Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

[Thiebear]

Absolutely they did. The Bush family and their ilk has been a plague on this country for 3 generations now. They should all be tarred and feathered. Don't forget thar Prescott Bush made his money building the Nazi war machine....

Did he now? Would you like to put any facts into that as wikipedia and straightdope and most other sources dispute your throw away remark.

[JacktheMack]

Absolutely they did. The Bush family and their ilk has been a plague on this country for 3 generations now. They should all be tarred and feathered. Don't forget thar Prescott Bush made his money building the Nazi war machine....

I did not even see this post but it supports exactly what I wrote in the post that follows the one I just wrote. Nothing in what altair said is even remotly close to fact. What you stated about Prescott Bush was a rumor started by the liberal media to bring down the Bush family. Whether or not it has any real truth to it, it has been nearly 70 years since the time you are talking about. I'm sure it is unsubstantiated just like all the other rumors the liberals media starts. You can not base who our President is now, on the rumors of who his grandfather could have been.

Because of the liberal press, this is the general feeling when it comes to Bush. Not because of what he has done, but who he is. He is a Bush. He is a country folk with bad grammar and he's an idiot. I hear this every single day from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Well you are wrong. Maybe he pronounces nuclear wrong but that does not mean he is an idiot.

From Wikipedia, "Shortly after George W. Bush's election as U.S. president, Canadian bloggers, apparently affiliated with perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche began a determined effort to circulate reports that Prescott Bush himself had been known as "Hitler's Angel"." It's all politics and you are buying into every word. I do not know enough on that matter to argue it out with you but from what I've seen it's just another liberal scam like the one broadcasted on CBS by Dan Rather that corrupted George W. Bush's service record. I don't need to remind you that it was false and Dan Rather retired shortly after he was exposed as a liar. Again it is all a scam meant to bring down a good family and a good man.

You have no proof behind what you just said. Just make sure you don't take what you said for granted because to say that our president and the whole Bush family should be "tarred and feathered" would not slide in the countries we have fought and are fighting to protect. That is a fact. I'd like to hear real reasons about why you think President Bush mislead America to go to war with Iraq. If they are anything like the typical responses you just gave, I don't want to hear it.

[chomerics]

Jack, you are going have to come up with some facts instead of vitriolic rhetoric. So far, your posts this site have called out people out for being a partisan, while backing up absolutely nothing you say. The people here have debated topics on end for a few years now, and no matter how much you say "the media is 80% liberal" does not make it true. That has been a topic debated as nauseum in NUMEROUS threads, and you should actually do a search for past discussion before you make absolutely ludicrous and false claims like you are making.

By doing things such as this, you expose your position and your biased hackery. Just because somebody disagrees with your opinion does not make them liberal, it means they don't buy the absolute BS fed by propaganda channels and hate radio. It means that they actually look at more then one side of an issue. You can be as opinioniated and as bias as you want. that is your perrogative, but the second you start claiming outrageous lies, and calling other people partisan hacks, you expose your mentality as not being an objective observer, and nothing more then a biased partisan. You are part of the problem with politics today, as you do not listen to what the other person has to say, even if they put forth a case which is compelling and correct.

The one thing I would suggest to you is that you put your proper age in your bio. You were obviously not 25, as based by your extremely biased opinions, and ludicrous assertions as fact. You also exposed the fact that you are not an honest person by doing this, so you really should change it. People don't take lying here to lightly, and they will expose you, such as I did earlier. Your age has nothing to do with your opinions, unless you lie about it, that's why I said your opinions were not your parents, even though you stated you were 25. Your opinions eminate from a person who does not have experience in the world, and from a person who speaks their parents thoughts on the matter rather then their own. Once you gain experience, you will start to understand what I am talking about, but you should know this. If you had initially put your correct age, instead of lying about it, maybe I would have been a little bit easier on you. Instead, I exposed you for a liar right off the bat, and you have already lost credibility in others eyes. This is a bit of constructive criticism, seeing how you are all to eager to jump into stereotypical name calling. If you at least state how old you are up front, it will eliminate a lot of the BS rhetoric, because people will understand why your position is what it is.

:2cents:

[JacktheMack]

Jack, you are going have to come up with some facts instead of vitriolic rhetoric. So far, your posts this site have called out people out for being a partisan, while backing up absolutely nothing you say. The people here have debated topics on end for a few years now, and no matter how much you say "the media is 80% liberal" does not make it true. That has been a topic debated as nauseum in NUMEROUS threads, and you should actually do a search for past discussion before you make absolutely ludicrous and false claims like you are making.

By doing things such as this, you expose your position and your biased hackery. Just because somebody disagrees with your opinion does not make them liberal, it means they don't buy the absolute BS fed by propaganda channels and hate radio. It means that they actually look at more then one side of an issue. You can be as opinioniated and as bias as you want. that is your perrogative, but the second you start claiming outrageous lies, and calling other people partisan hacks, you expose your mentality as not being an objective observer, and nothing more then a biased partisan. You are part of the problem with politics today, as you do not listen to what the other person has to say, even if they put forth a case which is compelling and correct.

The one thing I would suggest to you is that you put your proper age in your bio. You were obviously not 25, as based by your extremely biased opinions, and ludicrous assertions as fact. You also exposed the fact that you are not an honest person by doing this, so you really should change it. People don't take lying here to lightly, and they will expose you, such as I did earlier. Your age has nothing to do with your opinions, unless you lie about it, that's why I said your opinions were not your parents, even though you stated you were 25. Your opinions eminate from a person who does not have experience in the world, and from a person who speaks their parents thoughts on the matter rather then their own. Once you gain experience, you will start to understand what I am talking about, but you should know this. If you had initially put your correct age, instead of lying about it, maybe I would have been a little bit easier on you. Instead, I exposed you for a liar right off the bat, and you have already lost credibility in others eyes. This is a bit of constructive criticism, seeing how you are all to eager to jump into stereotypical name calling. If you at least state how old you are up front, it will eliminate a lot of the BS rhetoric, because people will understand why your position is what it is.

:2cents:

I think it is as clear as day that you have done nearly everything you claimed that I have done. That was one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever read.

I have been on this thread all day discussing issues with people, agreeing and disagreeing, but I have not done what you do everytime you post a thread. I listen to what people are saying and do not try to twist their words or thoughts.

All you can say is BS this BS that but you cannot even back up your own words. I have had discussions with people on here about my age. I am 16. I did not post my age on the forum to lie or hide my age, but from personal experience I know that most forums do not allow people under the age of 18 on it's forums. I could have said I'm 18, but I chose 1980. BIG DEAL. I just chose a date. I could change it but I don't need to. If people want to know my age I'll tell them.

You rambled on for a long time about my age but you and how you exposed me and how no one can trust my words because of my age but it is not a big deal at all. Instead of facing the issues we are talking about and entering your opinions objectively and respectfully you just come on here and try to wear down the people who have different opinions than you.

I research everything I say and in some cases I have quoted and sourced what I have wrote. It is so typical that you would come on here and accuse me of making up everything I say and only following the words of my parents. I am not going to go into that again because I have already had this discussion with you and you obviously do not read what I or anyone on this forum writes thoroughly. Until you do that, do not come on here acting like you know what you are talking about because you don't.

I'm not going to go on the defensive and defend myself from the lies you keep spreading about me because I have already done all this with you. That is clearly your tactic, I have already seen many examples of it on this forum. You claim that I am biased and call people partisan hacks however I am not and my posts clearly show that I am not. I discuss my views with others, unlike you who pick apart everything you can to avoid the facts and make the other person look wrong in whatever way you can think of. You can ask anyone else on this forum if I have called them names, insulted them, or was unwilling to look at their views. Aside from you and the people who post hate threads about President Bush, I have patience and tolerance for everyone on this forum.

Here's my advice to you. Keep an open mind, actually read what people write, not just what you want to get out of it, and stop trying to make people sound untruthful and wrong when you have no proof but only will to expose them.

Everything you say about me, just like everything you and all the other liberals out there say about President Bush is only conjecture and lies. None of it is fact. You claim I get all my information from corrupt news stations and radios but I get it from all sources. I watch all news stations research certain topics in encyclopedias and draw honest and just opinions about what I am talking about. Yesterday you told me that I got all of my information from one corrupted news station, FOX News. First of all FOX News is one of the only stations in the media, like I have said to you multiple times, that draws information from both sides instead of slanting completely to Democrat party. You clearly don't and clearly never will watch FOX News or look at it in a sensable and non ignorant way. Not only are you wrong about where I get all of my information, you are inconsistent. On one post you will accuse me of getting all of my information from one channel, on the other my parents, on the other limbaugh.

You want to talk about stereotypes? You fit the liberal stereotype to a T and I hope that one day you will chose to talk to people with an open mind, rather than insulting their views, spreading lies, and avoiding the true issues at hand.

[chomerics]

I think it is as clear as day that you have done nearly everything you claimed that I have done. That was one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever read.

Evedently you don't re-read your own posts then.

Here is a list of your error/lies/propaganda which is completely and blatently false. These are errors which expose your position, and prove to anyone with half a brain that you are completely uninformed on the issues. . .

Saddam had wmds and without a doubt, gave them to other corrupted countries, most likely in the middle east, such as Saudi Arabia or Syria.

Prove it. This is an absolute lie, and I would like to see some evidence of Saddam giving WMDs to Saudi Arabia. It is BS like this that exposed you, as I have stated before. If you want to make outrageous assertions like this, then you better have some serious credibility to back them up, because we've thrashed over evidence ad-nauseum.

We are not a bunch of 16 year old girls, or just hack democrats who believe something just because you say it. If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to back up your outlandish accusations with actual proof from credible sources.

Nothing in what altair said is even remotly close to fact. What you stated about Prescott Bush was a rumor started by the liberal media to bring down the Bush family. (this in regards to the Bush family having ties to Nazi's).

From straightdope

So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes--witness our dealings with mainland China.

So it is not "a rumor by the liberal media means to take down the Bush family", it is in fact based on strong FACTS that Prescott Bush had financial holdings with the Nazi Party in the 30's and 40's. . .

You also claimed this. . .

From Wikipedia, "Shortly after George W. Bush's election as U.S. president, Canadian bloggers, apparently affiliated with perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche began a determined effort to circulate reports that Prescott Bush himself had been known as "Hitler's Angel"." It's all politics and you are buying into every word. I do not know enough on that matter to argue it out with you but from what I've seen it's just another liberal scam like the one broadcasted on CBS by Dan Rather that corrupted George W. Bush's service record. I don't need to remind you that it was false and Dan Rather retired shortly after he was exposed as a liar. Again it is all a scam meant to bring down a good family and a good man.

Yet, you neglected to mention that the EXACT SAME ARTICLE on wiki mentioned this. . .

Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt activated the Trading With the Enemy Act. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City.

Prescott Bush's business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:

* Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)

* Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)

* the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)

* Silesian-American Corporation (with Walker)

He has assets in four different companies SEIZED by the US government for connection to NAZI banking operations!!! Yet more complete intellectual dishonesty on your part, you only posted the part of the link that supported your position, even thought you KNEW there was contradictory information on the same web page. If you are going to make ludicrous claims, and then use a source to back them up, LIST THE SOURCE!!!! It is only proper that others get to see the "evidence" you are using, because you so far have been anything close to honest.

. You obviously don't watch FOX News and you are close-minded like I said.

If you did a simple search, you would understand how truly worng you are, and how ridiculous you sound. . . especially since a LOT of the topic on my discussions are lies I see reported on Fox, or other RNC propaganda sites. Not your fault for not knowing, but it IS your fault for assuming you know ANYTHING about what I do, because you are 100% DEAD WRONG!!!!

You wanted proof in writing, I did not have it, so you called me wrong. I SAW IT ON NOT ONE, BUT THREE CHANNELS

We have a little bit higher standards here then "I saw it on TV". No matter HOW MANY THINGS YOU TYPE IN CAPS DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!!!. . . instead it shows that you are dishonest, or even worse, just a blatent liar. If you are going to make outrageous claims, you better have good sources to back it up, Occam's razor. You are going to need something other then I SAW IT ON THREE STATIONS!!!! to make others believe you are telling the true. There are things on media web sites called "transcripts", if you saw it on the news then it will be in the transcript. Go and find what you saw, and post it, just typing in caps may prove your point in high school, but infantile rants only prove your age here, and the fact that you did not back it up with links makes others think you are being dishonest.

You all are sick and twisted when you do things like that just to benefit your ignorant and selfish existance.

:hammer: things like this will get you banned. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to call me sick, twisted and ignorant, especially when you offer absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all to back up a single thing you have said, even though 90% of the people here kn ow it's BS.

how about you give me some sources and some facts, just like you do with me, to back up all of the "BS" you say.

I have told you to do a search on the information and start from there, but if you want facts, I will gladly give you facts about each and every position I have. Where do you want to start, the false liberal media BS?

You can start reading here . . .

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1865

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=liberal+media+myth&spell=1

For starters. . .

On Bush "misled" the American public, here is a link which lists over 275 statements made by Bush and his Administration about the threat of Iraq, and what the actualy analysis he had said. . .

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

Here is a .pdf with a compiled list of misleading and false quotes.

Now, you can go back and get a list of your evidence to back up the outrageous claims which I called you out on earlier. . . for some reason, my money is on the fact that you won't, you'll just post more infantile rants about how you are right because you saw it on some ficticous TV program one time :doh: :insane:

[JacktheMack]

Wow you sure went out of your way to try and prove that everything I said and did was a lie, an attack, or that I should be banned. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

What you did was pick apart everything I said to make it fit into your story of what you think I meant. I don't care how many Democrat sites you pull up that twist and turn every thing George Bush says to try and make him seem like a liar.

The site that showed that Bush was wrong in everything he said was pathetic at best. 3 of the quotes by President Bush were said to be misleading for the exact same reason which was that the nuclear facilities he found were most likely to be for creating hydrogen artillary weather balloons. It's funny how it says MOST LIKELY in that explanation the 3 times it uses it. Do you know how many quotes I could find that actually ARE evedence against liberal media lies?

Here let's start:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"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."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 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."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"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 . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"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."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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. 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."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Here is another example. I will be showing an example of CBS and Dan Rather's liberal agenda:

On September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited “exclusive information, including documents” to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. Within a few hours of those documents being posted on CBS News’ Web site, however, typography experts voiced skepticism that the documents had actually originated with their alleged author and Bush’s former commanding officer, the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian.

As the evidence mounted, Rather stubbornly clung to the idea that his story was bulletproof, and he derided critics as partisans and Internet rumormongers. When he “apologized” on September 20, Rather would not concede that the documents were forgeries, only that he and CBS could “no longer vouch for their authenticity.” On November 23, 2004, CBS announced that Rather would soon be leaving his job as anchor of the CBS Evening News. An investigative report released on January 10, 2005 faulted CBS’s rush to put the flawed story on the air and their “stubborn” defense in the days that followed, but oddly decided that they could not blame partisan bias.

More examples of CBS' liberal agenda:

Van Gordon Sauter, President of CBS News in the early 1980s, revealed in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that he "stopped watching" Dan Rather’s CBS Evening News because "the unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much." Sauter is hardly a conservative; in 1990-91, for instance, he was a producer of the syndicated Voices of America with Jesse Jackson. “Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News,” Sauter wrote. “But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”

Josh Howard, the top producer for the Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes — the CBS program that used forged documents to attack George W. Bush’s National Guard service — previously worked for two liberal New York Democrats, then-Congressman Stephen Solarz and now-Senator Charles Schumer back when he was in the New York state assembly. And, after he started working at CBS, Howard made large contributions to the Solarz campaign, Bob Novak revealed in his September 25 column.

Here's the real chart:

Here's another:

To sum up the charts, liberals and moderates control the media, conservatives are in the minority. All charts will vary but your chart could not be backed up no matter how hard you try.

You can pick apart everything I said and make me look like whatever you want. If you want to talk about lies, your party survives on them. I'm not saying that all people who stray more towards the Democrat way of thinking are liars but I am saying that the Democrat leaders of this country have become corrupt and are known to be liars.

Here buddy:

Flip: In October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution sought by Bush. Kerry voted against an alternative that would have authorized force only if the U.N. Security Council sanctioned it. The resolution Kerry supported stated, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to … defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Flop: Soon after voting for the resolution, Kerry expressed dismay over the march to war. He said he wouldn't "support the president to proceed unilaterally" and consistently criticized administration policy leading up to the invasion.

Context: Kerry often said Iraq was a looming threat that had to be dealt with. He believed an invasion, done properly, would be sound policy. He insisted that Bush should "exhaust all possible remedies" to avert unilateral war, but he also said, "American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision." That was why he voted against the alternative Iraq resolution. In the days leading up to the war, Kerry was unclear as to whether he would support an invasion without a U.N. Security Council resolution.

From our former President William Clinton:

Under Oath: “I have not had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinksky…”

An article that illustrates Bill Clinton's flip flops like all of the other Democrats with an intent to be in the white house in '08

"Former President Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

As you know, I could go on and on about what has become of the Democrat Party, the lies they spread, and the inhumanity they show with the way they talk about our President, twisting his words as you have done mine.

Like I said, you picked apart what I wrote. When I said that what was stated about Prescott Bush was a rumor started by the liberal media I also stated that I did not know how much of it was true. You know very well that the liberal press distorted his involvement with the Nazis. If he was involved with the Nazis in any way, he was not aware of the genocides going on in Germany.

So you think that what I got from the article on wikipedia was only what I wanted to read?

Journalist Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to the Silesian-American Corporation makes him complicit with the corporation's mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Oswiecim, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed. However, any allegations that Prescott Bush profited from slave labor or the Auschwitz concentration camp remain unsubstantiated. The Auschwitz camp did not exist until after the Bush-Harriman holdings were nationalized.

Here is more from that article:

There are further unsubstantiated rumors concerning Prescott Bush's associations with the Nazi party. The Anti-Defamation League has stated, "rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated". [1] The rumors began with extreme right-wing attacks on George H.W. Bush during his 1980 vice-presidential campaign and were renewed during his 1988 presidential campaign.

Politically motivated??? Why does that sound familiar?

We can continue talking about the past and who George Bush's grandfather really was, OR you could stop avoiding the serious issues at hand and start talking like a civilized person. YES I am 16 but you cannot come on here thinking that you know more than I do because of my age.

Just try to think before you claim for the 3rd time that I get all my information from FOX News and my parents. I am my own person, not my parents. While they are conservative, we debate politics often and I draw my opinions from my own experiences, not theirs. You have already proved that you cannot put my age out of this argument. I guess I could say that you have been exposed as ignorant and a liar but I will try to not go that far.

In the end it all comes down to politics for your party. Democrats are feeling squeezed out of office and are starting to panic. That is when the lies started flying and they have never stopped. The liberal press has and will continue to twist what is going on in Iraq to look like everything is failing until they go into office. To the media, controversy is news. Not accomplishments in Iraq and what our soldiers are doing to help Iraq secure and establish it's own democratic country, but a campain that a woman started that is trying to stop the war in Iraq because her son was killed in combat.

I know many soldiers in Iraq who are sick and tired of the liberal press as I am. They are behind their commander in chief and are fighting for something they believe in.

George Bush is an honest man, as is his administration. No matter what he will accomplish in Iraq or the world, he will be criticized. We went into Iraq for legitimate reasons, Bush did not mislead us, the Democrat Party has.

I will leave you now to continue posting topics filled with liberal propaganda against President George W. Bush and the Republican Party. I hope that someday you will stop relying on your one-sided beliefs and start to keep an open mind but it is apparent that you will not be doing that anytime soon. I hope that, come '08, the more truthful and honest party wins because America was not built on lies but that is all the Liberal Democrats have become.

[chomerics]

Wow you sure went out of your way to try and prove that everything I said and did was a lie, an attack, or that I should be banned. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

No I used your own words as proof you are full of :pooh:

What you did was pick apart everything I said to make it fit into your story of what you think I meant. I don't care how many Democrat sites you pull up that twist and turn every thing George Bush says to try and make him seem like a liar.

No, I did not put "what I think you meant", I used your exact words and proved you were either being dishonest or lying. You need to go back and comprehend my words and the true meaning of your statements, because everything I posted was absoultely 100% accurate. You used strong words such as "that is a lie" and "you posted nothing close to fact", and I proved what you stated was incorrect.

The site that showed that Bush was wrong in everything he said was pathetic at best. 3 of the quotes by President Bush were said to be misleading for the exact same reason which was that the nuclear facilities he found were most likely to be for creating hydrogen artillary weather balloons. It's funny how it says MOST LIKELY in that explanation the 3 times it uses it. Do you know how many quotes I could find that actually ARE evedence against liberal media lies?

Pathetic at best??? Are you serious? The site used his EXACT QUOTES and showed EXACTLY where he misled the country!!! Do you understand what the difference is when you claim something is true, when in fact it is disputed in the intel field, is misleading? Do you understand this concept? Do you understand when you use quotes as fact, such as the Al Qaeda has been trained by Hussen in gas attacks, when the CIA publishes doubts about the claim and never disclose this, that you are misleading the country? Can you grasp this concept? I ask this question because you seem really unable to grasp even the simplist concept of what actually construes misleading.

You also used a bunch of quoted from democrats, your point? Did the democrats invade Iraq based on this intel? Did the democrats and Clinton force America to believe Saddam was going to give weapons to Al Qaeda? The answer is of course no, but you will ignore that. You see, it does not matter what Clinton thought about Iraq in 1998, because HE DIDN'T INVADE THE COUNTRY!!!!! This seems to slip right past the rose colored blinders you so obviously wear.

Here is another example. I will be showing an example of CBS and Dan Rather's liberal agenda:

On September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited “exclusive information, including documents” to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. Within a few hours of those documents being posted on CBS News’ Web site, however, typography experts voiced skepticism that the documents had actually originated with their alleged author and Bush’s former commanding officer, the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian.

As the evidence mounted, Rather stubbornly clung to the idea that his story was bulletproof, and he derided critics as partisans and Internet rumormongers. When he “apologized” on September 20, Rather would not concede that the documents were forgeries, only that he and CBS could “no longer vouch for their authenticity.” On November 23, 2004, CBS announced that Rather would soon be leaving his job as anchor of the CBS Evening News. An investigative report released on January 10, 2005 faulted CBS’s rush to put the flawed story on the air and their “stubborn” defense in the days that followed, but oddly decided that they could not blame partisan bias.

If CBS was truly "baised" would they have fired him??? Wouldn't they have just kept him on as an anchor? I mean if they were truly "biased" as you say they are, then what was their motivation of firing him? Doesn't make sense does it.

Here's the real chart:

To sum up the charts, liberals and moderates control the media, conservatives are in the minority. All charts will vary but your chart could not be backed up no matter how hard you try.

Your charts don't even support you LUDICROUS notion that "the media is 80% liberal" :doh: Your first chart is from stateofthemedia.org, a website dedicated to journalists and their group as a whole. So lets examint their statement. . .

at BEST, 34% of journalists say they are liberal. . . surely you are not arguing that 1 out of 3 journalists considers themselves liberal and that denotes a "liberal bias" are you? If that is your argument, it is as weak as your initial premise of the "liberal media" to begin with.

Now, let me ask you again, give me proof WITH LINKS that state that the media is 80% liberal, WHICH WAS YOUR INTITAL PREMISE!!!! I called you out as being completely full of :pooh:, and I am right, because so far you have nothing even remotely backing your claim.

Here's another:

Your second graph is a ridiculous pie chart which has absolutely nothing about the questions asked, how they came to their conclusion or anything else related to the chart. It is also on the MRC website, a website funded by extreme right wing groups.

* The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

* Sarah Scaife Foundation

* Castle Rock Foundation

* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

* The Carthage Foundation

* JM Foundation[2]

source

This is a quite interesting bit about the biased MRC conservative founder. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10775-2004Jun27.html

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_12_06.html#008600

It lists how the FCC recieves almost 99.9% of their complaints from the MRC people, which do nothing but attack people with POVs different from their own. . . in other words, they are completely biased, and you are a great example of somebody who has been duped by their false charges.

Now, do you want to talk about Fox News? Is there a single liberal equivalent? Not even close. How about talk radio, the other media outlet? Yet, again a 10/1 conservative to liberal ratio, if anything it is a conservative bias.

In conclusion, you used a bias website to try to prove your point, which you couldn't do, and you have come nowhere CLOSE to your ludicrous assertion that the media is 80% liberal. Are you willing to conciede that you lied about it, or will you admit that you were at least misinformed? Furthermor, you don't talk about talk radio, you don't mention that editors are conservative, and they are the ones who get decide the stories that go to print. You also neglect to mention that Fox News is a propaganda channel, and there is nothing even equivalent to it for a liberal.

You can pick apart everything I said and make me look like whatever you want. If you want to talk about lies, your party survives on them. I'm not saying that all people who stray more towards the Democrat way of thinking are liars but I am saying that the Democrat leaders of this country have become corrupt and are known to be liars.

I pick apart everything you say because you are wrong. If you were right, then I wouldn't be so harsh on you, but since you have already admitted to lying, and also failed to prove your insane assertion that the media is 80% liberal, you have lost credibility. I wasn't the one who made those assertions, you were, so you can retract the statements, or come back with proof that you are correct, so far you have done neither.

Here buddy:

Flip: In October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq war resolution sought by Bush. Kerry voted against an alternative that would have authorized force only if the U.N. Security Council sanctioned it. The resolution Kerry supported stated, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to … defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Flop: Soon after voting for the resolution, Kerry expressed dismay over the march to war. He said he wouldn't "support the president to proceed unilaterally" and consistently criticized administration policy leading up to the invasion.

Context: Kerry often said Iraq was a looming threat that had to be dealt with. He believed an invasion, done properly, would be sound policy. He insisted that Bush should "exhaust all possible remedies" to avert unilateral war, but he also said, "American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision." That was why he voted against the alternative Iraq resolution. In the days leading up to the war, Kerry was unclear as to whether he would support an invasion without a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Do you know what the vote was on? Have you read ANY of Kerry's statements regarding the war, and the vote? Do you know what Bush said to get people to vote? i ask these questions because what Kerry said was 100% correct, and if you had bothered to look up his claims, you would realize this. Hell, your quote lists the context of what he stated, and he also stated plenty of times that Bush needed the autority to force Saddams hand, something that worked. . . Bush also said it was not a vote for war, but to give him the authority to show force to Saddam. Maybe you should spend more time reading your own links because it spells out EXACTLY what Kerry's position was, and it had nothing to do with a lie, like you so profess. . . yet completely false again. :doh:

As you know, I could go on and on about what has become of the Democrat Party, the lies they spread, and the inhumanity they show with the way they talk about our President, twisting his words as you have done mine.

I have twisted nothing you said, you only infer that I have because I have proven you false. . . I have also shown where you lied not once but twice.

Like I said, you picked apart what I wrote. When I said that what was stated about Prescott Bush was a rumor started by the liberal media I also stated that I did not know how much of it was true. You know very well that the liberal press distorted his involvement with the Nazis. If he was involved with the Nazis in any way, he was not aware of the genocides going on in Germany.

That is not what you wrote. You wrote that the previous poster was false, and you were wrong. I did nothing to twist your words, but instead used exactly what you wrote and showed you where you were not only wrong, but also dishonest by quoting a website without a link because it stated irrefutible evidence of your inital premise.

So you think that what I got from the article on wikipedia was only what I wanted to read?

Here is more from that article:

Politically motivated??? Why does that sound familiar?

No, you posted one thing on the article, and you were saying that the previous poster was false. I called you on it, and used the exact web page you copied from to show how you were being dishonest. Just because I did not post the entire page does not make me dishonest, I LINKED IT!!!!! I just used the relevant part which proved you were wrong, and it showed how you distorted the truth on purpose. . . in other words, you tried to MISLEAD (can't get away from that word huh) everyone here with your post, and you were called on it.

We can continue talking about the past and who George Bush's grandfather really was, OR you could stop avoiding the serious issues at hand and start talking like a civilized person. YES I am 16 but you cannot come on here thinking that you know more than I do because of my age.

You age had nothing to do with it, EXCEPT that it exposed you as a liar. So far, I have found numerous false items, and misconstrued facts in your posts. I called you on it, so just get over it. I was also not the one who said

You all are sick and twisted when you do things like that just to benefit your ignorant and selfish existance.

So your petty infantile "woe is me" BS saying I'm not being civilized is again false, because I am. The most uncivilized part of any of my posts has been when I called you a liar, but you have laready admitted to lying, so there is nothing "uncivilized" about telling the truth.

Just try to think before you claim for the 3rd time that I get all my information from FOX News and my parents. I am my own person, not my parents. While they are conservative, we debate politics often and I draw my opinions from my own experiences, not theirs. You have already proved that you cannot put my age out of this argument. I guess I could say that you have been exposed as ignorant and a liar but I will try to not go that far.

I'll stop the Fox News comments when you admit Fox is anything but "Fair and Balanced". You watch Fox because you agree with their viewpoint, but John McCain is a liberal, along with Colin Powel, GHWB and other mainstream republcans according to Fox's position on the political scale. They are anyting but fair and biased, and in fact they are the propaganda arm of the white house. You know how I know? because of their talking point segments. This is where someone like Hume will ask Major Garret what the issue is, and what the truth is, yet "the truth" consists of the exact talking point of the white house. That my friend is not fair, not balanced, but instead called propaganda. You see, I watch Fox all the time, others here will tell you, because I spend a lot of time exposing their lies and misleading statements. Hell, if you want to see how they lie, go here.

In the end it all comes down to politics for your party. Democrats are feeling squeezed out of office and are starting to panic. That is when the lies started flying and they have never stopped. The liberal press has and will continue to twist what is going on in Iraq to look like everything is failing until they go into office. To the media, controversy is news. Not accomplishments in Iraq and what our soldiers are doing to help Iraq secure and establish it's own democratic country, but a campain that a woman started that is trying to stop the war in Iraq because her son was killed in combat.

Ironic you say it is only politics with the dems seeing how the republican party has done numerous things to promote their ideology in place of reason. . . things such as. . .

1. Placing a person as the head of the CPB to transform PBS into a Fox News type channel

2. Placing anti-environmentalists on EPA to change the rules regarding pollution

3. Placing cronies in positions ranging from the head of FEMA, to the EPA

To name a few. If you look up other threads, I have made the assertion which is the opposite of yours, and I used quotes and links to back it up. Use the search function and see for yourself.

I know many soldiers in Iraq who are sick and tired of the liberal press as I am. They are behind their commander in chief and are fighting for something they believe in.

I ALSO know "many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan", and I currently have 2 family members over there, as well as three friends. I know their positions, and they do not agree with the war, but they are serving thier country. In fact, there are numerous soldiers who think we should leave Iraq, and if you listened to Murtha's speech on the house floor, he read off numerous e-mails thanking him for bringing the debate to the floor.

George Bush is an honest man, as is his administration.

How is the world do you expect people to take you seriously when you state things like this??? Seriously, his administration has already leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative, and the investegation is still ongoing. If anything, he has been DISHONEST!!! Do you want me to take Scotty McCllelan's quotes on the Plame leak and show how he PURPOSELY lied to reporters? God, the sad thing is that you probably believe his administration is honest :doh:

No matter what he will accomplish in Iraq or the world, he will be criticized. We went into Iraq for legitimate reasons, Bush did not mislead us, the Democrat Party has.

The democrat party did not send us to war, Bush did :dho: He rushed us to war when the weapons inspections would have proven there were no WMDs. he rushed to was as soon as Hans Blix said it will take months to fully inspect Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq? A serious question since you say we went in there for legitimate reasons. Why did we go in there? Because of WMDs? WMDs which were not there, and not in Saddam's posession. In other words, the reason we went into Iraq was incorrect to say the least. If he did not have WMDs, would you say we still should have invaded Iraq? You probably would :doh:

[Commander PK]

Chom, rarely do I agree with you in matters of politics.

but I admire your passion. I really do.

[du7st]

Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

Of course they did. Name a war that wasn't sold to the public on misleading grounds?

Let me put it this way. The US hasn't suffered a major attack by a foreign government on the continential states since the revolutionary war. Therefore, all of the wars having been fought since then (hundreds if you count our little excursions here and there) were not absolutely necessary. A portion of the population will be for any war that seems winnable. The rest will have to be sold the idea. There is nothing new here.

[WallyVon]

Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

Of course they did. Name a war that wasn't sold to the public on misleading grounds?

Let me put it this way. The US hasn't suffered a major attack by a foreign government on the continential states since the revolutionary war. Therefore, all of the wars having been fought since then (hundreds if you count our little excursions here and there) were not absolutely necessary. A portion of the population will be for any war that seems winnable. The rest will have to be sold the idea. There is nothing new here.

World War 2, we were attacked. War of 1812 we were attacked.

But I got your message.