BF2S Forums What do you think of Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld?

lowing wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

lowing wrote:

and I have since, retyped my essay for you to grade, you did not leave me crippled in my position as you think you did. you didn't believe that it didn't post so I retyped it and posted it, that should clear up any confusion as to what YOU think happened. Sorry ya didn't leave me speechless with your great wisdom and patronizing speech.

Lowing my friend, I would never be so foolish as to believe anything could ever render you speechless. Nor would I be stupid enough to believe that anything could ever shake your steadfast adherence to your own  worldview.

I believe you mistake my purpose. My extensive attempt at dressing-down your views was intended as a frivolous entertainment - a solace to myself and to other dunces sympathetic to my utter inability to convince you of anything. For to the dunce, genius appears inanity, and vice versa. Our inability to see the world through your eyes inspires a jealous rage in our breasts. I am the cornered puppy, led to feeble snarling and urination when flight is not an option.

I do, lowing, believe Swift was speaking specifically of men like you: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." I count myself among the dunces, concede that you have won, and wish you - our own Ignatius J. Reilly - none but the best.

Sounds good shipbuilder, so you are conceding that I......................"PWNED" you?? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I love that phrase, reminds me so much of my little brother when he was 12, so many years ago...


now maybe you can run out and lay down some "PWNAGE" in other threads, show some 'SMACKTARD" a word he didn't spell correctly. Maybe teach a "NOOB" a thing or two. You might even trip up some "FUCKTARD" with one of his own posts.  God damn!!! You crack me up!!

Oh my god, did my previous post go so far over your head that you are still on the pwnage thing, and you don't realize that I pwned you again?

pwned. again. kthxbye.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

jamriche wrote:

Here is my view of how the Bush administration went wrong.  Okay after 9.11 we immediately went after the people we believe and know to be responsible Al Queda (I think that is how you spell it, anyway), we invaded Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban and had Osama Bin Laden cornered in the Afghanistan Mountains.  But somehow, a 6ft. tall Arabian male on dialysis was able to outmanuever or armed forces!  Secondly, once everything was wrapped up in Afghanistan (when I say wrapped up I don't mean to sweep under the rug everything that our forces continued to deal with and still do to this day) we made Iraq a priority.  First it was for weapons of mass destruction and that is what we invaded on.  Once we were there and we could not find any WMD's we made the cause for invading Iraq a humanitarian one.  Then once the situation in Iraq went from bad to worse, we switched the reason for why we went into Iraq again this time to establishing freedom and democracy in a middle eastern country.  Now we find ourselves in a war that can best be described as a quagmire because when we start to reduce the amount of troops in Iraq something occurs and we must put troops back in to keep the country from destablizing; this time it may be because we are all hearing about 'civil war', whatever the case maybe we will probably not be able to leave Iraq for some time and it is this slow, arduous war that is hurting the President, Republican congressmen and woment and House of Representatives candidates for the upcoming election in 2008.  Well this post has stretched on longer than I anticipated, but this are some of my opinions on the subject.  Thank you.

But the Bush administration didn't go into Iraq to find WMDs, they went their for something else (I don't know what - it wasn't oil, the oil companies advised against it saying it would push up oil prices, which it has). They knew there were no WMDs and it is known that Bush told the CIA to find evidence of WMDs, when they came back and said they hadn't found any evidence, he told them to go back and look harder, that they'd better find something. The WMDs were a excuse for going into Iraq. I don't know why they actually did it. I'm inclined to believe it's sort of a PR stunt gone horribly wrong, after all Bush Snrs popularity was boosted massively after the 1st Iraq war, maybe G.W.B. was hoping for something similar.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, because I tend to think virtually all of these 'conspiracy theories' are full of shit. But it is on record that Bush told the CIA to look for WMDs and when they didn't find them told them to look again, harder. This suggests Bush wanted the WMDs to be there as an excuse for war.

I don't think Bush is evil, just not very good at running a country. Compare US economics under Clinton and Bush and you'll see what I mean. Cheney and Rumsfeld are quite shady characters though, I wouldn't like either of them in charge of anything. Cheney is always being involved in all sorts of corruption and always seems to get away with it - really not a very nice guy.

I'm not anti American (not very), I liked Clinton - I'm not even anti Republican (well maybe a bit) but Reagan wasn't too bad - he did what Republicans are supposed to do, sorted out the economy. But the Bush administration is rubbish.

Also btw you almost spelt it right, it's Al Qaeda (A not U).

If all of this is "on record" could you please provide the reference?

Sorry, don't have links, because most of the news I read/view is not online.
It will probably be possible for you to find links to it somewhere. I first learned of these facts in an article in the Times and heard it corroberated on a documentary that was on the BBC (think it was BBC4). The sources were several members of the CIA itself (who were fairly disgruntled about being told to do thsir job wrong), there are also members of MI6 who made simillar claims of intelligence being manufactured and a report stolen from a university student was in some way connected to all this, I can't remember the details of that though. This was all around the time of the Hutton report over here in the UK, I can't remember exactly when that was though. If you want to find online references to it, look up old BBC documentaries around the time of the Hutton inquiry and you'll probably be able to find it.

As for sources about Cheney and Rumsfeld being shady characters, I don't know much about Cheney except that he gets a lot of money from Halliburton, who he is apparently 'no longer associated with' and I've read lot's of bad things about him over the years, although I can't remember much specific.
Rumsfeld is even in trouble at the moment, I believe - don't know what for yet, just saw it flash up at the bottom of the screen on the news 'Rumsfeld falls foul of his own rules' and he's always doing and saying stupid things. For example he did talk of, in a videoed speech to troops in Iraq (I think it was Iraq, could have been somewhere else), a flight hijacked by terrorists (flight 93) which was SHOT DOWN over pensylvania - there is video footage of him saying this (no I don't have a link, find it yourself - it will be out there and I bet the conspiracy theorists have had a field day with it). Personally I reackon it was just a slip of the tongue and he made a mistake. Although I would readily believe that the government would have shot down another hijacked plane on 9/11 to minimise furthur casualties - that would have been the sensible thing to do certainly. If that is what happened, which it probably isn't, then good work by the government in being able to get their act together and shoot down this plane quickly.

Here you have some links with proofs of fraud in both elections that Bush stole/won.

http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE412A.html

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248 (if you don't trust this one don't read it)

And here is a nice picture:

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=320 (Rumsfeld is innocent of all charges)

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/dcheney.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/22_cheney.jpg

You post this as proof of the evil Bush and Cheney? I post speeches made by Iran calling for the destruction of Israel and all who support it. Plus videos of clerics saying Islam will take over the world, and those get dismissed as rubbish..... PLUS all the acts of terror attempted and succeeded as proof that they mean it!!
Man, you guys take the cake!!

Is it tasty?
The fact that Iran is a major threat to world security is true, as it is true that Cheney is a corrupt and Bush a dumbass drunk.  When they say evil, it is not literaly, but both Cheney and Rumsfeld are pretty scaring characters.  They could make a movie in a haunted mansion, and the ghosts would escape from them.

Well if they are "evil", they last people I want fighting for me during a time of war with insane fanatics, are fuckin' choir boys.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But the Bush administration didn't go into Iraq to find WMDs, they went their for something else (I don't know what - it wasn't oil, the oil companies advised against it saying it would push up oil prices, which it has). They knew there were no WMDs and it is known that Bush told the CIA to find evidence of WMDs, when they came back and said they hadn't found any evidence, he told them to go back and look harder, that they'd better find something. The WMDs were a excuse for going into Iraq. I don't know why they actually did it. I'm inclined to believe it's sort of a PR stunt gone horribly wrong, after all Bush Snrs popularity was boosted massively after the 1st Iraq war, maybe G.W.B. was hoping for something similar.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, because I tend to think virtually all of these 'conspiracy theories' are full of shit. But it is on record that Bush told the CIA to look for WMDs and when they didn't find them told them to look again, harder. This suggests Bush wanted the WMDs to be there as an excuse for war.

I don't think Bush is evil, just not very good at running a country. Compare US economics under Clinton and Bush and you'll see what I mean. Cheney and Rumsfeld are quite shady characters though, I wouldn't like either of them in charge of anything. Cheney is always being involved in all sorts of corruption and always seems to get away with it - really not a very nice guy.

I'm not anti American (not very), I liked Clinton - I'm not even anti Republican (well maybe a bit) but Reagan wasn't too bad - he did what Republicans are supposed to do, sorted out the economy. But the Bush administration is rubbish.

Also btw you almost spelt it right, it's Al Qaeda (A not U).

If all of this is "on record" could you please provide the reference?

Sorry, don't have links, because most of the news I read/view is not online.
It will probably be possible for you to find links to it somewhere. I first learned of these facts in an article in the Times and heard it corroberated on a documentary that was on the BBC (think it was BBC4). The sources were several members of the CIA itself (who were fairly disgruntled about being told to do thsir job wrong), there are also members of MI6 who made simillar claims of intelligence being manufactured and a report stolen from a university student was in some way connected to all this, I can't remember the details of that though. This was all around the time of the Hutton report over here in the UK, I can't remember exactly when that was though. If you want to find online references to it, look up old BBC documentaries around the time of the Hutton inquiry and you'll probably be able to find it.

As for sources about Cheney and Rumsfeld being shady characters, I don't know much about Cheney except that he gets a lot of money from Halliburton, who he is apparently 'no longer associated with' and I've read lot's of bad things about him over the years, although I can't remember much specific.
Rumsfeld is even in trouble at the moment, I believe - don't know what for yet, just saw it flash up at the bottom of the screen on the news 'Rumsfeld falls foul of his own rules' and he's always doing and saying stupid things. For example he did talk of, in a videoed speech to troops in Iraq (I think it was Iraq, could have been somewhere else), a flight hijacked by terrorists (flight 93) which was SHOT DOWN over pensylvania - there is video footage of him saying this (no I don't have a link, find it yourself - it will be out there and I bet the conspiracy theorists have had a field day with it). Personally I reackon it was just a slip of the tongue and he made a mistake. Although I would readily believe that the government would have shot down another hijacked plane on 9/11 to minimise furthur casualties - that would have been the sensible thing to do certainly. If that is what happened, which it probably isn't, then good work by the government in being able to get their act together and shoot down this plane quickly.

fair enuf, I appreciate the honesty....I have heard of Rumsfeld's Freudian slip., but I chalk it up as irrelevant. If they needed to shoot down that plane to keep it from hitting the white house or some other target so be it. It really is a non- issue.

This is for Lowing and every naive out there, so believe it, these guys are very dangerous (evil if you want).

http://tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s_secrets.html

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article … w/338/1/66

http://www.democraticunderground.com/ar … esume.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3 … ndict.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3 … fraud.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/natio … _trillions (this is incredible?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4475133.stm

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup, I don't see any bias there in any of those links, especially "democrats.com"


As far as rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983 all I can say is, I can show you a picture of rooselvelt ( a democrat) and stalin in tehran in 1943..what exactly is your POINT???

That's the problem with most of these web sources. You can find things saying virtually anything about anyone. Rumsfeld selling chemical weapons to Iraq is true, but it's old news, who cares. I suppose that's how they 'knew' he had WMDs, they still had the invoices - it didn't occur to them that Saddam had done as he was told and got rid them. I don't trust lots of these dodgy web sources though.

What I do find interesting is the way almost all the US's biggest enemies (lately) are forces that have been supported by the US previously. Al Qaeda, Saddam etc.
Maybe it would be wise to choose who to sell weapons to a bit more carefully.

*edit *

To tell you the truth, I think Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue was just a mistake and untrue (the man does say a lot of weird stuff, see sig for an example). But hey could be true and if it was, who cares?

I can't put a link to Bush administration members brains.  So, you can believe or not these links.  But, at least, nobody can say that everything that has to do with this administration smells good.

Absolutely not, they're (Bush and his cronies, or Cheney, his puppet, Rumsfeld and their PR bitch) very dodgy.
The link you provided to the BBC site I do credit, but I hope you can understand that I try to be cautious about a lot of the stuff I read on the web, because a lot of it its fictitious. The Bush administration are very bad and under them America is on the verge of becoming a facist state (perhaps that's a bit of an exageration, but it's headed that way). The US need a quality president to sort them out, boost their international standing and fix up the economy - which will mean higher taxes (no complaining, US taxes are LOW, way lower than in Europe(in UK 40% tax bracket starts somewhere around the £30000pa mark, I can't be bothered to look it up) since there is no other way of dealing with the financial hole America is currently in, $48 trillion budget gap over next 10 years - that's a lot, you want to start fixing it as soon as possible.

Bertster7 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's the problem with most of these web sources. You can find things saying virtually anything about anyone. Rumsfeld selling chemical weapons to Iraq is true, but it's old news, who cares. I suppose that's how they 'knew' he had WMDs, they still had the invoices - it didn't occur to them that Saddam had done as he was told and got rid them. I don't trust lots of these dodgy web sources though.

What I do find interesting is the way almost all the US's biggest enemies (lately) are forces that have been supported by the US previously. Al Qaeda, Saddam etc.
Maybe it would be wise to choose who to sell weapons to a bit more carefully.

*edit *

To tell you the truth, I think Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue was just a mistake and untrue (the man does say a lot of weird stuff, see sig for an example). But hey could be true and if it was, who cares?

I can't put a link to Bush administration members brains.  So, you can believe or not these links.  But, at least, nobody can say that everything that has to do with this administration smells good.

Absolutely not, they're (Bush and his cronies, or Cheney, his puppet, Rumsfeld and their PR bitch) very dodgy.
The link you provided to the BBC site I do credit, but I hope you can understand that I try to be cautious about a lot of the stuff I read on the web, because a lot of it its fictitious. The Bush administration are very bad and under them America is on the verge of becoming a facist state (perhaps that's a bit of an exageration, but it's headed that way). The US need a quality president to sort them out, boost their international standing and fix up the economy - which will mean higher taxes (no complaining, US taxes are LOW, way lower than in Europe(in UK 40% tax bracket starts somewhere around the £30000pa mark, I can't be bothered to look it up) since there is no other way of dealing with the financial hole America is currently in, $48 trillion budget gap over next 10 years - that's a lot, you want to start fixing it as soon as possible.

I agree with you, you can't buy all you read, but you know, when the river sounds...
I don't think America is fascist, as a matter of fact, the americans have spoken twice in 2000 and 2004 and said "we choose a democrat", but they didn't allowed people to decide.

jonsimon wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

carter was a dismal failure and his sorry kowtowing to the likes of yassir arafat are what got us into this shit today, and since when is there anything wrong with halliburton winning a contract, oooOOOOoooo they so evils fur being da best equipified!

They aren't the best equipped... Government contracts go to the lowest bidder, I.E. the worst equipped that is theoretically still able.

Carter was a failure because the rest of the government made him out to be one. He didn't do anything particularly unsuccessful and he didn't do anything greedy.

He didnt do anything. just like alot of people on this forum. They sit there, criticize, and do nothing.

redhawk454 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

carter was a dismal failure and his sorry kowtowing to the likes of yassir arafat are what got us into this shit today, and since when is there anything wrong with halliburton winning a contract, oooOOOOoooo they so evils fur being da best equipified!

They aren't the best equipped... Government contracts go to the lowest bidder, I.E. the worst equipped that is theoretically still able.

Carter was a failure because the rest of the government made him out to be one. He didn't do anything particularly unsuccessful and he didn't do anything greedy.

He didnt do anything. just like alot of people on this forum. They sit there, criticize, and do nothing.

What else can you do?  Go to the White House and kick the man ass?  People elected Al Gore in 2000, and this dumbass is still at the chair.  So, people did right.

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Here you have some links with proofs of fraud in both elections that Bush stole/won.

http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book109h.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE412A.html

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248 (if you don't trust this one don't read it)

And here is a nice picture:

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=320 (Rumsfeld is innocent of all charges)

Yup, I don't see any bias there in any of those links, especially "democrats.com"


As far as rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983 all I can say is, I can show you a picture of rooselvelt ( a democrat) and Stalin in Tehran in 1943..what exactly is your POINT???

Take a while to read if you can take some time for it.  Regarding Rumsfeld, the same guy that sold Saddam weapons in Reagan administration, then in Bush administration said that Irak is a threat coz Saddam had a lot of massive weapons, so let's invade Irak.  Isn't that kinda evel to you?
Very unhappy comparisson, Roosevelt shaking hands with Stalin is not the same situation.  Roosevelt didn't sell any weapon to soviets as far as I know, so that is 2 presidents meeting.

Nooooooooo, the point is America, back in '43 sided with the lesser of two evils, the SOVIETS. Same with the US in the '80's we didn't like them but we needed them against who? THE SOVIETS. Times change and so do alliances. Germany and Japan are now allies. You act like there is some precedence set by the US allying with Iraq in the 80's. there is not.

speaking of evil and scandals..........http://www.prorev.com/legacy.htm


although I am surethere is truth based on all the shit being cited here, including mine, but the internet is a fascinating thing, with it, we can accuse and "prove" conspiracy theories to our hearts content....and you call me naive??

Bubbalo wrote:

Except that the full extent of Stalin's efforts didn't come out until after WWII.  You know all about Saddam when you sold him weapons.

yeah, I am sure the White House back in '43 thought Stalin was a great guy. c'mon bubbalo.