If Bush lied...so did they!

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

They get the same intel as the President....




"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002




"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002



"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

This is the "Slick Willie Demorat" way to squirm out of it....





Indecision 2008--III




Blogger Nitin Julka points to another choice bit in the John Edwards "Meet the Press" interview we noted yesterday. This exchange begins with a clip of Tim Russert's Oct. 10, 2004, interview with Edwards:

Russert: If you knew today, and you do know, there is--there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

Edwards: I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.

I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

Fast-forward to this past Sunday:

Russert: That's a year and a half into the war.

Edwards: Mm-hmm. Perfect--that's a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through--I was--at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war.

Edwards publicly renounced his vote in a Nov. 13, 2005, op-ed piece in the Washington Post, in which he observed that "the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth." Well, that definitely means he's sincere, right? Anyway, here's the Edwards timeline:

* October 2002. Votes in favor of the war.

* October 2004. Defends his vote in favor of the war.

* November 2004. Loses election for vice president.

* Sometime between November 2004 and November 2005. "Really" thinks about his vote "for the first time."

* November 2005. Renounces his vote.

Wouldn't it have been better if he'd thought about his vote before he cast it? Granted, he was only a senator, and his vote was far from decisive. But can America afford to have a president who acts before he thinks?


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

[deadbeater]

Yeah we know everyone got it all wrong, but Bush is holding the hot potato that is Iraq, to, what, warm his hands? Show what a tough guy he is with other people's sons and daughters before passing it on?

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Yeah we know everyone got it all wrong, but Bush is holding the hot potato that is Iraq, to, what, warm his hands? Show what a tough guy he is with other people's sons and daughters before passing it on?

Wow Isn`t this odd..Tony Blair and the British MI6 also got it wrong...Karl Rove must have been pulling a lot of levers....Haaaaa...Haaaaa..






Here are some of the key statements made by the prime minister about Saddam Hussein's weapons -

10 April 2002, House of Commons

"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.

"He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also."



24 September 2002, House of Commons

"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."



25 February 2003, House of Commons

"The intelligence is clear: (Saddam) continues to believe his WMD programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression.

"The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin. All eventually result in excruciatingly painful death."



11 March 2003, MTV debate

"If we don't act now, then we will go back to what has happened before and then of course the whole thing begins again and he carries on developing these weapons and these are dangerous weapons, particularly if they fall into the hands of terrorists who we know want to use these weapons if they can get them."



18 March 2003, House of Commons

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years-contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence-Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."



4 June 2003, House of Commons

"There are literally thousands of sites. As I was told in Iraq, information is coming in the entire time, but it is only now that the Iraq survey group has been put together that a dedicated team of people, which includes former UN inspectors, scientists and experts, will be able to go in and do the job properly.

"As I have said throughout, I have no doubt that they will find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction."

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

They get the same intel as the President....

And where are they calling for "Pearl Harboring" of a sovereign nation. Only those who also love Tojo would advocate war without justification. None are calling for war without a smoking gun. They are all calling for containment - not pre-emption. Pre-emption is what 'big dics' do.

Funny how you posted so much but forgot fundamental facts such as what is required to justify war. That little fact is the difference between one who acts based upon a political extremist agenda, and one who is a centrist; who instead uses caution and learns the lessons of history.

Only fools would attack Iraq a second time ... and make the exact same mistake: no planning for the peace. But that too is what happens when a political agenda justifies actions.

There is one difference. Those other speakers are discussing possibilities and caution - and containment. Why does Cherrycoke forget to include; doing what a Rush Limbaugh liar would do? Why does Cherrycoke forget what all good American presidents advocated - containment? Why does Cherrycoke, instead, advocate what 'big dics' love - pre-emption? Well it would explain that love of a president who is massacring American soldiers only to protect his legacy.

Cherrycoke - why do you so hate the American soldier? Why do you cut and past quotes from an extremist source that hates American soldiers and that advocates 'big dic' agendas? I know you did not do your own research. Why then do you quote from one who hates the American soldier?

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by tw

And where are they calling for "Pearl Harboring" of a sovereign nation. Only those who also love Tojo would advocate war without justification. None are calling for war without a smoking gun. They are all calling for containment - not pre-emption. Pre-emption is what 'big dics' do.

Funny how you posted so much but forgot fundamental facts such as what is required to justify war. That little fact is the difference between one who acts based upon a political extremist agenda, and one who is a centrist; who instead uses caution and learns the lessons of history.

Only fools would attack Iraq a second time ... and make the exact same mistake: no planning for the peace. But that too is what happens when a political agenda justifies actions.

There is one difference. Those other speakers are discussing possibilities and caution - and containment. Why does Cherrycoke forget to include; doing what a Rush Limbaugh liar would do? Why does Cherrycoke forget what all good American presidents advocated - containment? Why does Cherrycoke, instead, advocate what 'big dics' love - pre-emption? Well it would explain that love of a president who is massacring American soldiers only to protect his legacy.

Cherrycoke - why do you so hate the American soldier? Why do you cut and past quotes from an extremist source that hates American soldiers and that advocates 'big dic' agendas? I know you did not do your own research. Why then do you quote from one who hates the American soldier?

And where are they calling for "Pearl Harboring" of a sovereign nation. Only those who also love Tojo would advocate war without justification. None are calling for war without a smoking gun. They are all calling for containment - not pre-emption. Pre-emption is what 'big dics' do.

Huh?...looks like most if not all of them voted for a war not containment.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00237




Rush Limbaugh?....I`m not a fan of his.


Cherrycoke - why do you so hate the American soldier? Why do you cut and past quotes from an extremist source that hates American soldiers and that advocates 'big dic' agendas? I know you did not do your own research. Why then do you quote from one who hates the American soldier?


I don`t hate soldiers...I use to be one.

[deadbeater]

That 'liberals' and progressives' getting it wrong as well doesn't address the points that:
1. Al Qaeda and other two bit terror squads are using Iraq as a new training ground--with live targets as opposed to dummy ones.
2. $600 billion, billion, went down the drain with this operation, with so far little to show for it--oh, it did increase Haliburton's and ExxonMobil's bottom line.
3. US relations is frosty with the rest of the world.
4. Democracy was spread through certain regions--with the voters voting the terrorists into office.
5. US getting bogged down in Iraq made the coalition get bogged down in Afghanistan, threatening to undermine Bush's sole achievement.
6. US can't muster support to go to war with Iran--of which, ironically, the government may have a better basis to do so.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

That 'liberals' and progressives' getting it wrong as well doesn't address the points that:
1. Al Qaeda and other two bit terror squads is using Iraq as a new training ground--with live targets as opposed to dummy ones.
2. $600 billion, billion, went down the drain with this operation, with so far little to show for it--oh, it did increase Haliburton's and ExxonMobil's bottom line.
3. US relations is frosty with the rest of the world.
4. Democracy was spread through certain regions--with the voters voting fanatics to office.
5. US getting bogged down in Iraq made the coalition get bogged down in Afghanistan, threatening to undermine Bush's sole achievement.
6. US can't muster support to go to war with Iran--of which, ironically, the government may have a better basis to do so.

The war ain`t over until the fat lady sings!....you still didn`t answer why the Demorats agreed with the President and voted to go to war...perhaps it was a patriotic attempt to gain more votes in the next election cycle?....the same way they are now anti-Iraq war only because it`s lasted a bit longer than expected..to get elected again!!!...Don`t you feel you have been had by them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

Huh?...looks like most if not all of them voted for a war not containment.

And that is the damming part we should be taking up with our so called leaders - Democrat and Republican. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is calling on our Congressman to start acting like leaders. How many others are doing same?

Take the case of Hilary Clinton - a very competent Senator. But where were her leadership skills? A leader would have voted against the war rather than appease a population seething with veins in their teeth. She did not act like a leader. She acted like a philander panning for votes.

Well, we have many Senators that still don't have the balls to face facts - who instead kowtow to a lying president. Yes, many even on the Democratic side will never be in the next edition of "Profiles in Courage". What is interesting - Obama voted against the war.

Meanwhile, the president went many steps beyond lying. He associated Saddam with bin Laden. He made no effort to get bin Laden. He lied about WMDs even after (for example) a mobile biological weapons lab had been secretly captured and examined. He lied about the aluminum tubes even after Zippe demonstrated six times over why those aluminum tubes could not be for centrifuges. Whereas many in Congress were talking based only in what the White House was saying, the White House was also lying knowing full well that the White House was only lying.

Yes we have a large number of Senators who have much to answer for. And then we have a lesser but large numbers of Senators who fully know the president was lying and still support the scumbag. How many times will these fools work against the people of the United States? Yes, most of them still working against America are currently Republicans. They don't have the balls to even say what all retired presidents have said; what all retired Secretaries of State have said about Condi Rice; don't have the balls to stand up for the Iraq Study Group report; don't have the balls to demand a strategic objective and in exit strategy in Iraq; and appease Americans who hate America and the American soldier.

Sorry. Every sentence in this post is based in facts. If you have emotional problems with any of it, those emotions are yours. The facts are that blunt. We have a leadership problem. And some of our so called leaders are so contemptible as to still promote themselves at the expense of America.

Bottom line: this president was told we were losing "Mission Accomplished" even before Bremer arrive in Iraq in 2003. He was told by Bremer that we were losing. He was told by the military that they needed more troops. This president was such a liar that long after it was known Saddam had no WMDs that, well, in interview with Bob Woodward, it took George Jr 5 minutes and 18 seconds of repeated questions to finally admit this reality. For 5 minutes and 18 seconds, George Jr refused to admit what was a known fact - Saddam had no WMDs.

And so the title of Woodward's book - State of Denial. No way around that reality. This president is even lying to himself. Even his own father was worried about the mistakes he was making in Iraq. That's right. After Gerald Ford died, even Ford's statements were released. Ford was the last of every retired president on the record opposed in some manner to George Jr's "Mission Accomplished". No way around the fact that George Jr has been lying repeatedly. And no way around the fact that about one half of the current Congress remains just as contemptible as to still lie about Iraq.

Worse still – where is the parade of ‘leaders’ asking every week one question: when do we go after bin Laden? Yes we have a severe shortage of leaders in Washingtion. But none lie anywhere near as often and with contempt for the American soldier as George Jr. George Jr first and foremost is worried about his legacy. No person listed in this post lied more than the champion of lies – George Jr – who will not make any effort to go after bin Laden. That alone should be considered an impeachable crime. There is no way an honest man can have anything but contempt for the scumbag president. So contemptible because American troops are dying only for his legacy AND because George Jr all but protects bin Laden.

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

Originally Posted by tw

And that is the damming part we should be taking up with our so called leaders - Democrat and Republican. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is calling on our Congressman to start acting like leaders. How many others are doing same?

Take the case of Hilary Clinton - a very competent Senator. But where were her leadership skills? A leader would have voted against the war rather than appease a population seething with veins in their teeth. She did not act like a leader. She acted like a philander panning for votes.

Well, we have many Senators that still don't have the balls to face facts - who instead kowtow to a lying president. Yes, many even on the Democratic side will never be in the next edition of "Profiles in Courage". What is interesting - Obama voted against the war.

Meanwhile, the president went many steps beyond lying. He associated Saddam with bin Laden. He made no effort to get bin Laden. He lied about WMDs even after (for example) a mobile biological weapons lab had been secretly captured and examined. He lied about the aluminum tubes even after Zippe demonstrated six times over why those aluminum tubes could not be for centrifuges. Whereas many in Congress were talking based only in what the White House was saying, the White House was also lying knowing full well that the White House was only lying.

Yes we have a large number of Senators who have much to answer for. And then we have a lesser but large numbers of Senators who fully know the president was lying and still support the scumbag. How many times will these fools work against the people of the United States? Yes, most of them still working against America are currently Republicans. They don't have the balls to even say what all retired presidents have said; what all retired Secretaries of State have said about Condi Rice; don't have the balls to stand up for the Iraq Study Group report; don't have the balls to demand a strategic objective and in exit strategy in Iraq; and appease Americans who hate America and the American soldier.

Sorry. Every sentence in this post is based in facts. If you have emotional problems with any of it, those emotions are yours. The facts are that blunt. We have a leadership problem. And some of our so called leaders are so contemptible as to still promote themselves at the expense of America.

Bottom line: this president was told we were losing "Mission Accomplished" even before Bremer arrive in Iraq in 2003. He was told by Bremer that we were losing. He was told by the military that they needed more troops. This president was such a liar that long after it was known Saddam had no WMDs that, well, in interview with Bob Woodward, it took George Jr 5 minutes and 18 seconds of repeated questions to finally admit this reality. For 5 minutes and 18 seconds, George Jr refused to admit what was a known fact - Saddam had no WMDs.

And so the title of Woodward's book - State of Denial. No way around that reality. This president is even lying to himself. Even his own father was worried about the mistakes he was making in Iraq. That's right. After Gerald Ford died, even Ford's statements were released. Ford was the last of every retired president on the record opposed in some manner to George Jr's "Mission Accomplished". No way around the fact that George Jr has been lying repeatedly. And no way around the fact that about one half of the current Congress remains just as contemptible as to still lie about Iraq.

Worse still – where is the parade of ‘leaders’ asking every week one question: when do we go after bin Laden? Yes we have a severe shortage of leaders in Washingtion. But none lie anywhere near as often and with contempt for the American soldier as George Jr. George Jr first and foremost is worried about his legacy. No person listed in this post lied more than the champion of lies – George Jr – who will not make any effort to go after bin Laden. That alone should be considered an impeachable crime. There is no way an honest man can have anything but contempt for the scumbag president. So contemptible because American troops are dying only for his legacy AND because George Jr all but protects bin Laden.

Take the case of Hilary Clinton - a very competent Senator. But where were her leadership skills? A leader would have voted against the war rather than appease a population seething with veins in their teeth. She did not act like a leader. She acted like a philander panning for votes.

Our population was seething with veins in their teeth against the war in 2002...news to me.

lying president.

Prove that he lied...


Obama voted against the war.


Big deal...so did a lot others.......




Meanwhile, the president went many steps beyond lying. He associated Saddam with bin Laden. He made no effort to get bin Laden. He lied about WMDs even after (for example) a mobile biological weapons lab had been secretly captured and examined. He lied about the aluminum tubes even after Zippe demonstrated six times over why those aluminum tubes could not be for centrifuges. Whereas many in Congress were talking based only in what the White House was saying, the White House was also lying knowing full well that the White House was only lying.

Not true...he got the same intel just like Tony Blair got it from MI6....



George Jr – who will not make any effort to go after bin Laden. That alone should be considered an impeachable crime.


Hell...we couldn`t even find the Uni-Bomber for decades...and he lived in the U.S.....Haaaaaa....Haaaaaa...

[Ronald Cherrycoke]

lying president. You seem to forget a real liar.

Haaaaaa....Haaaaaa...




* Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
* Article II: Perjury in Paula Jones case on December 23, 1997 and January 17, 1998
* Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case
* Article IV: Abuse of high office

Article I was approved by a vote of 228-206. Article II was rejected by a vote of 205-229. Article III was approved by a vote of 221-212. Article IV was rejected by a vote of 148-285. On December 19, the House of Representatives forwarded articles I and III of impeachment (perjury and obstruction of justice) to the Senate. The two articles that were passed

[Hippikos]

You forget Bush/Cheney started the war, nobody else you quoted. even after the weapon inspectors did find nothing and asked for 6 months to be absolutely sure.

lying president. You seem to forget a real liar.

That would make Junior an unreal liar? Clinton lied, but nobody died...

As for Bliar, he's just Bush's poodle, obsessed with the same disastrous neocon ideas.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They get the same intel as the President....

That is a lie.

Despite Ronald Cherrycoke's bleating, nobody voted to go to war. They, both sides of the aisle, voted to give the president the power to protect and defend the United States with military force if necessary.

You can't fault them for not knowing Bush was working to an agenda scripted before he took office. Or that he was cherry picking favorable intelligence and suppressing damning evidence, to carry out that agenda. Even Powell was taken in.

The thought of comparing Clinton's pussy chasing to Bush's Middle East holocaust is just so contemptible and disgusting, it makes me think Ronald Cherrycoke is a Urbane Guerrilla alias.

[Hippikos]

Bush's Middle East holocaust

Some would call this Creative Destruction...

[tw]

Meanwhile Ronald Cherrycoke responds to a post chock full of George Jr lie after George Jr lie. What does Ronald Cherrycoke post?

Originally Posted by Ronald Cherrycoke

Prove that he lied...

It's an old Rush Limbaugh trick. When confronted with lie and after lie, then Ronald Cherrycoke posts as if those lies were never posted and therefore do not exist.

Classic of extremists who advocate the massacre of American troops. Deny facts even when posted under your nose. Ronald Cherrycoke - you deny so much that you are probably lying about being a soldier. Oh. Was that a dishonorable discharge? Is denial of reality a habit? George Jr lied repeatedly. Only one who is so foolish as to even advocate pre-emption (or not understand what pre-emption is) would deny those lies.

Posted are lies after lies from the mental midget president and his administration. Posted was the only solution available for getting out of Iraq with minimal loses. Ronald Cherrycoke pretends the Iraq Study Group did not exist. How convenient. Just another way to protect extremist rhetoric and ignore more presidential lies.

Provided were example after example of a lying president. But Ronald Cherrycoke does as any brown shirt would do. He pretends no such examples were posted. Then he need not face reality - such as his contempt for the American soldier.

Amazing that Ronald Cherrycoke has so little respect for the victims of 11 September as to associate it with a silly unabomber. Amazing that Ronald Cherrycoke would associate lying about sex equivalent to massacre of hundred of thousands of Iraqis. But that is how Rush Limbaugh also promotes hate and destruction.

Ronald Cherrycoke has utter contempt for people killed on 11 September and for the millions that will suffer and die in Iraq because - in both cases - the same president lied and denied. But then Ronald Cherrycoke provides a perfect example of a brown shirt.

Ronald, this is when you start posting honestly. Provided were lists of George Jr lies. Rather than pretending the list does not exist, instead return to reality and defend those presidential lies. Let’s see if you can be honest. Those George Jr lies are listed. Rather than denying them, instead, try to explain them. This is the time that you post honestly and not as Rush would do.