World succesfully. Guess my gut feeling was right, again?

[DanaC]

When Bush was elected the first time though, there wasn't any real indication of this as his future path. For people who voted him in the first time, as I believe bruce is saying, there was no reason to assume that he would lead the country into this disastrous war. No amount of websearching could have told him that. Once Bush was elected and started down the path he is on, that's different....which again, I htink is part of Bruce's point. When the politician or leader that you have cast your vote for, starts to act in such a manner, the fact that you voted for them does not mean you should then defend everything they do, right or wrong, because all you did when you voted for them was cast your vote based on what they appeared to stand for. None of us have a crystal ball.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

When Bush was elected the first time though, there wasn't any real indication of this as his future path. For people who voted him in the first time, as I believe bruce is saying, there was no reason to assume that he would lead the country into this disastrous war. No amount of websearching could have told him that.

In 2000, posted was even how George Jr worked better with TX Democrats. However facts after he came to office were disturbing. George Jr was a changed man. His all but insults a first world leader to meet him in the White House - Helmut Schmidt of Germany. Accurate comments only three months after taking office from the Norwegian Foreign Minister declare that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. His snub of Mexico’s president after promising the warmest of relations. Anarchistic attempts to get into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. Destruction of the ABM treaty so as to build a 'not functional' missile defense system for threats that would not exist. Follow on discussions to terminate the nuclear test ban treaty.

Clinton's first two years also were not so good. Again, that would also be apparent in the tone of my posts back then. Especially in reference to congressional legislation and a Congresswoman more commonly known as MMM.

Colin Powell defined George Jr's presidency by citing Christie Whitman as the wind dummy. Do you remember these days? Use my posts as a benchmark as to when a mental midget presidency emerged. Also note when appropriate adjectives began to appear.

We had some indications in 2000 that George Jr was really not presidential material. But then neither was John Kennedy in 1959. A major difference exists - lessons to be learned for when this happens again after 2035. John Kennedy had learned extensively about the world. He consulted regularly from all parties with knowledge and experience (ie Cold War, man to the moon program, Cuba Missile, Vietnam, etc). George Jr only asked two people whether he should attack Iraq (not including his conversation with god). Condi Rice says she was one of the only two.

We knew from his first year and from a book by his own Sec of the Treasury Paul O'Neill that George Jr does not read his own memos. Again facts stated with supporting details define when we could / should see what George Jr was really made of. Paul O'Neill had to walk this president through every page of a four page memo because George Jr does not read; did not even read his own PDB warnings of 11 September.

These were damning facts: the devil is in those details. Details that we would not understand until after the 2000 election. Details - not a tarot card - are where facts are found. Few of these facts were evident in the 2000 election.

However by 2003, one had to be a fool to not see how incompetent George Jr was. To appreciate when we should have known, just follow the facts and temper of my posts from 2001. How could anyone with any intelligence vote for him in 2003 and call themselves patriotic? George Jr is one of if not the worst president in this past American century. That is also fact - assuming nothing drastic happens in the next two years.

One final lesson from history. The press was rarely Nixon's critic. That did not happen until first the people got angry. It took that long to see how evil Nixon was. The press (with a rare exception called Woodward and Bernstein) were very supportive of Nixon. Why do we have so much contempt for the troops as to again send them into defeat - without a strategic objective, smoking gun, or exit strategy? The people just are not openly condemning the mental midget. Don't fool yourself. Even our Senate does not have the balls to stand up and do the right thing. This current president has too few vocal critics - and that includes those Cellar dwellers not in America. Same was true of Nixon. More lessons from history.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

snip~
One final lesson from history. The press was rarely Nixon's critic. That did not happen until first the people got angry. It took that long to see how evil Nixon was. The press (with a rare exception called Woodward and Bernstein) were very supportive of Nixon. Why do we have so much contempt for the troops as to again send them into defeat - without a strategic objective, smoking gun, or exit strategy? The people just are not openly condemning the mental midget. Don't fool yourself. Even our Senate does not have the balls to stand up and do the right thing. This current president has too few vocal critics - and that includes those Cellar dwellers not in America. Same was true of Nixon. More lessons from history.

Don't you think the nature of the press has changed since Nixon's time?

Every reporter wants to be Woodward and Bernstein, now. And although many of major players they work for, appear to be bias spinners, it's almost impossible to hide the real stories. If they try to ignore a source that wants to blow the whistle, he can go to any two-bit paper and the Bloggers will catch wind of it. He can even go straight to the internet.

It used to be that the newspapers, except for a few biggies, got everything from the wire services. Now there is more avenues to work with, a reporter in podunk can do a credible job just using the net. He won't break any major stories but he can keep Podunkians reasonably well informed.

Originally Posted by DanaC

When Bush was elected the first time though, there wasn't any real indication of this as his future path. For people who voted him in the first time, as I believe bruce is saying, there was no reason to assume that he would lead the country into this disastrous war. No amount of websearching could have told him that. Once Bush was elected and started down the path he is on, that's different....which again, I htink is part of Bruce's point. When the politician or leader that you have cast your vote for, starts to act in such a manner, the fact that you voted for them does not mean you should then defend everything they do, right or wrong, because all you did when you voted for them was cast your vote based on what they appeared to stand for. None of us have a crystal ball.

Bush was not elected the first time.