Lying about WMDs vs. Lying about blowjobs - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

directfiesta · 06-15-2003, 04:22 PM

And a bit more lies about civilian killings, Palestine Hotel attack and so on...

Iraqgate???

Quote:

With five out of 10 Americans believing that most of the terrorists who carried out the attack on 11 September were Iraqis, the American media decided that its readers and viewers were not interested in the plight of Iraqi victims. The New York Times said it aimed to capture the true nature of the war but avoid 'the gratuitous use of images simply for shock value'. The biggest radio group in the US, Clear Channel, used its stations to organise pro-war rallies. McVay Media, one of America's largest communications consulting companies, advised its radio clients to play 'patriotic music that makes you cry, salute and get cold chills', and under no circumstances cover war protests.

read the article for the lies:

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...977702,00.html

Quote:

US officials said the driver of the car failed to stop after warning shots and that troops had fired at the passenger cabin as 'a last resort'.

But William Branigin, of the Washington Post, embedded with the Third Infantry, witnessed the shooting. He reported that no warning shot was fired and that 10 people, not seven, were killed.

XYCash · 06-15-2003, 04:28 PM

Centurion · 06-15-2003, 06:57 PM

Let me introduce something that hasn't been discussed at all.
George Bush & company pushed the United States into the first ever "pre-emptive" attack on another sovereign nation.

The Republican Administration justified this by saying that there were massive amounts of WMDs (the most direct quote came from Colin Powell to the United Nation's Security Council shortly before the war began..and before the U.S. was able to get approval from a majority of Security Council members for the war)
that posed an IMMEDIATE threat to the security of the United States.

Why is any of the above important? Because this "new foreign policy" allows us to invade any nation that could POTENTIALLY attack us in the future. So..if we don't like some country's politics and can drum up information that they have WMDs or somehow pose a threat to the U.S., then we can attack them at will.

THIS is the precedent our president has set!

06-15-2003, 04:28 PM	#52
XYCash Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: here and there Posts: 582	__________________ XYCash Gay Affiliate Programs - Making Money For Webmasters Since 1999 - click here to sign up

06-15-2003, 06:57 PM	#53
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	Let me introduce something that hasn't been discussed at all. George Bush & company pushed the United States into the first ever "pre-emptive" attack on another sovereign nation. The Republican Administration justified this by saying that there were massive amounts of WMDs (the most direct quote came from Colin Powell to the United Nation's Security Council shortly before the war began..and before the U.S. was able to get approval from a majority of Security Council members for the war) that posed an IMMEDIATE threat to the security of the United States. Why is any of the above important? Because this "new foreign policy" allows us to invade any nation that could POTENTIALLY attack us in the future. So..if we don't like some country's politics and can drum up information that they have WMDs or somehow pose a threat to the U.S., then we can attack them at will. THIS is the precedent our president has set!