Bush admin makes me puke Options

[Hellfighter]

So here's the latest regarding 'mission accomplished'....
Can the lies by the Bush admin get more nauseating - I'm sure they can....
Look at this one -explaining away what 'Mission Accomplished' really meant.
Why do these Bush croney/minions/goons think that when they spew out their rubbish in pathetic lies that the majority of Americans/the world think like gullable numbskulled neocons and war-mongerors;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tm9-cZ2s7i4&feature=related

[THE Mechanic]

Hey , Hellfighter..

This one will drive you up a tree..!



http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKla10sh3hE



"T.M."

[Robert]

Sorry but to me the report owned herself when she said
"Why does he continue to quibble over this"
Wait a second, isn't the reporter the one still asking about this 4 years later.
So who's actually continuing to quibble over it?
It's incredibly lame how people continue to fall back on such trivialities as this banner and what it was suppose to mean.
Every single time it's brought they cut the speech down to a single line.
Then ignore the fact the Navy requested the banned, not in reference to anything to do with Iraq but the fact this was the longest aircraft carrier deployment in history. It was about the mission accomplished by the USS Abraham Lincoln, not Iraq.
Which BTW explains why Bush's speech that day was about the work that still needed to be done, but all anyone ever mentions is the single line about
"The end of major combat operations"
Which even if you break the whole speech down to that single line, it's still accurate.

Feel free to explain to me what the whole point of this was again?

[Hellfighter]

lol-no explaination needed. Bush may deep down be a nice guy -and a million times more than his neo-con cronies- but he and his admin are beyond out of order.
I find it bizarre how just about everyone in the Bush admin is singing the don't say what we really mean song. They are simply incapable of saying 'I was wrong'.... nauseating. Once or twice ok, but all the time is inexscusable. The point of bringing up the 'banner'/speech episode again was classic in showing how politicians recollect events later in a brand new light.... much like Clinton's "I distinctinctly remember running for cover....". Bush says it clearly-you and everyone knows what he meant by that dramatic one liner in which he puffed out his chest and drank in the applause at the announcement of his Crusade prevailing- he meant "Operations" -in the context of conventional military missions destroying sadam's henchman and the Iraqi army- was at an end in his mind and thus meaning the War - his neo-con chums were very eager to consider the lull in hostilities as the war being over - the war was not over and still is not over. Why's it so hard for Bush /and his speaker stooges to say "I rushed to judgement to be honest with you - little did I know the enemy would court al quaeada and foreign fighters to restart hostilities"..... Instead we have a dullard on the podium talking down to people with laughable lies-if that part alone of the show of contemptuous arrogance the admin has to its citizens [ like Billy-boy's straight-faced "I did not have sexual relations...."] doesn't leave one cringing in revulsion, then I'm not sure what will.
Hooray for the press dragging horribly-lying politicians through the mud -it'll keep future ones hopefully from screwing up the agenda people originally voted for them to accomplish.

Hey , Hellfighter..

This one will drive you up a tree..!



http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKla10sh3hE



"T.M."

Lol, yup that one is hilarious....
I like the ending.... 'we were there buy UN sanctioning.....'
'we were invited there by a democratically elected government'
'we are not occupying Iraq'
'we are there under a human mandate' hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............
Being her friend in real life must get very interesting- she must have alot of very tall tales to tell.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/02/08 6:52pm

[Robert]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
The only thing I saw wrong in that press conference was the reporter proving to me that she was more interested in her personal agenda then reporting the news.
It was either that or an attempt to create some news on a otherwise slow news day.
I've no problem with any reporter asking hard ball questions about whats going on, isn't that's the whole point, what's going on now, not beating a dead horse over something as trivial as that banner.

Don't get me wrong, there are dozens of issues surrounding what's going on in Iraq that require questions and deserve answers.
I just think people are missing the bigger pictures when they get caught up in things such as this.

[PFC Mustangman]

Mission is defined by Webster as "a special task to which one devotes his life.Put your head back in the trash can and keep on puking.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4odmtUBtfeU

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6TdumM9g54

[Hellfighter]

.....
I just think people are missing the bigger pictures when they get caught up in things such as this.

It's all good and well to imagine people are jumping on bandwagons -and indeed that is true in many cases, but some issues and former long past unresolved 'scenarios' are very disturbing in the fact that concerned people/citizens endeavour to seek the underlying manipulations being fully revealed for what it is - the creator of such deep-seeded misdeeds should be held accountable forever until they have the guts to say what they really meant. imo.....

[Hellfighter]

Mission is defined by Webster as "a special task to which one devotes his life.Put your head back in the trash can and keep on puking.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4odmtUBtfeU

Robert check out 00:58 of Mustang's clip.... there's nothing dubious in what Bush said on the aircraft carrier... in spite of what can be argued about what the banner meant, these are his words-
"And [in?] the battle of Iraq, the United States, and our Allies have prevailed"

This ranks with -
Condy Rice acting non-chalant in a post 9-11 Commission when referring to intel reports of 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' just months before 9-11.
And Cheney being gung-ho when serious questions are asked about Allies future in Iraq.
With Rumsfeld grinning antics before reporters when he was downplaying crisis after crisis in Iraq.
With Gonzalez and his 'oh well' attitude as the attorney chief when faced with enquiries about his underhanded tactics.
Bush handing important staff jobs over to a series of incompetents -> General Petraeus was the first excellent selection he finally made.... I don't agree with everything the General probably feels compelled to say lately, but I bet after he retires and writes a book we'll get his real opinion on Iraq and the Bush admin's clumsiness.

It's no wonder the admin has a cruddy approval rating - do they need their actions defended in the least -not from my viewpoint.
Should they be made an example of by all the weight a free people can bear down on them?
-Absolutely ->for if the Dems get in - or whoever in the next election -and from that point on, let them all know "Fool me once" is enough for voters regarding an admin stomping around with jackboots -with a recklessness intent and the lofty assertion they do not have to be held accountable.



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/03/08 6:55am

[Robert]

Robert check out 00:58 of Mustang's clip.... there's nothing dubious in what Bush said on the aircraft carrier... in spite of what can be argued about what the banner meant, these are his words-
"And [in?] the battle of Iraq, the United States, and our Allies have prevailed"
More of the same of what I pointed out earlier.
Taken completely out of context.
Major combat operations have ended, And in the battle of Iraq, the United States, and our Allies have prevailed.
As in toppling the Iraq regime.
To me it seems rather depserate to cut down a 5 minute speech to a 10 second clip, for the purpose of impling something completely opposite of what was said in the speech.

Much the same as this
Condy Rice acting non-chalant in a post 9-11 Commission when referring to intel reports of 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' just months before 9-11.
While reading just that implies one thing which is completely different than the truth.
These were routine intel briefs which also listed a dozen other possibilities and had not changed much in 10 years.
It also changes things a little when it's pointed out the intel briefs specifically listed hijacking of incoming international flights.

[Hellfighter]

Robert check out 00:58 of Mustang's clip.... there's nothing dubious in what Bush said on the aircraft carrier... in spite of what can be argued about what the banner meant, these are his words-
"And [in?] the battle of Iraq, the United States, and our Allies have prevailed"
More of the same of what I pointed out earlier.
Taken completely out of context.
Major combat operations have ended, And in the battle of Iraq, the United States, and our Allies have prevailed.
As in toppling the Iraq regime.
To me it seems rather depserate to cut down a 5 minute speech to a 10 second clip, for the purpose of impling something completely opposite of what was said in the speech.

Much the same as this
Condy Rice acting non-chalant in a post 9-11 Commission when referring to intel reports of 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' just months before 9-11.
While reading just that implies one thing which is completely different than the truth.
These were routine intel briefs which also listed a dozen other possibilities and had not changed much in 10 years.
It also changes things a little when it's pointed out the intel briefs specifically listed hijacking of incoming international flights.

oook, well if Bush said "the battle of Iraq is over now onto winning the War in Iraq" I guess there'd be no dispute. Put in context of fighting non-insurgent units, the battle of Iraq was over way before when Baghdad fell. The rest of Sadam's irregular forces were scurrying northwards awaiting to be mopped up.....

Regarding the Condy thing, I was more referring to how she said it. You had to see it to know what I mean. It was the tone she used that was quite remarkable with such a loaded question asked of her about intel she/admin had; something similar to responding to a 'daily double' Jeopordy question she was guessing at... it was really that 'hazy' -obviously an effort on her part to play down the admin's boob-job in its starting months.
The other thing on that is the neocons screamed at how Clinton did nothing about getting Bin Laden- yet Bush with this intel AND routine reports for 10 years as you've pointed out DID nothing and STARTED nothing in the way of let's say rectifying Clinton's lax-ness.... with those reports, why didn't the Bush admin start ramping up airport security even as a 'just-in-case' precaution given the nature of kind of terrorist attacks they were reported as.

[Robert]

Oh I agree on some points. Such as one of the dumbest things Rice said before congress is they had no intel about planes being used as wepons.
Which would be true if put in the limited context of intel about Bin Laden, but would be a lie when put in the broader context of other possible lines of attacks.
I want to me clear about this, there were no reports predicting Al-Qaeda flying planes into buildings.
The Al-Qaeda security briefs listed hyjacking and bombing of international flights.
There were other general security briefs, not relating to Al-Qaeda, which did list the possiblites of planes being used as bombs.
I think many of the problems facing this administration is a result of them playing word games in an attempt to save face.
This was a known possiblity since 1994 when another Islamic Group hyjacked a plane in Paris with the intention of flying the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

You ask why Bush didn't ramp up security with 10 years of reports predicting some kind of attack.
Even if he had, it wouldn't have stopped 9-11 because at the time the reports only predicted an attack from incoming intenational flights, likely from an Arab nation.
You're kidding yourself if you think anyone would have put up with the extra security measures prior to what happened on 9-11.

[PFC Mustangman]

Hey,what about this one.

[Robert]

I remember this news clip an several other just like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2cThrLu91A
Supposedly unbiased reporter doing everything they could to put words in peoples mouths.

I remember another one form CNN where they talked to 3 people outside the super dome.
Asked 3 people in a row if they blamed bush or though he should be held responsible,
All there replied, they blamed Nagin.
It was great when they cut back to the reporter and you could clearly see the frustration on his face.
He was practically speechless.

[PFC Mustangman]

OK Hellfighter better get you a 55 gallon drum cause your going to puke all night. If you run out of terrorist just let them go to fight again

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/040508Cole.htm

[Hellfighter]

.........
I want to me clear about this, there were no reports predicting Al-Qaeda flying planes into buildings.
The Al-Qaeda security briefs listed hyjacking and bombing of international flights.
...........
This was a known possiblity since 1994 when another Islamic Group hyjacked a plane in Paris with the intention of flying the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

You have that correct of course -to a certain point..... but, seeing as intel knew flying planes into buildings was in a quaeda's actual repetoire of 'weapons', it would only seem obvious Al quaeda flying planes into buildings in an attack on the USA could be deduced putting 2+2 together.
And this;
Regarding plans to fly a plane into the eiffel tower..... that 'another Islamic Group' was linked with Al quaeda very 'directly'.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...2494eiffelcrash
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/newjournal...naiforecast.htm
Also;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/1...ism.september11
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...756C0A9649C8B63
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush...t.11/index.html

Fact that Bum Laden's plans existed to attack West by flying planes into high profile structures + intel reports of bum Laden planning to hijack planes=....... credible threat
2+2 = 9/11
In spite of Rice claiming that scenario was 'outside of the box'; the facts were there to initialize taking precautions -> empty threat or not it was a real possibility.
Our problem [simple folk like Bush and neocons ] is that they assume the terrorists we fight have no sense of long term strategy nor that they think dynamically. This underestimating of the enemy is costly in friendlys lives.


My point is why gather intel if you don't act on its contents.... Kind of like Stalin scoffing at those gold mine intel reports he received about Hitler's planned invasion of Russia in '41.
Neocons and right/repubs love to look back and express how Billy-boy wasn't pushing bum Laden hard enough.... Yet Bush did nothing to bolster precautionary measures- at least.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.... what if he'd even started to hype up airport security threats - making airlines more security conscious and passengers/flight crews aware of their surroundings- international intelligence networks would also be more likely to be actively seeking hijacked planes planning -all of these could have had a ripple effect in putting bum Laden off from attempting the audacious 9-11 attacks.

When al Quaeda attacks its because they see a relatively risk-free breach in defences/security -rarely would/do they strike at prepared defences-> the cowards don't operate where someone puts up a fight.



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 05/05/08 7:11am