What else has Bush lied about?

What else has Bush lied about?

There are 8 comments on the The Paradise Post story from May 15, 2008, titled What else has Bush lied about?. In it, The Paradise Post reports that:

U.S. Army Major General Kevin Bergner last week in Baghdad spoke at a press conference.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Paradise Post.

Brad Jenks

Weed, CA

#1 May 16, 2008
Brown in this article claimed Bush said (his quote), "I can choose to follow the law, follow it in part, or ignore it entirely if I choose to."

When did Bush say that Brown? Since Brown appears to have taken this from some press statement or speech (as indicated by the quotes) I'd like to know the date. If Brown turns out to be accurate I will join him in his call for impeachment.

Brown’s accusation is very disturbing if true. Give me the date Brown or is your statement in fact a lie? Perhaps we should rename this column 'What else has Brown lied about' if the lie turns out to be Brown’s.

As far as the weapons found not being Iranian, and the fact our military was telling us they were not Iranian, doesn’t that indicate the military is being honest regarding the find? Wasn’t it also the military who told us the new more lethal IED roadside bombs were of Iranian origin? Is Brown suggesting Major General Kevin Bergner is a man of integrity who would not lie to the American public, but other military officers are willing to lie in order to put forth false propaganda regarding Iran?

If that is Brown’s suggestion perhaps he could explain Major General Kevin Bergner’s previous press release after his forces captured Iranian Qods Forces in Iraq. Was Bergner telling the truth when the press reported this on Oct 3, 2007 Brown?“Today, Major General Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq, disclosed that Farhadi was in fact the commander of one of the three Iranian commands inside Iraq,” Or is this another example of the left spinning the truth by taking a piece of new information while ignoring the rest? Just curious.

I find the fact the military is being honest about Iraq completely redeeming. However, when individuals choose to post one news release as “proof” of something, while ignoring previous news releases attributed to the same source refuting the “proof” you can pretty well bet it doesn’t meet the smell test. And if this is the case, it is they who turn out to be the liars. How bout it Brownie?
Brad Jenks

Weed, CA

#2 May 16, 2008
now without the sqiggles....
Brown in this article claimed Bush said (his quote), "I can choose to follow the law, follow it in part, or ignore it entirely if I choose to."

When did Bush say that Brown? Since Brown appears to have taken this from some press statement or speech (as indicated by the quotes) I'd like to know the date. If Brown turns out to be accurate I will join him in his call for impeachment.

Brown's accusation is very disturbing if true. Give me the date Brown or is your statement in fact a lie? Perhaps we should rename this column 'What else has Brown lied about' if the lie turns out to be Brown's.

As far as the weapons found not being Iranian, and the fact our military was telling us they were not Iranian, doesn't that indicate the military is being honest regarding the find? Wasn't it also the military who told us the new more lethal IED roadside bombs were of Iranian origin? Is Brown suggesting Major General Kevin Bergner is a man of integrity who would not lie to the American public, but other military officers are willing to lie in order to put forth false propaganda regarding Iran?

If that is Brown's suggestion perhaps he could explain Major General Kevin Bergner's previous press release after his forces captured Iranian Qods Forces in Iraq. Was Bergner telling the truth when the press reported this on Oct 3, 2007 Brown? "Today, Major General Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq, disclosed that Farhadi was in fact the commander of one of the three Iranian commands inside Iraq," Or is this another example of the left spinning the truth by taking a piece of new information while ignoring the rest? Just curious.

I find the fact the military is being honest about Iraq completely redeeming. However, when individuals choose to post one news release as "proof" of something, while ignoring previous news releases attributed to the same source that refutes the "proof" you can pretty well bet it doesn’t meet the smell test. And if this is the case, it is they who turn out to be the liars. How bout it Brownie?
a Paradise motorcyclist

Chico, CA

#3 May 17, 2008
Bush/last 3 generations and Cheney/cronies are destroying this country piece by piece with help by the military/industrial complexes.
STOP the "war" now, today and save untold lives. The "war" is ruining our country and is creating billions in future debt. Iraq/Iran, aid to Egypt, billions of $ sent elsewhere when healthcare, schools, preventive medicine here is cut to the bone. STOP THE WAR NOW...look around here to see what needs to be done. My taxes for my Country!!!
Frank

Sloughhouse, CA

#4 May 17, 2008
Here's some support for Brown's perspective. It is Bush and McCain that do not pass the smell test.

LIES OF AGGRESSION
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

On May 15, the White House Moron, in a war-planning visit to Israel, justified the naked aggression he and Olmert are planning against Iran as the only alternative to the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

But the White House Moron has the roles reversed. It is not Iran that is threatening war. It is Bush. It is not Bush who is appeasing. It is Iran.

Iran has not responded in kind to any of Bush's warlike moves and provocations. Iran has not sunk a single one of our sitting duck ships and has not given the Iraqi insurgents any weapons that would easily turn the tide of war against the US.

It is Bush, not Iran, who sounds like Adolf Hitler blustering and threatening. It is Bush's American Brownshirts, the neocons, who express the view: what's the good of nuclear weapons if you can't use them.

It is the US that is funding assassination teams inside Iran and using taxpayer dollars to fund dissident and violent organizations opposed to the Iranian government. Iran is doing no such thing here.

It is members of the Bush Regime and US generals who continue to lie through their teeth about Iranian support for insurgents, for which they can supply no evidence, and about Iranian nuclear weapons programs, for which the IAEA inspectors can find no sign.

It is the US print and TV media that serves the Bush Regime as propaganda ministry for its lies of aggression.

All the war crimes that are being planned are being planned by Bush and Olmert.

What would George Orwell make of the Bush Regime's position that anything less than a direct act of naked aggression is appeasement?

The Chicago City Council has passed a resolution opposing any US attack on Iran and urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with that nation. But the White House Moron says diplomacy is appeasement. He learned this false equivalence from the neocon Brownshirts whose control over his administration has made America despised throughout the world, with the exception of Israel.

After broadcasting false claims for weeks from US generals and Bush Regime spokespersons that the US has definite proof in the form of captured Iranian weapons that Iranians were responsible for killing American troops, the great free American media went silent when LA Times correspondent Tina Susman reported from Baghdad: A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was cancelled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.

A people devoid of a media are sitting ducks for tyrannical government, which is what the US has.

What is the difference between Hitler's concocted excuses for his acts of naked aggression and the Bush Regime's plan to use a briefing by General Petraeus, with captured Iranian weapons as props, as proof of Iranian complicity in US deaths in Iraq as a means to break down public and congressional resistance to an attack on Iran?

Why has the Bush Regime suffered no consequences for this blatant attempt to orchestrate an excuse for another war?

Why have there been no consequences to the Regime for the blatant lies it told in order to attack Iraq?

Why has the Bush Regime suffered no consequences for its violation of US statutory laws against spying without warrants and against torture?

In the US criminal justice system, three strikes and you are out.

For the Bush Regime is there any limit on its lawless behavior?

How many strikes? A dozen? Thirty? Three hundred?

Is there a limit?
Don

Chico, CA

#5 May 17, 2008
Brad Jenks wrote:
now without the sqiggles....
Brown in this article claimed Bush said (his quote), "I can choose to follow the law, follow it in part, or ignore it entirely if I choose to."
When did Bush say that Brown? Since Brown appears to have taken this from some press statement or speech (as indicated by the quotes) I'd like to know the date. If Brown turns out to be accurate I will join him in his call for impeachment.
Brown's accusation is very disturbing if true. Give me the date Brown or is your statement in fact a lie? Perhaps we should rename this column 'What else has Brown lied about' if the lie turns out to be Brown's.
As far as the weapons found not being Iranian, and the fact our military was telling us they were not Iranian, doesn't that indicate the military is being honest regarding the find? Wasn't it also the military who told us the new more lethal IED roadside bombs were of Iranian origin? Is Brown suggesting Major General Kevin Bergner is a man of integrity who would not lie to the American public, but other military officers are willing to lie in order to put forth false propaganda regarding Iran?
If that is Brown's suggestion perhaps he could explain Major General Kevin Bergner's previous press release after his forces captured Iranian Qods Forces in Iraq. Was Bergner telling the truth when the press reported this on Oct 3, 2007 Brown? "Today, Major General Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq, disclosed that Farhadi was in fact the commander of one of the three Iranian commands inside Iraq," Or is this another example of the left spinning the truth by taking a piece of new information while ignoring the rest? Just curious.
I find the fact the military is being honest about Iraq completely redeeming. However, when individuals choose to post one news release as "proof" of something, while ignoring previous news releases attributed to the same source that refutes the "proof" you can pretty well bet it doesn’t meet the smell test. And if this is the case, it is they who turn out to be the liars. How bout it Brownie?
Type it into google dummy.The internet isn't that difficult.

“Keep it Real, ”

Since: Mar 08

Paradise

#6 May 17, 2008
Our local Washington rulers dog called me the other day and told me his master lies and lies and lies, sure wish someone would adpot that poor
puppy and put him into a home so he didn't have to
listen to that old windbag spout BS all the time.
That's animal abuse, ya know, maybe his dog will go public and expose the truth??????????oh my would that be a story, lmaooooooooooooooooo.
poor fellah

AOL

#7 May 17, 2008
As usual brad spews lengthy revisionistic dreams of what never was and never will be.
What part of the following statement copied from the article do you not understand brad?
President Bush uses them to sign most any law and then essentially say
brad. if you bothed to take the advice posted above and use the internet productively, you'd find a series of Executive Orders that bush has issued to circumvent, expressly order agencies of the executive branch to ignore, or outright violate acts of congress that were signed by georgie and thus codified into federal law.
Impeachable offenses? Oh Yes! Impeach a sitting president while our troops languish in iraq and afghanistan? That is certainly not in the best interest of those troops.
Brad Jenks

Weed, CA

#8 May 17, 2008
poor fellah wrote:
As usual brad spews lengthy revisionistic dreams of what never was and never will be.
What part of the following statement copied from the article do you not understand brad?
President Bush uses them to sign most any law and then essentially say
brad. if you bothed to take the advice posted above and use the internet productively, you'd find a series of Executive Orders that bush has issued to circumvent, expressly order agencies of the executive branch to ignore, or outright violate acts of congress that were signed by georgie and thus codified into federal law.
Impeachable offenses? Oh Yes! Impeach a sitting president while our troops languish in iraq and afghanistan? That is certainly not in the best interest of those troops.
You can also find Bush was involved in 9/11 on the net. Specifically what laws were broken and please be specific. The problem with idiots like this guy posting I'm responding to is # 1 he believes what he reads on the net, and # 2 he doesn't even bother to consider what HE wrote.

This idiot wrote, "you'd find a series of Executive Orders that bush has issued to circumvent, expressly order agencies of the executive branch to ignore, or outright violate acts of congress that were signed by georgie and thus codified into federal law." What? First the President signs or "authorizes" bills sent to him by congress. He "un-authorizes" those bills with a veto pen he rarely pulled from his pocket, but certainly never made law out of thin air.

The NSA Surveillance was authorized and shared with top Democrat members of Congress and the Senate in the immediate weeks following 9/11. Nancy Pelosi was worried these measures didn’t go far enough. You people need to do some research and see how our government works. The President is a part of government, but is checked by the judicial and the legislative. This idiot’s remarks can be disproved by this very check system. Congress can stop those troops from languishing in Iraq and Afghanistan simply by “checking” the President and cutting off the funds…

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Walter Jones Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cherokee, Lumbee argue over recognition bill (Apr '07) Mar '16 TrashyRobco 986
News Congress OKs year-end budget deal, sends to Obama (Dec '15) Dec '15 Ritual Habitual 1
News A journalistic failure: How the Kevin McCarthy ... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Responsibility 5
News House lawmaker files motion to oust Boehner (Jul '15) Jul '15 xxxrayted 4
News No Fast Track: 44 Republicans are voting NO or ... (Jun '15) Jun '15 wild child 1
News Korea veteran receives Purple Heart 64 years later (May '15) May '15 wRDEPT 1
News Republicans prepare to pass Homeland Security f... (Feb '15) Feb '15 John McCharlie 3
More from around the web