George is the GREAT PRETENDER

George pretends that he did not have relations with Chalabi.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040809/ts_nm/iraq_dc_118


George pretends that he did not have relations with Ken Lay.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/08/eveningnews/main621856.shtml


George pretends that he did not have relations with the Taliban.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

And most of all, George pretends that he did not have relations with OSAMA BIN LADEN!!.


http://www.bushnews.com/attack.htm

George should have been investigated and impeached long ago.

 

Up to your usual standards CyberFly.

Your "George pretends that he did not have relations with Chalabi" story doesn't even MENTION Bush.

Your "George pretends that he did not have relations with Ken Lay" story doesn't mention Bush either.


Your "George pretends that he did not have relations with the Taliban" story falsely states that Bush gave aid to the Taliban, when in fact the aid was given to humanitarian organisation operating in Afghanistan. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/2928.htm

And finally, you say that "And most of all, George pretends that he did not have relations with OSAMA BIN LADEN!!" and then link to a story which doesn't even close to saying that Bush had relations with bin Laden.

That's zero out of four.

 

LOL. US Dept of State website provided as proof that the story is false!? lol. Further evidence of your gullibility PB.

Citing PR put out by repeatedly exposed liars themselves is about as credible as saying the bible is the word of god simply because it says it is.

A used car salesman's wet dream you are!

 

This is government aid. Thus a State Deparment statement is the only possible primary source for information on this aid package. I could give you news stories which refer to exactly the same aid package and give exactly the same details, but why would that make it any more authoritative?

More importantly, do you deny that this aid went to humanitarian agencies, and do you have any sources that say differently? Or are you just being a troll?

 

Ahhh PB, the relations I was talking about are COMMOM KNOWLEDGE. I forgive you for living under a rock.


Don't you remember during the 2000 election Bush flew coast to coast in an ENRON company jet, and had photo ops golfing with Ken Lay?! What is really ironic is that the ENRON jet was behind Bush while he was giving a speech ON ETHICS!!!

 

I think the U.S. state department's statement on what aid THEY gave is certainly more credibile than a syndicated columnist's article on his own site. (Robert Scheer)

 

... Because they never lie...

 

And journalists are definitely the people to go to for truth.....

 

What I'm wondering is why you post things like this. I never said Bush had no relations with Enron, its just that your links are totally unrelated to your statements, and when asked why you just say that everything is "common knowledge". Why do you feel the need to provide unsupported, "common knowledge" statements multiple times in different forums? What exactly is the point?

You have also completely avoided explaining why you posted articles that say that Bush gave aid to the Taliban when this is completely false, and you provide nothing to explain how Bush "has relations with Osama Bin Laden".

And as I pointed out before, Ken Lay supported Bush yet his company was bankrupted, his auditor was put out of business, and he and dozens of other exectives are facing federal charges. If this is what supporting Bush gets you, I'd say stop flying Republicans around in your corporate jet.

================

And Edward, it's all good fun to say "hey look! he used a government source!" but the thing is nobody has actually challenged the facts in the state department press release. I could have just as easily posted a news story with exactly the same facts (written by a reporter who attended the press conference) and HER could say "hey look! he used a corporate media source!". Groupthink sheep ba ba etc etc and other standard bullshit.

Unless someone is going to deny that this aid went to humanitarian agencies and back it up, my version stands.

 

Actually there is truth in BOTH the L.A. Times column and Colin Powell's statement. Both are equally biased as well. What Colin Powell fails to mention is that Bush's priority in that part of the world prior to 9/11 was the same as his father's...The War on Drugs. He wanted to get into that region under the guise that we would be invading that country to eradicate drugs as we do in South America. That way we could get our oil companies in that region. The Taliban wanted us out of their "holy land". We ended up invading and laying oil pipe for a different reason. The war on terror instead of the war on drugs. It all worked out the same for Halliburton.

Republicans persist in this either/or fallacy.

False dichotomy: The unnecessary limiting of one's choices.

 

Except nobody is building the pipeline, and its already been three years. So Halliburton got nothing out of it.

 

Wrong again PB.

Bagram and Kandahar Airbase in Afghanistan: $52.2 million


http://www.warprofiteers.com/article.php?id=11230

That's just a start.


The U.S. Eyes Oil in Central Asia and Steps on Russia's Turf
THE NEW COLD WAR

WASHINGTON, D.C.—As the war winds down, the U.S. is eyeing Central Asia as a new colony. And as America projects its power across the region, it runs the risk of setting off a new cold war with Moscow. A few reasons why:
Big Oil is once again taking a hard look at prospects for building a pipeline carrying Caspian Sea oil across Afghanistan and down through Pakistan to ports on the Arabian Sea. "The large-scale projects aimed at building gas and oil pipelines linking the Caspian region with the attractive international market of the Arabian Sea may become the principal, if not the only, means to breathe a [new] life into Afghanistan," Martha Brill Olcott, a Carnegie Endowment scholar, told the Moscow paper Izvestia.

http://www.bushwatch.net/oil.htm



There will be more invasions for oil if Bush wins. Get ready for the DRAFT.

 

One of the most fun things about debating Cyberfly is the constant bait and switch. First Bush gave aid to the Taliban, then, well ok no he didn't but he wanted to get the oil companies into Afghanistan to build the pipeline. Then, ok, there is no pipeline, but Halliburton built a base. Of course every time you say that I have been "wrong" for pointing out your bullshit, while simply replacing it with new bullshit.

A $50 million base equals about 0.3% of Halliburton's 2003 sales of $16.2 billion. Was this the master plan CyberFly? 0.3%?

Interestingly, your link also shows some other Halliburton projects - Camp Bondsteel and Camp Monteith in Kosovo, valued at $829 mn, and Eagle Base and Camp McGovern in Bosnia/Herzegovinia, valued at $695 mn. Now I wonder which president those were built under?

Basically, you are saying Halliburton can build $1.5bn worth of bases under Clinton with Cheney as CEO, and that's cool, but a $50 mn base with Cheney no longer benefitting from Halliburton's financial performance, and that's evidence of some sort of conspiracy?

Can you please come up with some sort of story and try to stick to it?

 

I think people get the picture as to what is really going on.

 

Way to completely duck Pointbreak's question. You don't have an answer, so you just post a picture (which you didn't even make yourself)? I think this newfound art of debate deserves an award.

 

Thats funny

I think cyberfly makes people that appose this war look like idiots ...

 

Appose, eh? lol.

Bush asked the only question that matters: "Is our children learning?"

It seems not.

 

Question Max? Don't you mean loaded questions, as in rant? We both presented our views. I don't agree with his views. There is no bait and switch. If you look beyond the PB's myopic views you can see that Bush is invading oil producing countries and his selected oil companies are unfolding their economic plans.

Just the facts.

 

i don't care about my spelling to be honest...if you make a good point why care.. you can spell all the words correct and still be a fool.

'...all our children..' have you not noticed its the english education system that let me down

 

And there are many fools currently in power, whether they "appose" the war or not.