Fools and their Lies

[mrmom2]

Besides the obvious bullshit lies that took us to Iraq, such as WMD’s, Saddam’s connection to 9-11, and the ever popular “He tried to kill my daddy,” there is the proof (?!?) that he murdered Kurds, Political Prisoners, and many others.

Since we have gone into Iraq, in 2002, approx. 26,719 civilians have been killed as a result of our invasion. Over 23 years, it has been said that Saddam killed over 61,000 citizens. If the law of averages applies to our current killing spree of 8906 Iraqi’s a year, in 23 years, we will manage to kill 204,838.
Now, these won’t all be from warfare. A large number will be from interrogations, prison conditions, destroyed water and sewage plants, and our militaries favorite, Depleted Uranium.

Now, we are attempting to install our will on the Iraqi’s by forcing a constitution on them, that they clearly do not want.

While all this has been going on, an illegally imprisoned Saddam sits and contemplates offers from the United States to “Throw the trial” in order to receive either a life prison term, in a US country club, or exile, to a sympathetic country. Why, you ask, would he do this? Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush.

Saddam knows where the bodies are buried (no pun intended), and who put them there.

Rumsfeld not only supplied Saddam with lethal gas, but supplied the mercenaries to assist him against Iran, and the Kurds.
Cheney and his connections to Haliburton have stood to rake in Billions upon Billions of dollars from stolen, unmetered oil, and the supplying of inflated priced goods, not only to the US Military, but to the Iraqi’s, as well.
And, the Bush Family, Poppy included, are the biggest worriers. For years they have been dealing with Saddam, against Iran, hiding their connections to the oil flowing out of Iraq, and using him as an “Ace in the Hole” against the Saudi Royal Family and Turkey.

If Saddam goes on trial, he’ll talk. If he is killed, in our custody, he will become a martyr. So, that leaves one choice. He’ll join Noriega and a few other high profile ex-rulers, or Idi Amin, wherever he is.

Before you, my dear, pissed off opposition start commenting furiously, on this article, ask yourself this. If the United States hands are soooo clean, why have Bush and company fought tooth and nail to distance us so far from being part of an International Court, which has been founded on the principals set forth, in part, from the Nuremberg Tribunal. If our soldiers are brought up on trial, they’ll talk about orders. If our Officers are brought up on trial, they’ll talk about where those orders came from.
And, if that happens, you’re going to see “Pigs Fly”, because, Bush and friends will never allow that to get in their way.

‘Nuff Said.

 

[no1important]

I bet they are slowly wishing they never caught Saddam yet. Would make Georgies life easier.

I still believe he will "commit suicide" or die from an "unexpected timely illness". He has too much dirt on certain high profile American politicians and they can not risk what comes out of his mouth at trial. It would be very interesting to hear what he has to say. Will be very embarrassing for "W" and company. But of course he will not make it to trial or if he does it will be censored and have a publication ban.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Good points. The LIES are coming back to haunt the liers......as they should. This Iraq situation was a disaster from its insane conception in the small mind of the bushcon.


would bet anything , "they" wish that SH had been killed while trying to escape or some such ruise. SH alive is a source of major embarrassment to the US..........which in turn will foster more lies , deception, disinformation, and childish fingerpointing.

what a circus. (insane as it is)

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: Fools and their Lies

I still believe he will "commit suicide" or die from an "unexpected timely illness".

:lol: That reminds me of something I saw....

 

[Ocean Breeze]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/082505.html


a "fool" who is a useful "idiot"(tool) to the main terrorist group on this planet now. A fool , (bush inc.) has played right into the "terrorists" hands. One could say that bush inc... is a recruiting poster child for "terrorism" now.

Meanwhile the "fool" continues to lie ...... and many fools like him , continue to "believe" him. :roll: :roll:


(sigh )

 

[Ocean Breeze]

August 27, 2005

On a steamy night in Zaire in 1974, Mohamed Ali fought George Foreman for the World Heavyweight boxing title. That was in the days when there was only one governing body of boxing and the championship meant something.

The undefeated Foreman was the odds-on favorite. He was the reigning champ and younger and stronger than his opponent. In addition, he was mainstream America’s challenge to the brash, draft-dodging Ali. After all, in 1972 Olympic Games, when Foreman won the boxing gold medal, he sat in his corner waving a small American flag.

For the first seven rounds, Ali stayed on the ropes and blocked Foreman’s punches. The fight announcers were bewildered. "Why is he doing this?" they pondered. "Why doesn’t he fight back?" By the end of the seventh round, many broadcasters were openly saying that Ali was over the hill. Foreman had pummeled him for seven rounds and taken away all of the former champ’s strength.

The eighth round began with the "experts" thinking it was just a matter of time until Foreman floored the braggart. Ali took to the middle of the ring for the first time, danced like the Ali of old, and knocked out Foreman. The shock was heard around the world.

It quickly became evident that Ali had planned what all the world saw. When interviewed, he called his strategy "rope-a-dope." Within a day all the sportswriters who predicted his demise were praising his foresight and intelligence.

The illegal invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq holds many similarities to the Ali-Foreman fight. A seemingly quick U.S. military victory in March and April of 2003, with fewer casualties than anybody predicted, ended with a victory statement on May 1, 2003 by George Bush standing under a huge banner stating, "Mission Accomplished."

The pro-war pundits were euphoric. They told of how the Iraqi Republican Guard who were supposed to defend Baghdad disappeared before a definitive battle. They were scared to stand up to the U.S.

The press reported the one-sided victory, but few asked why. Why did the Iraqi Republican Guard disappear? Why was there no one to be found in the Iraqi government? Why was there little opposition to the occupation of Iraq for a few weeks? The answer is that a plan had been on the books for a few years before the March invasion that organized a resistance to the occupation. Iraqi officials knew fully well that their dilapidated military was no match for the U.S. and if they stood head-to-head, the entire military and government would have been destroyed.

Within a few weeks of Bush’s victory announcement, Iraqis began firing back at the U.S. military, only this time on their terms, using ambushes and guerilla tactics. I call this well-planned resistance "rope-a-Bush."

We have heard every imaginable excuse for the resistance and every prediction that it was fragmented and it would only be a matter of time until it withered away. Condeleezza Rice said that U.S. forces faced similar resistance in Japan and Germany after WWII. When the facts emerged, it was discovered that not one American soldier was killed by either the Japanese or the Germans. Rice obtained her information from a bogus website that described a strong German resistance called "The Werewolves." No such entity ever existed.

"Disgruntled Ba’athists" shouted the administration about the resisters. "Dead-enders," "criminals," and other such designations were assessed. However, the more names given to the resistance, the more encompassing it became.

U.S. officials stated that once the Iraqis were handed over power in June 2004, the resistance would fade away. Since the "handover" that really was no handover, the resistance has become more powerful and organized.

The tactics of the resistance have proven deadly to the occupiers and to those Iraqis who work for the foreigners. In the past six months, more than 1,000 Iraq policemen have been assassinated. To take this into context, imagine 120,000 American policemen killed in six months. The U.S. has about 12-times the number of people of Iraq, so the 120,000 figure would be relative to what has occurred in Iraq. If one cop gets killed in America, it’s a nationwide event. Imagine 120,000 killed in six months.

In the past couple of months, I have written about the planned resistance. Former Republican Guard generals, former U.N. head embargo inspector Scott Ritter, and various other Iraqis, including scientists and other former officials, have stated that the resistance is well-organized, well-financed, and well-armed. Ritter called it a "brilliant" plan of Saddam Hussein. Still, the U.S. administration and the so-called opposition party, the Democrats, fail to recognize the nature of the resistance.

Finally, the words used to describe the resistance are beginning to come closer to reality. A headline on MSNBC.com read "Experts predict an extended war." Various military people are now saying that the U.S. will be in Iraq for years. Rumsfeld assessed that the war may run for a further 12 years. They are at last beginning to talk about the situation in real terms, however still not addressing certain major issues.

Attacks on U.S. forces average about 100 a day. They are well-planned and executed. The resistance has brought Iraqi oil production to a halt. Iraqi politicians, security forces, and police are being assassinated on a daily basis. Much of the country is controlled by local guerilla movements and neither the U.S. forces nor the Iraqi military or internal security forces will enter these areas. The only thing the quisling Iraqi government governs is its own safety as the people must guard their lives by staying imprisoned in a U.S. fortress called "The Green Zone."

Despite some journalists and some U.S. military officials getting closer to reality, the U.S. administration and the Democrats are still in denial. Bush keeps saying, "We’re in it for the long run. Iraq is free and democratic." Iraq is neither free nor democratic and the "long run" will greatly increase deaths of American occupiers and Iraqis.

During the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign, Kerry said he would put more troops in Iraq. Then he said he will bring the troops home in his first term. Which statement should we believe? They are both terrible decisions. More troops mean more war. According to his plan to bring troops home, they would be replaced by U.N. or international troops. He still didn’t get it. The Iraqi resistance will make things quite difficult for any foreign military presence: U.N, NATO, Arab or Eskimo. And, tell me a country that would be stupid enough to send its people to be killed in Iraq so the U.S. could pull its troops out.

A few journalists, and Scott Ritter, know how to stop the resistance and killing: pull all foreign troops from Iraq immediately. The naysayers state, "There would be a civil war." If there were, would it be any worse than the violence and destruction now occurring? I believe the only civil war that would ensue would be short. It would entail the current resistance against the Iraqi collaborators. Then, the Iraqis could determine their own future, not some people with polyester suits and Clairol-colored hair sitting in Washington.

I began this article with an analogy to sports and I will end it in the same manner. The former baseball great Yogi Berra is known for his fracturing of the English language in making one or two-sentence statements. They are called Berraisms. I doubt that Berra considers himself a political analyst, yet one of his famous quips is very accurate when discussing the Iraq issue: "It’s not over til it’s over."