MORE Bush LIES and SPIN

from JoeUser Forums




Last Night President Bush continued to lie and spin the facts to the American people. In that his speech was just like most of his other speeches over the past 6 ½ years.

Lie ONE:

The success in Anbar, which is the major example Bush sighted, is the result of the American Troop Surge.

First, Bush only sent 4,000 additional troops into Anbar. The success against al-Qaeda elements in Anbar is the result of the local Sunni tribes that agreed to attack the foreign terrorists and not because of additional U.S. Forces. The U.S. Forces did support the actions of the local tribes but the surge troops in Anbar are not responsible for the success in lowering the violence in that region. In fact the Sunni tribal leader that was killed this week was responsible for getting about 25 Sunni tribes to agree and attack al-Qaeda elements in Anbar and those agreements were negotiated BEFORE the SURGE!

Lie TWO:

We are reducing troop levels because of the success of the Surge.

The success in Anbar is not because of the Surge and success in some areas in the Baghdad area are offset by increased violence in other areas around Baghdad and in both the northern and southern areas in Iraq. The TOTAL death toll is UP not DOWN and thus any claim that the Surge has reduced the Overall Violence is a LIE! The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE! It has NOTHING to do with any so called success from the Surge. If there were NO areas where the violence was down we would still have to reduce the troop levels in Iraq.

Lie Three.

There are 35 Countries that supported our invasion in Iraq.

When the State Department was asked to list those countries they could only come with 20 some and most of then only sent a token number of troops. The two leaders that supported Bush in England and Australia did so despite their people DID NOT support the war. Blair lost his job over that support and the Australian PM is about to suffer the same fate.
politics
12,548 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Readers should please remember that the article writer above is quickly becoming the biggest:

... in the entire blogosphere.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually, I have to give a little credit to the headline this time...

MORE Bush LIES and SPIN is exactly what the inappropriately named 'Bush Truth' (talk about your false advertising!) site has been about since its inception and creation by the inferior officer himself.

In anycase, here's pretty much the last of my thoughts on the article writer above, and further on the readers of this crap:

To make it easy on readers -- the picture being held up represents something we all should remember about the article writer. But, further, there is something else being stated in this image -- that would be the other object that is being held up by the character in the image: a lollipop, AKA: SUCKER, for that is exactly what anyone that wastes the time reading the crap on this particular blog, and from this particular blogger (the inferior officer himself, the most Clueless of Clueless Old Liberals, the GENE that just never stops producing the crap) is -- a SUCKER. If you are wasting time reading this stuff, and worse yet, wasting too much time replying to it and debunking it, look in the mirror and see if you can't find the sucker displayed there.

ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE SAID IS NOT TRUE!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE SAID IS NOT TRUE!

Start with your very first article and just keep reading from there.  Spin.  Spin.  Spin and lies.  At the very minimum distortions of facts, mischaracterizations of statements and the most backwards view of events that any individual has ever put forth about any other individual.

You've been shown to be wrong time and again, and you keep on going, tiltin' at the windmill getting more people to prove what suckers they are as they feed your trolling self.

I'm saying it here for the last time:

CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR BRIDGE AND START BACK UP WITH YOUR BILLY GOAT'S GRUFF.  You aren't worth the space you take up on the planet, and definitely aren't worth the space and bandwidth you use up here at JU.  Don't like being called out on it, then try publishing something that is even close to balanced and truthful and perhaps you'd be considered almost sane.

Over and OUT.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col Gene, I admire you for your perseverance. Unfortunately you're up against so many "Bushies". I'd like to get my worries in after watching CNN this morning. On Larry King, Guiliani, Edwards, McCain and Obama summed up the President's speech last night. It was a cross between positives and negatives as expected, but one thing emerged that was quite shocking: that Rumsfeld had made a mess of the first four years of the war. What does that say about Bush?

A President of a country put his faith in a trigger-happy uninformed Secretary of Defence. That shocked me. If Rumsfeld had not been involved, Iraq could have been far more up the road to democracy. It smacks of poor judgement and poor leadership.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
want to know what you said that is a lie.


1 yes an bar is safer because of the sheiks. but the sheiks would not have stood up if we hadn't been talking about sending in more troops. so you tell me did the troops help.


2 the main purpose of the surge was to get most of the fighting out of Baghdad. which in your own words is working. another purpose of the surge was to clear and hold that is working too. the third reason was to give the Iraqi gov. breathing room to work. unfortunately they decided not to work.


3 the surge wasn't supposed to be permanent.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've been shown to be wrong time and again, and you keep on going, tiltin' at the windmill getting more people to prove what suckers they are as they feed your trolling self.


problem is if we don't answer his lies he will start thinking its the truth more than he does now.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are 35 Countries that supported our invasion in Iraq.



you don't have to send in troops to support the invasion.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, September 14, 2007
want to know what you said that is a lie.


1 yes an bar is safer because of the sheiks. but the sheiks would not have stood up if we hadn't been talking about sending in more troops. so you tell me did the troops help.

YOU do not know that. Those agreements were made BEFOR the added troops arrived and 4,000 troops in an area as large as Anbar is not many. My point is correct. The success that Bush claimed proved was the result of the Surge was because of the locals NOT the 30,000 added troops. These agreements are the same ones that Maliki was upset about because they by passed his Unity Government and is the reason he demanded Bush remove Gen. Petraeus.

2 the main purpose of the surge was to get most of the fighting out of Baghdad. Which in your own words is working. another purpose of the surge was to clear and hold that is working too. the third reason was to give the Iraqi gov. breathing room to work. unfortunately they decided not to work.

As I said the success in Baghdad was only in some areas. At the same time violence erupted in the north and south where there had not been fighting for years. The OVERALL impact of the Surge was a NET INCREASE in total deaths. How is that solving the problem of violence?

3 the surge wasn't supposed to be permanent.

NO BUT THE REDUCTION of the Fighting was to be permanent and it was to provide the TIME for Maliki and his government to resolve the political issues which is the cause of MOST of the fighting. THAT HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE!

Bush also lied about the reason we will reduce the troops is because of the so called Success of the Surge. It is because the Army and Marine Corps CAN NOT maintain the Surge and has NOTHING to do with success or failure of the SURGE!

His speech was nothing but LIES and SPIN!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, September 14, 2007
There are 35 Countries that supported our invasion in Iraq.



you don't have to send in troops to support the invasion.

GET REAL.

That is the ONLY meaningful way to help and that was a joke. Only England sent anything close to meaningful help in Iraq and the people of England did not support that action by Blair. That is WHY he no longer PM.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOT ONE PERSON HAS SHOWN THAT THE LIES I POINTED OUT IN THE BUSH ADDRESS WERE NOT LIES!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOT ONE PERSON HAS SHOWED THE LIES BUSH TOLD ARE LIES.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOT ONE PERSON HAS SHOWN THAT BUSH HAS LIED. CERTAINLY NOT GENE.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Let's see, I can either take your word for it, or I can take Gen. Patreaus's word.

 

You have proven time and time again that no amount of scummy slime is beneath you... Gen. Patreaus has only proven to be a man of honor.

I'll just flush the toilet and send you to the sewer from wence you came and take the good General's word for it.

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush said he sent only 4,000 troops into Anbar. Petraeus has admitted the deals that were made with the local tribes in Anbar. The Joint Chiefs have said the Army and Marine Corps CAN NOT maintain the Surge. The numbers of troops supplied by other countries in Iraq is an established Fact. I have just proven Bush Lied about the three points in my Blog.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
no you haven't proved anything
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, September 14, 2007
no you haven't proved anything


The Facts PROVE that Bush Lied and you and all the IDIOTS that support him are the way Bush continues to KILL American Military for a war that was not justified and should NEVER have been fought. As Gen. Petraeus said, after 4 1/2 years of war he can not say this war has made America safer.

CNN Reported that during a break that took place right after he made the statement Petraeus received a call from the White House. Do you want to bet it was to say WELL DONE!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you want to bet it was to say WELL DONE!


so what and how in the world do they know that the pres. call petraeus. is cnn wire tapping them
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Facts PROVE that Bush Lied


what facts all you have given is opinion.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
i have been thinking about this gene


if you had been in command of the 101st during the battle of the bulge. when they were cut off, had no food, had no ammo, and had no warm clothing. you would have surrendered. if i recall right the 101st won their part of that battle.

Iraq is no where as desperate as the 101st was then.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The OVERALL impact of the Surge was a NET INCREASE in total deaths.


and a decrease in the number of attacks.


of course when you attack people who are not prepared for it the number of dead will be higher.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2007
The Facts PROVE that Bush Lied


what facts all you have given is opinion.


WRONG:


First, Bush only sent 4,000 additional troops into Anbar. The success against al-Qaeda elements in Anbar is the result of the local Sunni tribes that agreed to attack the foreign terrorists and not because of additional U.S. Forces. This is TRUE and has been reported by all the news agencies.


The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE! The Joint Chiefs told Bush two weeks ago the Surge could not be maintained.


There are 35 Countries that supported our invasion in Iraq.

When the State Department was asked to list those countries they could only come with 20 some and most of then only sent a token number of troops. You do not believe the State Dept is telling the truth?

NONE of this is OPINION but facts on the ground that you refuse to acknowledge. They are true never the less.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE!


the surge can be maintained for another 12 months
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2007
The reason for reducing troop levels is because WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO MAINTAIN THE SURGE!


the surge can be maintained for another 12 months

WRONG. As the Surge Troop tours end, the Army does not have the combat brigades to replace the SURGE troops. Thus, starting g in April 2008 when the first of the Surge Troops rotate, they can not be replaced. Thus, the troop reduction begins in April 2008 and will end in August 2008 not because, as Bush claimed, of the Success from the surge but because we do not have enough troops to continue 20 combat brigades in Iraq. Has BUSH LIED as to why the troop reduction will take place! It has NOTHING to do with any so called SUCCESS from the Surge!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
It has NOTHING to do with any so called SUCCESS from the Surge!


except that they are going are ready to start sending them home now but probable wont until december