President Bush Fires Back Against Critics

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Are we back to the 60's, "you are killing our soldiers by your lack of support for the war" kind of thing???

It's not just lack of support for the war. I don't even "support" many of the ways it's being handled today.

There are ways to dissent without bolstering the enemy, but Kennedy & Co. don't care a whit about that. Shame on them.

Quote

. . . while our soldiers die in vain.

I'm sorry you think they are dying in vain. The jury is actually still out on that one.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

More people are paying less taxes. The GNP has grown at 3% plus for 10 straight quarters and unimploument is lower than at any time during the Clinton administration.

There are lies in these posts but they are not mine or GWB's

Who's lying? Go here and put in 1994-2005. You'll see that unemployment was lower during portions of Clinton's term. Where do you get your incorrect propaganda?
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp

And as far as more people paying less taxes...Considering the record deficits and debt I don't find that to be a good thing. How are these debts going to be paid off? They're growing every day.

[rushmc 23]

Propaganda....

BBwwwwwhhhhhaaaaaaa

As for the deficit.

It still a smaller percentage of the GNP than at other times. The money is rolling into the treasurey faster than predicted and the deficit is growing at a smaller pace than predicted.

And, after Katrina the unemployment was expected to go up but (will wonders never cease) the actual unemployment went down

The economy is robust and growing, more people are employed than the Dems had hoped.

......and you call my data propoganda

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>Or, did he go with the same assumptions from the same intell that the
> Clintons, the UN, or multiple senators used.

The senators did not get the whole story; a large chunk of the NIE was removed, so that the case for war looked stronger. So the statement "the senators had all the information Bush had" is nonsense (but a great GOP talking point!)

Clinton _did_ have the same info. He came to a more reasonable conclusion - an invasion of Iraq was not needed for the security of the US. One of the marks of a good leader is coming to intelligent conclusions from incomplete data.

>So, saying that GBW lied or manipulted intel is a crock argument . . .

In your opinion. The majority of americans disagree.

[billvon 2,991]

>As for the deficit. It still a smaller percentage of the GNP than at other times.

I have asked you before if you get all your information from a place like FOX, and you took offense at that. But I know you're a smart guy, and are not just making this stuff up - which is why I suspect you're using a very biased source. Our deficit is currently 3.6% of our gross domestic product. 2003 was 3.5%. These are the highest ratios since 1993. The white house recently said that these numbers represent an "improvement in the nation’s budget picture." When pressed, they said that since they expected closer to 4 percent, that it was an improvement. Which is like predicting that a whole city could burn down, starting a fire in a warehouse, discovering that the resulting fire destroyed only 50% of the city - then proclaiming that you saved half the city.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Ya, Blix is a credible source

Apparently he was more credible than US intelligence. Furthermore I respect the fact that he could not be pushed into making unfounded accusations of Saddam possessing WMD. It is called integrity.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ya, Blix is a credible source

Apparently he was more credible than US intelligence. Furthermore I respect the fact that he could not be pushed into making unfounded accusations of Saddam possessing WMD. It is called integrity.

Saturday, Nov. 12, 2005 10:31 a.m. EST
Experts: Saddam's Uranium Enough for One Nuke


Though President Bush didn't mention it in his speech yesterday rebutting critics of his administration's use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, experts say that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled enough partially enriched uranium to produce at least one full-fledged nuclear bomb.

Commenting on Saddam's enriched uranium stash after the U.S. Energy Department removed it to Oak Ridge, Tenn., in June 2004, top physicist Ivan Oelrich told the Associated Press:

"[Saddam's] 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb."

Oelrich, a leading member of the Federation of American Scientists, is not alone in that assessment.

Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, told the New York Times that Saddam's partially enriched uranium "could have been further enriched to make it useful in a weapon."
After the U.S. removed Saddam's nuke fuel stockpile, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi confirmed that it posed a great danger to the region's security interests.

"These materials, which are potential weapons of mass murder, are not welcome in our country and their production is unacceptable," Allawi told Agence France Press.

Even Saddam's 500-ton un-enriched uranium stockpile, which he stored at the same nuclear weapons research facility where inspectors found his partially enriched stash, posed a potential threat.

In a March 2003 op-ed piece for London's Evening Standard, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, calculated that Saddam's yellowcake could have yielded a staggering nuclear arsenal.

Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own!
New Stock Market Report - Limited Time Offer!
The Coming Shock on Wall Street - Urgent Report
Democrats Plotting Alito Filibuster?

"You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium," Dombey wrote. "You need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build?
"The answer is 142 [nuclear bombs]," he said.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

The economy is robust and growing, more people are employed than the Dems had hoped.

......and you call my data propoganda

Claiming that democrats hoped for higher unemployment and making false claims IS propaganda. Your claims are incorrect. Did you go tthe site I referenced? First you say unemployment is lower than anytime in Clinton's tenure. That's wrong. I call you on that and you revise to "unemployment isn't as bad as democrats hoped".

Yes, I call it propaganda.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own!

From where, exactly, did you get this article?

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Quote

Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own!

From where, exactly, did you get this article?

It doesnt matter. IF it's printed on the internet it must be true!!!

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Strike a nerve?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Liberal Democrats Rent, Republicans Own!

From where, exactly, did you get this article?

It doesnt matter. IF it's printed on the internet it must be true!!!

Serious question (you got me to thinking)
What sources you consider credible? And why?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

There's enough water in Lake Michigan to drown us all.

The article you quoted has to be the stupidest you've put up so far.

Where was Saddam's enrichment plant, exactly?

WHY DO YOU SUPPORT PROVEN LIARS?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Ya, Blix is a credible source

More credible than GWB, apparently. What he said was actually true, unlike your hero.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Proven?

BBBwwwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa

You guys are a hoot

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Proven?

BBBwwwwwhhhhaaaaaaaa

You guys are a hoot

I gave you a bunch of examples: Bush's lies about the deficit, McClellan's lies about "Imminent threat", , Bush's use of the Yellowcake story after the White House had been told it was false, etc.,etc.

I could add Bush's lies about veterans' affairs, too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ReBirth 0]

Your unemployment claim was entirely false. Who was lying? You, or your source?

[rushmc 23]

Those are all old stories you keep putting out there as some kind of fact! RETORIC

All I know for sure is those that hate GWB are looking to do anything (truthful or not) to get him out of there.

......and in the end those trying look like fools.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I am still trying to find my source and if I was wrong I will admit it. But you are going to take it to a lying accusation?

Well at least I know how you got think GWB is a lier

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ReBirth 0]

Pot meet kettle

Quote

All I know for sure is those that hate GWB are looking to do anything (truthful or not) to get him out of there.

No, I don't think you're a liar, just wrong. GWB on the other hand is a different story. He intentionally attempted to deceive the public. Whether he stated outright untruths or not is irrelevant. He attempted in convincing people that there was more of a threat from SH than really existed. That was a lie.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Your unemployment claim was entirely false. Who was lying? You, or your source?

Incorrect, unemployment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment when down to 5.0% (down from 5.1%) and non-farm payrolls rose in October (56,000).

This happened in the face of Katrina and Rita "ripple effects".

edit: here's the BLS link --- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Strike a nerve?

Not at all. I think you're all retarded.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Pot meet kettle

Quote

All I know for sure is those that hate GWB are looking to do anything (truthful or not) to get him out of there.

No, I don't think you're a liar, just wrong. GWB on the other hand is a different story. He intentionally attempted to deceive the public. Whether he stated outright untruths or not is irrelevant. He attempted in convincing people that there was more of a threat from SH than really existed. That was a lie.

No, the last two lines of your post are a lie!

The same claims were made by the UN, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry and others........................now wait for it.........................................BOTH GWB WAS EVEN IN OFFICE!!!!! They had the same intel and even more than Bush did because he was not even if office. THESE CLAIMS GO BACK TO 1998

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ReBirth 0]

What does that have to do with his claim that unemployment is lower now than it ever was during Clinton's term?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

They had the same intel and even more than Bush did because he was not even if office.

They had more intel than Bush shared with us. They had the intel that contradicted the claims of WMD, and that is why they NEVER STARTED A WAR. It wasn't until GWB came along, that the contradiction to the WMD claims were sidelined and footnoted and a push for war was made. It's so obvious it's almost laughable.