Search Ratttler

Tuesday, November 21, 2006


Anonymous said...

"Any GOOD leader takes responsibility for his "troops" actions regardless if he had anything to do with it. A good coach takes responsibility for a bad game instead of blaming it on his team. Bush is a good leader in that respect."

Methinks I've shat myself! Is this anonynut completely daft? BUSH IS A GOOD LEADER IN THAT RESPECT? Is this the same Bush who blamed Iraq for attacking the WTC despite evidence to the contrary? AND THEN has the audacity to blame the Intelligence Community for the qWagmire in Iraq when he realized his bucket-o-lies had been spilled on every newsstand in America? Is this the same Bush who refuses to take responsiblity for the torture and maltreatment of POWs at Abu Ghraib Prison? Is this the same Bush who fired "you're doing a fine job, Browny" only after massive public outcry against the Katrina travesty? Is this the same Bush who refused to accept responsibility for the gross mishandling of the Iraqi War by Donald Rumsfeld - and dismissed him only after a disasterous election for the GOP?

George Bush has no concept of setting and enforcing standards - he has no standards, other than political expediency. George Bush is a craven coward and morally bankrupt - it is in his nature to shift accountability to others. George Bush does not set the example for his troops - he murders his troops and lauds his hit squad. "A good leader in that respect" my ass!


Anonymous said...

There are so many inaccuracies and distortions in your piece that it makes me wonder about your ability to reason.

YOU may see things the way you describe them, but in reality and close examination, they arent as you portray them as a whole.

Thats the problem with people like you Vacreeper. Your elevator doesnt quite go to the top.

Eff25 said...

I don't recall Bush blaming Iraq for the WTC hits. I do recall some study saying most Americans had that impression, but as for who, if anyone, to blame for that impression, I don't know. I am admittedly not the best informed person, but even I knew Iraq was never officially blamed.

Michelle said...

Show evidence to the contrary if VA is wrong about his statements. How should the events he mentioned be portrayed in your mind? Give us your wisdom of Bush's performance concerning the Iraq invasion, Katrina, and his leadership skills? What example has he shown Americans?
Show us the reality that we supposedly lack?

vacreeper2003 said...


You need to emerge from your stupor!

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers. READ IT EFF

And anonynut....just how close do YOU get to intelligence reports and National Command Authority white papers and Classified of any kind for, uh...."reality and close examination?" I'll place my bet on the big green double goose egg. Hell anonynut - I'll bet you can't describe a single one of our weapons systems deployed to correlate raw intelligence data. Hey anonynut - why don't you give us a sample of what a date/time hack looks like.

Anonynut - you're problem is you're a phoney. You don't know what your talking about; it's evident in the vague generalites you make - you are wholly unable to address any specifics. It gives the impression of the bull shitter that you are. Go piss in your own boot. You aren't fooling anyone. Reason that.

Facetious Muse said...

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll in March of 2003, shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as Feb of 2003, even with info coming out about Iraq and it having no links to 9-11.

In one speech Bush used; which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11. Perhaps a little planned misleading?

Bush has been going by the old adage that if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it. Unfortunely many did just that, believe the lie(s) and sadly many still do.

So although Bush never came out and said Iraq did 9-11, he certainly made sure the opportunity was there for people to make that assumption.

Unfortunely, it seems that the lazier of people have the 'squeaky wheel' for they seem to be the ones the media polls (yes this is me being facetious).

Myself, I am still waiting for the massive WMD to be found, where is it that the neonuts are saying it was moved to?

~~~~~~Forever A Facetious Pain~~~~~~

Facetious Muse said...

Michelle, now you know you are asking a lot from a neo-nut. DO you really think that neo-nuts and/or neonuts anonymous have the abilty to research and state facts?

I would be greatly surprised if a neo-nut could even google accurately, no less be able to spot facts, but we can always hope :o)

~~~~~~Forever A Facetious Pain~~~~~~

Michelle said...

Muse it would really be refreshing if those that had opposing opinions would back up their opinions, instead of insulting.I know it is a stretch for some, but, it is time to move on and get back to politics. We have all had a great laugh at the expense of others. I pledge to be totally serious for a bit, just a bit.
Anyways, I found this article I would like to share with you all:
Members of Bush Gang Swore Under Oath Saddam Was Behind 9/11

by Evelyn Pringle | Oct 27 2006 -

Much to the dismay of the Bush administration, Americans can remember all on their own, without any help from Democrats, that in the run up to the war in Iraq, it was top White House officials who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and secretly involved to 9/11.

The fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was overwhelmingly successful was evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, that found 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had "strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had "helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11.

As we now know, the basis for these allegations was false, but the saddest part of the sordid tale is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war.

Documents since declassified and made public show that the administration was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002, that the tale about a trip to Prague by the leader of the 9/11 highjackers, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable drunk, and that the story about Iraqis training members of al Qaeda on the use of chemical and biological weapons was deliberately fabricated by an Iraqi defector.

The debate over who was most responsible for convincing the nation that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 will probably continue for years but an important piece of the puzzle can be found by zeroing in on a woman by the name of Laurie Mylroie, a person most people have never heard of.

Mylroie had been pushing for an all-out war against Iraq for a decade and in the run-up to the first Gulf war, she, along with the since fired New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, wrote a book titled, "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf."

Mylroie was enmeshed in the Iraq war obsession which originated at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank that served as a home base for the many neocons rendered powerless during the Clinton years, such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into the number-2 position at the Pentagon when Bush took office, along with Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name a few others.

In the year 2000, at a time when Dick Cheney sat on AEI's board, the group's publishing arm published a book written by Mylroie, with the help of many neocons, titled, "A Study in Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America."

In the author's acknowledgement section of the book, Mylroie thanked a familiar cast of characters for their assistance and included John Bolton and the entire staff of AEI. She also noted a special thanks to Scooter Libby for his "generous and timely assistance."

In addition, Mylroie said of Paul Wolfowitz: "At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." She said that Wolfowitz's wife (at the time), had "fundamentally shaped the book."

Top neocon-hawk, Richard Perle, described the book as "splendid and wholly convincing."

If Mylroie is to be believed, Saddam was involved in every anti-American attack that took place since the early 1990s all over the globe, from the bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which she states may have been "the work of both bin Laden and Iraq," to the federal building in Oklahoma City.

She accuses Saddam of being involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center even though the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State Department, have all determined that there was no evidence of the Iraq's involvement in the WTC attack.

Mylroie also claims that the TWA flight 800 which crashed into Long Island Sound was an Iraqi plot even after a lengthily investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was an accident.

She maintains that in 2000, Saddam provided the expertise for the bombing of the USS Cole, and was responsible for the deaths of 17 sailors, even though no law enforcement agency has ever made such a claim and even blames Saddam for the anthrax sent through the mail shortly after 9/11.

Once Bush became president, the neocons were brought back into power as either members of the administration or members of the Defense Policy Board, and a war against Iraq became the administration's obsession, with Mylroie and the hawks working hand and hand to promote the theory that the war was necessary because of Saddam's involvement in every terrorist act against the US over the past decade.

When the neocon's wish for another "Pearl Habor like attack" came true on 9/11, the race towards Iraq was on and the propaganda machine picked up speed. As a first step, they had Harper Collins reissue Mylroie's book under the new title, "The War Against America." The foreword for the second edition was written by DPB member James Woolsey, who described Mylroie's work as "brilliant and brave."

The book's cover displayed an endorsement from Paul Wolfowitz which stated: "Provocative and disturbing ... argues powerfully that the shadowy mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing ... was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence."

In the second book's acknowledgments, Mylroie thanked Wolfowitz for being "kind enough to listen to this work presented orally and later to read the manuscript. At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." She also praised John Bolton for his assistance.Read More...

Facetious Muse said...

Thank you Michelle I saved link, very informative. And get back to poitically issues, here, with neonuts?

My Goodness, you really are an optimist. ~smiles~ ;o)

AnonymousPoster said...


Too bad you cite evidence out of
context to suit your agenda. We did believe that Iraq harbored terrorists, but rataliation against that terrorist group that orchestrated 9-11 was not the reason. The letter Vac is using as proof says nothing about Iraq being RESPONSIBLE for 9-11. It says we want to CONTINUE to take actions against nations, organizations and groups etc that are involved in terrorists acts. We knew Iraq harbored terrorists. No news there, it was true then and its true now.

Here, my friends, is the entire message to Speaker of the House and President of the Senate. (Something eff wouldnt show you.)

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.



Bush also said in his address to the nation on the same day...
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

note: "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." THIS is the reason he states we went to Iraq.

You democrat idiots who cant complete a thought dreamed up that Bush said we went to Iraq because Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Im sorry if you idiots cant understand the information before you, but thats your problem.

Anonymous said...

vacreeper2003 said...


Bush SAID the intelligence was wrong! He blamed the intelligence community for his botched invasion. So, you tell me, anonynut - which parts of Bush's intelligence data was right and which was wrong? I'm sure you're privy to all of it - tell us - which parts of the intelligence analysis was incorrect? Did any of it accurately reflect what Iraq was all about?

It was Bush's intention to mislead the American people that Iraq was involved with 9/11 - why did he go to great lengths to deny it when the PRESS confronted him on the issue. You are the one who has the selective listening problem, anonynut - go from cradle to grave with how we got into the qWagmire and you will see that America was led to believe Saddam Hussein was in contact with the 9/11 hijackers ergo involved in the attack. Don't whitewash it.

Good grief! Are you people that gullable?

Anonymous said...

Hey Creeper looks like your buds don't have your back on this one ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Eff25 said...

The apparent falseness of the top administration officials' statements may prove Pringle's assertion that Bush's administration is much at fault for the misunderstanding about Iraq's role in 9/11, especially because of those claims by Mylroie, but her argument of there being a knowing expression false statements, does not appear proven to me, thus her follow the money theory isn't validated. Her argument may be supported elsewhere, but burden of proof is usually on the claimant, not the defendent. Pringle should give, if possible, the validation for her theory at the beginning, not appeal to individual investigation to find it. Evidence of motive is not proof of intent.

Still, though I am rarely 100% convinced of anything, I do think there is enough evidence, although not all of the Administration's statements may have been well known, to say the Administration fostered the Iraq connection to 9/11 error.

I half agree with Pringle's two main contentions.

Eff25 said...

The thinkprogress link is rather extensive. I'll try to get to it soon.

Jay156 said...

hmmm a military man crying about methods used to gain information that help keep his troops on the ground safe....Is it me or does it sound like your campaigning for the wrong side there Gomer Pyle?

vacreeper2003 said...

George Bush is not respected by the military. He is openly criticized by officers and enlisted alike; he is derided by his officer corps for his lack of smarts and his simpleton communications skills. He is unable to comprehend complex organizational issues that any large agency manager would be expected to grasp, and he is incapable of providing meaningful guidance and solutions to even conventional program challenges. He does not lead by example, and he does not set and enforce standards. He does not enjoy the respect of his troops - they questions his motives, his management skills, and the soundness of his character.

And Jay - if you want to know about Gomer Pyle - go talk to that coward ass ghetto pimp sewer rat drunk pappy of yours! I'm confident he can provide you a first-person perspective on the ins-and-outs of life as an inconsequential colostomy bag. Who knows, Jay, you might even come to understand that you really are just a chip off the ol' fecal pellet.

Safe ground is where you hide your coward-ass, Jay. You obviously have no understanding of why GIs don't approve of mistreatment of POWs, so do yourself a favor, and don't pretend to speak for GIs - cowards such as yourself haven't earned the privilege and we certainly don't need your unvarnished patronage.