In article ,
says...

On 10/20/2011 8:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/20/11 8:09 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Oct 19, 7:34 pm, X ` wrote:
On 10/19/11 8:24 PM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 19, 7:22 pm, X ` wrote:
On 10/19/11 8:17 PM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 19, 7:07 pm, X ` wrote:
On 10/19/11 7:53 PM, Tim wrote:

After living in the US for several years, it looks like his aunt
received some kind of amnesty a year ago for medical and
political
reasons.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/100518

And his uncle was granted "backdoor amnesty' a month ago. then
disapeared from sight.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...airman-obama-u...


Shocking!

snerk

illegal residence+ drunk driving= amnesty?

I really do think there's more to the story....

It should be thoroughly investigated after dick cheney is broght to
justice.

Why after?

Because Cheney was involved in crimes that seriously hurt this nation.

Harry, then after all this time, how come he hasn't been brought up on
charges?

I think what you are saying is that because Cheney WON'T be charged
with anything ever, so the Obama's should never be investigated...
ever.

Am I right?

Jesus Christ. You want to investigate the Obamas over being able to
stay in the country but you have nothing to say about GW Bush and Dick
Cheney lying us into a war that cost 5000 Americans, 50,000 wounded
and 1 million Iraqis dead or displaced?

Your star is sinking, rapidly. Maybe I was foolish to give you any
credit for being a real Christian. My bad.

Congress approved the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.



The Bush Administration lied to Congress and everyone else on these
matters. It was treasonous behavior. Cheney should have been charged
with treason, but Obama gave him a pass.

No proof, no charges, no crime... Lucky he didn't tap his foot in a
bathroom..

Here's proof positive that Bush lied to congress. What say now?

The Congressional resolution authorizing Bush's War required the
president to certify to Congress that war was necessary. Part of that
letter (the full one is at Tom's site):

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001.
In other words, Bush is certifying that Iraq had a role in the 9-11
attacks, thus justifying the subsequent invasion.

But today, Bush said:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the
president said. But he also said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam
Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
And notice his use of the past tense ("we've had no evidence"),
precluding the possibility that they original thought a link existed.
The president's language is absolute -- "We've had no evidence".

Hence Bush's language in the certification letter to Congress is a
blatant L-I-E.

We shouldn't be surprised. The surprises come when they tell the truth.

Here's more!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...thecentury.php

'And mo

Bush made his remarks to reporters on 7-14-03 with UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan at his side, in response to a question from the Washington
Post.

As quoted on the White House Web site, Bush said:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?
And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the
inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a
reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

The Truth:

Everyone in the world knows that Saddam Hussein allowed a fully-equipped
team of UN inspectors to comb every inch of his country - including
previously off-limits Presidential palaces - for four full months."

George W. Bush knew this because he demanded that Iraq allow inspectors
to return in 2002.

He knew this because millions of citizens around the world took to the
streets to demand continued inspections, not war.

He knew this because he spoke about the inspections repeatedly, almost
daily.

He knew this because he specifically urged the inspectors to leave Iraq
when he issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq on March 17, 2003."

And mo

On 9-7-02 Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N.
atomic energy agency (IAEA) as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament.

Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked to reporters before
opening about three hours of talks at Camp David, Bush's presidential
retreat in Maryland.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new
construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's
development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report
by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that
said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said as he greeted Blair
for a brainstorming session on Iraq. "We owe it to future generations to
deal with this problem."

In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their
shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit
- and potential use - of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The Truth:

The IAEA report Bush cited was done before the 1991 Gulf War, yes
O'Reilly he lied buddy. Bush quoted a report that was done before the
1991 Gulf War, and he passed it off as a current report of intelligence
in 2002. Bush quotes an 11 year old IAEA report and told the American
people it was a current report. When in fact it was an 11 year old
report, this is called Lying O'Reilly. Unless you believe the President
of the United States did not know it was an 11 year old report, it is a
documented lie.

And in fact, the white house even later admitted it was an 11 year old
report. The only problem is they called it a mistake, yeah right, he
accidently quoted an 11 year old report about WMD's in Iraq. If anyone
believes that, contact me because I have some land to sell you.

A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998
report did not say what Bush claimed.

Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed
Bush's and Blair's assessment of the satellite photograph, which was
first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no
specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.

The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply
a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said.
He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly
and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had
previously examined.

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no
surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. "There is not a
single building we see," he said.

Need more? Just let me know!