Bush on Gog and Magog, surely this can't be true. (Palestinians, generations)

[sanrene]

Well, we know a little more than that, don't we?

We certainly know that Bush can read, he is a voracious reader in fact.

We know you are taking as evidence/fact from a known weasel and coward that claims he knows the reason why Bush went into Iraq - with really no evidence to support the claim, no corroboration (or even a question to Bush about the issue) from Bush or anyone else.

I know it is convenient as a bush-hater to believe such things, but really it just highlights a certain shallowness on your part.

[odanny]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Well, we know a little more than that, don't we?

We certainly know that Bush can read, he is a voracious reader in fact.

We know you are taking as evidence/fact from a known weasel and coward that claims he knows the reason why Bush went into Iraq - with really no evidence to support the claim, no corroboration (or even a question to Bush about the issue) from Bush or anyone else.

I know it is convenient as a bush-hater to believe such things, but really it just highlights a certain shallowness on your part.

Actually, your extreme bias makes you an even less credible and objective source than the Great Liar himself, the trained pony George W. Bush, who could lie on command and stay on message with the best of them.

And that is the one legacy that will stand with his tenure, that he was one of the most deceitful Presidents ever to occupy the White House.


September 12, 2001 was the beginning of a reign of propaganda not normally seen in the United States, but then again, has a President this stupid ever had a Vice President as manipulative as Dick Cheney?

Not to my knowledge

[sanrene]

September 12, 2001 was the beginning of a reign of propaganda not normally seen in the United States

Obama's campaign and first 100+ days in office has surpassed anything bush did by far.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Well, we know a little more than that, don't we?

We certainly know that Bush can read, he is a voracious reader in fact.

We know you are taking as evidence/fact from a known weasel and coward that claims he knows the reason why Bush went into Iraq - with really no evidence to support the claim, no corroboration (or even a question to Bush about the issue) from Bush or anyone else.

I know it is convenient as a bush-hater to believe such things, but really it just highlights a certain shallowness on your part.

My pet goat (even when it isn't upside down) doesn't really qualify as material suitable to a voracious reader, but hey, if you want crayons with that, then so be it.

What evidence do you have that Chirac is lying? Why do you think Chirac asked Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne to advise him on Bush's statements? This story was first mentioned by Romer in a French newspaper which was later then confirmed by Chirac himself.

So, please cite examples of why Chirac is a liar and a coward that are in evidence and not your opinion. If Bush is the voracious reader you claim then why hasn't he managed to read something on this being it is now in print globally and everywhere on the net? Surely if the Charleston Gazette in West Virgina has heard of this story, then Bush has, considering it is an extremely damning statement. Let me guess... plead ignorance again?

So far your only evidence is that YOU don't believe it, nothing more and that doesn't surprise me.

So let me ask you then, what if it IS true and Bush desired to enter into a war he viewed as a religious crusade against evil as foretold in the bible? You ok with that?

[sanrene]

My pet goat (even when it isn't upside down) doesn't really qualify as material suitable to a voracious reader, but hey, if you want crayons with that, then so be it.

I see you are following very closely the left-wing talking points. I'm surprised, to say the least.

Why do you think Chirac asked Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne to advise him on Bush's statements? This story was first mentioned by Romer in a French newspaper which was later then confirmed by Chirac himself.

Oh, I see now. Chirac asked Romer to "translate" some statement by bush, subsequent from him making the comment to Chirac. Or was Romer there in the meeting with Bush and Chirac? And then it wasn't Chirac who actually relayed the story, but Romer mentioned it in a newspaper and then Chirac confirmed? Do I have that right?

So far your only evidence is that YOU don't believe it, nothing more and that doesn't surprise me.

Well....you would think if there was any legitimacy to the statement, some reporter somewhere might ask him about it. Has anyone bothered to do that? If not, how would 'W' know about the statement? Has this book reached NYT bestseller list?

[cuebald]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Obama's campaign and first 100+ days in office has surpassed anything bush did by far.

Agreed.

We're moving in the right direction again and America is once more respected around the globe.

That may be due to the fact that President Obama doesn't own a ranch in Crawford.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by sanrene

I see you are following very closely the left-wing talking points. I'm surprised, to say the least.

Bush is idiot isn't a left wing talking point, it is evidenced by eight years of regressive ignorant statements that are more suitable coming from a child of 12, a daily butchery of the English language, moronic absolutism, and his prior statements which he previous publicly retracted about the Iraq war being a "crusade". Not to mention the fact that Bush was the furthest thing from a conservative to ever hold the office as a Republican President.

Oh, I see now. Chirac asked Romer to "translate" some statement by bush, subsequent from him making the comment to Chirac. Or was Romer there in the meeting with Bush and Chirac? And then it wasn't Chirac who actually relayed the story, but Romer mentioned it in a newspaper and then Chirac confirmed? Do I have that right?

What, you didn't read what I clearly stated not once, not twice, but now thrice? Do I need to draw a picture for you because obviously you are not comprehending the article I posted in the OP or the subsequent piece from GQ, in which both clearly stated what took place.

One last time, I'll even type slow. Chirac asked a theological scholar named Thomas Romer what Gog and Magog were, because when Bush asked Chirac, he didn't know what he was talking about. It was later reported in a French paper which then confirmed the story by asking Chirac directly if that was in fact what Bush said. Chirac confirmed that Bush had made this statement. Incidentally, it has since been reported in papers around the world and just because you don't believe it and think Chirac a liar and coward (which you still haven't offered any evidence as to him being either).

Clear now?

Well....you would think if there was any legitimacy to the statement, some reporter somewhere might ask him about it. Has anyone bothered to do that? If not, how would 'W' know about the statement? Has this book reached NYT bestseller list?

I see, so something is only legitimate if it is on the NY times best seller list huh? I have a book here on electrical theory that didn't make it to the best seller list either, so does that mean that electricity doesn't exist?

I realize that Bush isn't exactly a great public speaker, nor is he known to take questions from reporters or the public very often unless they are soldiers on base, so he may have been asked and ignored it, I have no idea.

Now you will jump up and down with an article from Pravada in your hand saying Obama is a Marxist because one reported there suggested it, yet you dismiss the former President of France because why... you think he is a coward and a liar, two things you have yet to show evidence of.

Do you think it is a good thing that a leader of the worlds most powerful nation and his finger on more working nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined believes he is fighting a war about Armageddon and the Rapture?

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by lilypad

What an enigma, to see Bush raked over the coals by fellow "americans". Be interesting to see what the history books reveal 100 years from now, but doubt this nation will even be relevant then. Would that the real enemy of our country be given the same rakeover....along with their 72 virgins.

Being critical of a corrupt administration does not earn quotations marks around our nationality.

We watched our nation taken hostage by a criminal regime in the White House for 8 years. We are simply getting it back on a morally righteous path.


Even if Bush's decision to lie about Iraq proves valuable, there are many things history cannot rewrite: failure to prevent 9/11, a horse guy in charge of FEMA as people died in Katrina, rigged elections, proven lies and deception....

[lilypad]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Being critical of a corrupt administration does not earn quotations marks around our nationality.

We watched our nation taken hostage by a criminal regime in the White House for 8 years. We are simply getting it back on a morally righteous path.


Even if Bush's decision to lie about Iraq proves valuable, there are many things history cannot rewrite: failure to prevent 9/11, a horse guy in charge of FEMA as people died in Katrina, rigged elections, proven lies and deception....

Up is down and down is up in the deranged new world of Obamanation.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Do you think it is a good thing that a leader of the worlds most powerful nation and his finger on more working nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined believes he is fighting a war about Armageddon and the Rapture?

Very disturbing indeed.