So Iran doesn't have a nuclear program either...

[Fitswimmer]

Yeah, you really can't. What case for war with Iran? When and where did Bush ever make a case for war with Iran? I asked before, for some quotes to Bush's statements that would back up this type of overheated nonsense. I'm still waiting...

See posts #23, #123 and #136

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

See posts #23, #123 and #136

Obviously deliberate media misinterpretations!

 

[Fitswimmer]

Obviously deliberate media misinterpretations!

Of course, how silly of me not to be aware of that! D'oh!!!

 

[bsnyder]

Here's the exact WWIII quote from President Bush's press conference:

So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.

Can anyone tell me what, precisely they'd take issue with, in this statement? Or how that amounts to making a case for war against Iran?

Anyone????

 

[bsnyder]

See posts #23, #123 and #136

Maybe #23 is a typo on your part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAKmom
George I thought Bush only shared part of the information that was given him. Didnt it come out he did not share all the intelligence reports with Congress?

Doesn't matter. Planet Bush never lets truth get in the way of a good talking point.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Here's the exact WWIII quote from President Bush's press conference:



Can anyone tell me what, precisely they'd take issue with, in this statement? Or how that amounts to making a case for war against Iran?

Anyone????

Seeing that he was well aware a report that stated that Iran had discontinued their nuke program 4 years earlier (even though he says he just read it last week ), the entire speech is disingenuous.

Can you not see that after the nation was fooled in Iraq with talk of mushroom clouds, why we wouldn't be a bit "sensitive" about being lead down the garden path again?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Maybe #23 is a typo on your part?

Yes, it was-should have been #29. Sorry.

 

[bsnyder]

Seeing that he was well aware a report that stated that Iran had discontinued their nuke program 4 years earlier (even though he says he just read it last week ), the entire speech is disingenuous.

Can you not see that after the nation was fooled in Iraq with talk of mushroom clouds, why we wouldn't be a bit "sensitive" about being lead down the garden path again?

How is it disengenous? He was asked a question by a reporter. He didn't bring the subject up on his own. He responded that he believes Iran is a danger, a sentiment that you agree with. And then he talks about the diplomatic and economic pressures we're using and will continue to use, on Iran. What, pray tell, is disengenous about that? The only thing I see that's disengenuous is how the newspapers reported on the WWIII comment without providing the full quote, which I'm sure until now most everyone on this thread had never even read.

 

[LuvDuke]

How is it disengenous? He was asked a question by a reporter. He didn't bring the subject up on his own. He responded that he believes Iran is a danger, a sentiment that you agree with. And then he talks about the diplomatic and economic pressures we're using and will continue to use, on Iran. What, pray tell, is disengenous about that? The only thing I see that's disengenuous is how the newspapers reported on the WWIII comment without providing the full quote, which I'm sure until now most everyone on this thread had never even read.

Of course, you're the only one who read it and you're the only one who understood it's true meaning.

And the reason why you aren't getting lots of answers to your "show me where the president lied" request is that no one can believe someone can actually ask that question with a straight face.

 

[Mr Man]

Actually, the NYT frequently voluntarily agrees to not puplish leaked information when told it's important for national security reasons not to. Why would you lie about such a thing?



Actually, not at all. If you study further, you'll see the info initially came from one source, and then (unlike Curve Ball) was extensively cross checked and reviewed.

Am I now a liar (because only liars lie-pants on fire)? Talk about "insulting" and "over the top".......hehehehehe.... ok, I'm not actually offended, I just think you are mistaken and being purposefully disingenuous.

Events throughout the current administration suggest otherwise:

Just a quick glance at some of the leaks coming out of the NYT over the last few years (from their "fellow travelers in govt of course):

-Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP)
-NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications.
-CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives.

There are more......lots more.

On all of these, the Bush Administration asked (actually pleaded with the NYT to sit on the stories). They did not.


Yes, it was cross-checked and reviewed by the leakers and the NYT.

 

[LuvDuke]

Seeing that he was well aware a report that stated that Iran had discontinued their nuke program 4 years earlier (even though he says he just read it last week ), the entire speech is disingenuous.

Can you not see that after the nation was fooled in Iraq with talk of mushroom clouds, why we wouldn't be a bit "sensitive" about being lead down the garden path again?

No, Planet Bush can't see that because Bush never lied to them. You misinterpreted what Bush really said ...... err, meant to say .......... err, implied .......... err, insinuated ........... err, ad nauseum.

You just don't understand the Bush nuances.

 

[bsnyder]

Of course, you're the only one who read it and you're the only one who understood it's true meaning.

And the reason why you aren't getting lots of answers to your "show me where the president lied" request is that no one can believe someone can actually ask that question with a straight face.

What true meaning? I read the words and I don't see a thing in there about threatening Iran with war. You're the one who seems to read something else into it, that's not part of the actual words.

No, the reason I'm not getting lots of answers is because there aren't the statements from Bush to back up your overwrought charges. Your additional comment is just the usual ******** you supply when you get called on it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

What true meaning? I read the words and I don't see a thing in there about threatening Iran with war. You're the one who seems to read something else into it, that's not part of the actual words.

No, the reason I'm not getting lots of answers is because there aren't the statements from Bush to back up your overwrought charges. Your additional comment is just the usual ******** you supply when you get called on it.

Well, you're never going to agree-but moving the Navy into firing distance sure looks like a threat, talking about WWIII sure sounds like a threat and talking about imminent threats sounds very familiar to the "mushroom cloud" speech we got before we invaded Iraq. To you, that's probably diplomacy.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

How is it disengenous? He was asked a question by a reporter. He didn't bring the subject up on his own. He responded that he believes Iran is a danger, a sentiment that you agree with. And then he talks about the diplomatic and economic pressures we're using and will continue to use, on Iran. What, pray tell, is disengenous about that? The only thing I see that's disengenuous is how the newspapers reported on the WWIII comment without providing the full quote, which I'm sure until now most everyone on this thread had never even read.

If you see nothing disingenuous for our President, with full knowledge that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, hasn't had one for quite some time and while we're engaged in an extremely unpopular war of our own making right next door, to bring up visions of WWIII during a press conference, then I guess that this is the part where I say that we should agree to disagree.

 

[LuvDuke]

Am I now a liar (because only liars lie-pants on fire)? Talk about "insulting" and "over the top".......hehehehehe.... ok, I'm not actually offended, I just think you are mistaken and being purposefully disingenuous.

Events throughout the current administration suggest otherwise:

Just a quick glance at some of the leaks coming out of the NYT over the last few years (from their "fellow travelers in govt of course):

-Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP)
-NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications.
-CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives.

There are more......lots more.

On all of these, the Bush Administration asked (actually pleaded with the NYT to sit on the stories). They did not.


Yes, it was cross-checked and reviewed by the leakers and the NYT.

I love the Bush-doublespeak:

1) "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" - That includes all the financial transactions in the US whether terrorist, foreign, domestic, or paying your electric bill.

2) "NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications" - That includes every email, every phonecall, and every google search made in the last few years no matter who did it.

3) "CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives" - Translated that means we sent our detainees to our ally Syria to be tortured.

You got the Bush spiel down pat. Whoa, George, is that you?

 

[Mr Man]

I sometimes wonder where all this hate is going to go when George W. Bush is no longer President.

Will it simply transfer to the next President (R) or are some people going to have to consider therapy........

It doesn't sound healthy.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Am I now a liar (because only liars lie-pants on fire)? Talk about "insulting" and "over the top".......hehehehehe.... ok, I'm not actually offended, I just think you are mistaken and being purposefully disingenuous.

Events throughout the current administration suggest otherwise:

Just a quick glance at some of the leaks coming out of the NYT over the last few years (from their "fellow travelers in govt of course):

-Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP)
-NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications.
-CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives.

There are more......lots more.

On all of these, the Bush Administration asked (actually pleaded with the NYT to sit on the stories). They did not.


Yes, it was cross-checked and reviewed by the leakers and the NYT.

I do think it's the job of the media to report things that are wrong with the government. If the NYT published stories for political reasons they're wrong. If they published them because they thought there were problems, and they didn't buy the WH's position that publishing them was a national security risk, I think they're right.

 

[LuvDuke]

What true meaning? I read the words and I don't see a thing in there about threatening Iran with war. You're the one who seems to read something else into it, that's not part of the actual words.

No, the reason I'm not getting lots of answers is because there aren't the statements from Bush to back up your overwrought charges. Your additional comment is just the usual ******** you supply when you get called on it.

Called on what? You're the only who can't seem to grasp it. Looks to me like you're the one being "called on" and your only defense is "I don't see it". Geez, Louise, knock me over with a feather.

I'm starting to feel like I'm kicking a puppy.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I sometimes wonder where all this hate is going to go when George W. Bush is no longer President.

Will it simply transfer to the next President (R) or are some people going to have to consider therapy........

It doesn't sound healthy.

Why are you concerned? It'll be a lovefest for you regardless of who takes the reigns in the Oval Office come next year. By your own admission, you blindly support every President regardless of party or damage done to the United States. Life must be just swell...

 

[Mr Man]

And the reason why you aren't getting lots of answers to your "show me where the president lied" request is that no one can believe someone can actually ask that question with a straight face.

Actually, we are not getting answers because there is no evidence that Pres Bush lied. EVER. It is an emotion based argument based on feeling and not fact.

Take a look back through the responses on this thread for example. Most of the responses from the opposition could only be more emotive if they put on tap shoes, grabbed a walking cane, straw hat and burst into song!

It is entertaining stuff though.