Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

1.) Our strategy is succeeding . . . [Iraq] is on the path to democracy and freedom.” (2004 UN address]
Bush knew otherwise, since a July 2004 CIA report outlines three possibilities for Iraq ranging from “an Iraq whose stability would remain tenous” to “civil war”.

Republicans in Congress, such as Senator Chuck Hagel, claim “the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we’re winning. Right now, we’re not winning. Things are getting worse.”

2.)When asked during his October 28, 2003 press conference about the recent donor’s conference which produced only $13 billion in pledges - $23 billion short of expectations, Bush claimed “Iraqi oil revenues...coupled with private investments should make up the difference.”

Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has said that in the near-term oil industry revenues will cover only the industry's own costs. The administration has conceded that Iraqi oil revenues will be zero in 2003 and only $12.1 billion in 2004.

Secretary Rumsfeld proclaimed the war coalition “is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.”

“It’s a bald-faced lie” according to Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institute. Gulf War I had a 34-nation military force with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics, plus Japan which provided $4 billion in funding.

Operation Iraqi Freedom consists of only US and British troops with only Australia providing any military contribution, the rest are providing moral support. Rumsfeld’s coalition includes such military powers as the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras and Rwanda as well as countries such as Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands which do not even have a military.

Rumsfeld listed a number of countries who either opposed to the war, unaware of their inclusion or requested to be removed form the list including Angola, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia and the Solomon Islands.

Only seven percent of the coalition solders in Iraq are from outside the US.

3.) On December 16th, the President stated that “[w]e’re doing everything we can to protect the troops and it’s important for their loved ones to understand that.”

Approx. 30,000 soldiers lack body armor and are using Vietnam-era flack jackets that provide insufficient protection from shrapnel and bullets. The Bush administration refused to provide adequate funding in its last budget. The Senate Armed Services Chairman found this to be “totally unacceptable” and Congress provided funding to address this need. New armor was expected to reach Iraq by late December.



Yes, I could go on with the lies. We all could.


My point here is, can we really trust these self-serving liars with intel on Iran? Gen. Pace doesn't think so.

5 comments:

fallenmonk said...

Now you are getting it. Nothing they say can be trusted without independent verification. Once you accept the reality of it it works pretty well. Just remember the rule...everything is a lie until proven otherwise.

Ziem said...

Or the "other" rule fallen, If they say it - it's bound to be a freakin' lie.

Faded said...

And with the Powerful Liberal Media on top of this...

(Sigh)

Well, at least with Fitzgerald exposing that most of the major MSM anchors are in bed with the Republican party, we can finally shut down THAT right winger myth once and for all.

Russert, Matthews, Novak...
all the biggest names in Political MSM and all in the pocket of the White House.

Anonymous said...

"it’s important for their loved ones to understand that.”

It's also important to know that Bush will cut their benefits if they get wounded.

A few months ago Bush and the Republicans tried to cut funding for brain injury research for vets from $14 million to $7 million and with the announcement the other day that he cut veterans benefits again, he eliminated the entire program.

Of course, none of our men and women fighting in Iraq receive any brain injuries, so what the hell.

Yeah, they support the troops all right. Just as long as they don't get wounded.

Anonymous said...

You people have to get your brains around the concept - broken down warrior is like a cancelled cheque...sort of doing business the neo-con way.