View Full Version : Pat Robertson:I warned Bush Jr about Casualties In Iraq
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. "Christian" Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."
Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."
"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
Robertson, the televangelist who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.
"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."
More than 1,100 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and another 8,000 troops have been wounded in the ongoing campaign, with the casualty toll significantly increasing in the last six months as the insurgency there has deepened.
Asked why Bush has refused to admit to mistakes on Iraq, Robertson said, "I don't know this politics game. You know, you can never say you were wrong because the opposition grabs onto it: 'See, he admitted he screwed up.' "
Even as Robertson criticized Bush for downplaying the potential dangers of the Iraq war, he heaped praise on Bush, saying he believes the president will win the election and that "the blessing of heaven is on Bush."
"Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him," Robertson said.
So let me see if I got this right, Pat......
This son of a bitch is so delusional that he thinks he can invade a country with NO CASUALTIES, and so arrogant that he can't even see where he made a mistake - let alone admit to one - and you still believe GOD wants him elected????
Better put down those financial reports from your Liberian diamond mine and pick up that Bible and actually read it, "Reverend"!
ODShowtime
10-20-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by FORD
"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."
Funny how God told these two completely different things. Or is gw lying about what God really told him? Or maybe... God didn't really tell him anything at all.:eek:
Warham
10-20-2004, 09:45 AM
You're delusional, FORD, but God still loves you.
Bush might have been mistaken about the casualties, but that doesn't mean that God is going to cut him off, or not provide his support. After all, he knows his creatures are sinners.
Anything is possible with Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by Warham
You're delusional, FORD, but God still loves you.
If my "delusions" resulted in the deaths of 5000 Americans and 30,000 Muslim civillians, I wouldn't expect His endorsement.
Bush might have been mistaken about the casualties, but that doesn't mean that God is going to cut him off, or not provide his support. After all, he knows his creatures are sinners.
Anything is possible with Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ only makes things possible for those who live by His teachings and commandments, which Junior clearly does not.
Warham
10-20-2004, 10:05 AM
FORD, you sound like you sleep in the same bed as W. does. How do you know whether he adheres to his teachings? How do you know George doesn't get on his knees by his bed every night?
You can't always tell somebody is a believer by watching cable news, and reading biased articles in the print media. Sometimes you can't even know if you know a person closely. I know I've done some things un-Christian-like, but it doesn't mean I don't believe, or God doesn't bless me.
God can bless W., and I believe he has.
John Kerry
10-20-2004, 10:33 AM
George Bush is out of touch!
diamondD
10-20-2004, 10:42 AM
I don't think anyone that posts as Jesus Christ really has a leg to stand on when judging other people's beliefs. ;)
If you truly believe, then you would know that's a top 10 sin.
Mezro
10-20-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Warham
How do you know George doesn't get on his knees by his bed every night?
Especially when Uncle Dick sleeps over:D
Mezro...I think George W's faith is all an act...the quickest way to success in politics is by pandering to the Religious Right...
Warham
10-20-2004, 03:17 PM
Please Mezro...
Kerry panders more to the pro-abortion crowd to get women's votes than Bush panders to the Christian right.
Snake
10-20-2004, 03:27 PM
http://www.gordonkeith.com/wordpress/wp-content/thumb-KerryZombie.jpg
Warham
10-20-2004, 03:28 PM
Is that the Incredible Jean-Francois Kerry??
Jerry Falwell
10-20-2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Jesus Christ only makes things possible for those who live by His teachings and commandments, which Junior clearly does not.
If this is the case then why does the Bible say this most unholy one?
(God told Abraham...) I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Gen 12.2-3
He never said who he would bless, but simply that he would bless those who bless the Jews. So in theory, and only in theory, if President Bush was not truly a christian... he would still have God's blessings raining down on him since he has chosen to protect God's chosen people.
diamond den™
10-20-2004, 06:00 PM
Pat Robertson is a fucking Asshole.
diamond den™
10-20-2004, 07:39 PM
I like weenies
JCOOK
10-20-2004, 09:49 PM
Ford, When did you start quoting Pat
Originally posted by JCOOK
Ford, When did you start quoting Pat
About 1980 or so, I think. He's always had some great stuff for comedy material.
But the 700 Club's never been the same without Ben :(
JCOOK
10-21-2004, 02:50 AM
Is that the same time you and ole Jim Baker,Bennie Hinn and Jimmy Swaggert hookked up?
bueno bob
10-21-2004, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by JCOOK
Is that the same time you and ole Jim Baker,Bennie Hinn and Jimmy Swaggert hookked up?
Benny Hinn can kiss my ass.
"The next words you hear come from my mouth will be the words of God Himself..."
(falls into a "trance")
And then goes on to say after "God speaks to his people" that anybody who didn't believe that that was GOD HIMSELF speaking was "Condemned to Hell".
I'm NOT making that shit up, I actually saw that on one of his stupid TV send-me-money shows.
Fucking people like that make me sick. Just my two cents.
BigBadBrian
10-21-2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by diamondD
I don't think anyone that posts as Jesus Christ really has a leg to stand on when judging other people's beliefs. ;)
If you truly believe, then you would know that's a top 10 sin.
Indeed. :gulp:
BigBadBrian
10-21-2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by diamond den™
Pat Robertson is a fucking Asshole.
Recognize your own kind, huh? ;)
Sgt Schultz
10-21-2004, 09:31 AM
This is a new low for FORD. If anyone had posted some quote by Robertson here about how he doesn't like Kerry he'd discredit it in a second.
Now he believes Pat Robertson, who is a megalomaniac pissant with former and future Presidential aspirations.
No way. No fucking way did Bush think that a war in Iraq would result in 0 casualties.
ODShowtime
10-21-2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
No way. No fucking way did Bush think that a war in Iraq would result in 0 casualties.
Maybe gw didn't know what the word "casualties" meant back then...
Sgt Schultz
10-21-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Maybe gw didn't know what the word "casualties" meant back then...
C'mon OD, I thought at least YOU were smarter than that.
ODShowtime
10-21-2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
C'mon OD, I thought at least YOU were smarter than that.
Just havin' some fun. That's really all we can do Schultz.
Nickdfresh
10-21-2004, 10:54 AM
Interesting statements which I saw live on Paula "sexy zipper chic" Zahn. Maybe ol' Pat is conflicted and really doesn't like W all that much despite his God loves a man who prays rhetoric. Oh ya', isn't this the same old fucking creep that gave a back handed kudos to Osama Bin-Douchebag basically saying that our sinful nation deserved to be attacked by like-minded religious extremists.
When taking a communications course I had a very leftist professor who liked to show the satellite feeds of politicians, dogmatic pseudo-religious phonies, etc. In one clip-warm, grandfatherly ol' Pat went on a four-letter word rampage at his grips. It was really, really funny.
I also saw a clip where George Bush senior was having an off-the-record conversation with Larry King after the official program ended. You should have heard how the two bastards talked about how they both over-used and abused prescription pain-killers and cold medicine.:mad2:
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
This is a new low for FORD. If anyone had posted some quote by Robertson here about how he doesn't like Kerry he'd discredit it in a second.
Now he believes Pat Robertson, who is a megalomaniac pissant with former and future Presidential aspirations.
No way. No fucking way did Bush think that a war in Iraq would result in 0 casualties.
Schultz, I had some hope for you after that first debate. At that point it seemed that you had finally seen Junior for the clueless fucking moron that he truly is.
Remember that in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion that all the PNAC'ers (Perle, Wolfoshitz, Rummy etc) were making public statements that Iraq would be a "cakewalk". In and out with no loss of American lives and the grateful Iraqis welcoming us with candy and flowers.
That is the picture they painted. Of course I never bought it for a minute. Most people with brains probably didn't, including George Bush Sr. (see the quote in my signature)
But then who ever said Junior has brains?
Pat Robertson has absolutely nothing to gain by lying about this. He's obviously still endorsing Junior, even still claiming that God wants the idiot to win, so to assume he made this up to attack Junior would be extremely counter-productive.
A right wing extremist Supreme Court is Pat's main goal. He can't get that without the Chimp occupying the White House.
ODShowtime
10-21-2004, 12:09 PM
I think Pat just fucked up and said something stupid, like they all do.
I saw him say the bold part on TV this morning too, so it's not a bad quote or anything. Just a religious whacko saying something stupid.
Sgt Schultz
10-21-2004, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Schultz, I had some hope for you after that first debate. At that point it seemed that you had finally seen Junior for the clueless fucking moron that he truly is.
Remember that in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion that all the PNAC'ers (Perle, Wolfoshitz, Rummy etc) were making public statements that Iraq would be a "cakewalk". In and out with no loss of American lives and the grateful Iraqis welcoming us with candy and flowers.
That is the picture they painted. Of course I never bought it for a minute. Most people with brains probably didn't, including George Bush Sr. (see the quote in my signature)
But then who ever said Junior has brains?
Pat Robertson has absolutely nothing to gain by lying about this. He's obviously still endorsing Junior, even still claiming that God wants the idiot to win, so to assume he made this up to attack Junior would be extremely counter-productive.
A right wing extremist Supreme Court is Pat's main goal. He can't get that without the Chimp occupying the White House.
Rummy, and no one in the administration ever said that Iraq would be a cakewalk.
ZahZoo
10-21-2004, 01:06 PM
Pat Robertson is irrelevant... change the channel.
Sgt Schultz
10-21-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Remember that in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion that all the PNAC'ers (Perle, Wolfoshitz, Rummy etc) were making public statements that Iraq would be a "cakewalk". In and out with no loss of American lives and the grateful Iraqis welcoming us with candy and flowers.
Total and complete bullshit. and, the Iraqis DID welcome us - some with flowers.
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Total and complete bullshit. and, the Iraqis DID welcome us - some with flowers.
The only welcome with flowers these troops got........http://mikelynaugh.com/Editorial/Images/WolfowitzWreatha.jpg
....was the "welcome home", unfortunately.
And yes, it should be Wolfoshitz IN a grave, not decorating one :mad:
Warham
10-21-2004, 02:07 PM
Iraq was a military cakewalk. It took two weeks to go into Baghdad. In fact, they think it was almost too quick, looking in hindsight.
The only problem is, they didn't expect every terrorist from every crack in the pavement of the world's sidewalks to slither into Iraq to stir up trouble.
Considering Saddam had no weapons and no military, it's hardly surprising. But then to admit that would have meant they had to admit PNAC's true motivation - permanent occupation of Iraq, as in 14 permanent military bases.
And for what purpose?
Oil - sure, that's part of it.
Launching pad for future PNAC invasions? Yeah you're getting warmer.
Just remember who PNAC really works for....
Sgt Schultz
10-21-2004, 02:15 PM
You were saying.....?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol1.0007.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol2.0006.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol2.0003.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol2.0002.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol1.0001.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol1.0003.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.parcol2.0005.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.ParBottom.0003.ImageFile.jpg
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fstack/here.ParBottom.0004.ImageFile.jpg
JimmytheWurm
10-21-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Snake
http://www.gordonkeith.com/wordpress/wp-content/thumb-KerryZombie.jpg
When approached about his inability to give clear answers on issues and stick to his guns, Kerry was quoted as saying..."Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
According to eye witnesses he then proceeded to pick up a telephone pole and used it to smash the integrity of the American people.
bueno bob
10-21-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by JimmytheWurm
When approached about his inability to give clear answers on issues and stick to his guns, Kerry was quoted as saying..."Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
According to eye witnesses he then proceeded to pick up a telephone pole and used it to smash the integrity of the American people.
LOL...
Funny insert :)
Nickdfresh
10-22-2004, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Total and complete bullshit. and, the Iraqis DID welcome us - some with flowers.
Where are the flowers now? We sent too few troops to secure the country. This has helped ingrain a deep distrust at best in the Iraqi's, if not outright hatred and widespread if shallow support for the insurgents. That's what happens when you have asshole Neocon civilian leaders like Wolfawitz and Rummy telling Generals how to fight wars with a downsized military. It is also what happens when you attack the people who didn't attack you in the first place.:confused:
Sgt Schultz
10-22-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Where are the flowers now? We sent too few troops to secure the country. This has helped ingrain a deep distrust at best in the Iraqi's, if not outright hatred and widespread if shallow support for the insurgents. That's what happens when you have asshole Neocon civilian leaders like Wolfawitz and Rummy telling Generals how to fight wars with a downsized military. It is also what happens when you attack the people who didn't attack you in the first place.:confused:
Wrong on all accounts. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated them and want us to stay until things are more stable. We have more than enough troops, this is a myth. The generals got what they asked for. If they wanted more they would have asked for it. If you don't think that we should have liberated Iraq then you must believe we should withdraw NOW and reinstate the fromer President.
diamond den™
10-22-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Wrong on all accounts. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated them and want us to stay until things are more stable. We have more than enough troops, this is a myth. The generals got what they asked for. If they wanted more they would have asked for it. If you don't think that we should have liberated Iraq then you must believe we should withdraw NOW and reinstate the fromer President.
More Stable????? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
:)
JimmytheWurm
10-22-2004, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by diamond den™
More Stable????? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
:)
I think what Diamond is saying here is that you need to be at least a little stable to begin with before you can become more stable.
Also, more stable than what? A fat drunk man eating ice cream as he swims out to see screaming "I am Poseiden, tremble before my peanut butter ripple."
ODShowtime
10-22-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Wrong on all accounts. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated them and want us to stay until things are more stable. We have more than enough troops, this is a myth. The generals got what they asked for. If they wanted more they would have asked for it. If you don't think that we should have liberated Iraq then you must believe we should withdraw NOW and reinstate the fromer President.
Schultz, you've stated repeatedly that if we don't agree with how we invaded Iraq that we must support Saddam's reinstatement. I don't agree with that. It's more than black and white.
Also, you say the generals got what they asked for. Didn't a couple dissenting generals have to retire because they wouldn't have gotten what they asked for?
Sgt Schultz
10-22-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Schultz, you've stated repeatedly that if we don't agree with how we invaded Iraq that we must support Saddam's reinstatement. I don't agree with that. It's more than black and white.
Also, you say the generals got what they asked for. Didn't a couple dissenting generals have to retire because they wouldn't have gotten what they asked for?
Sorry but it is in fact black and white. If you think it was WRONG to liberate Iraq that means that you were OK with what Iraq was before we invaded. Can't have it both ways, sorry.
Not a single General agrees completely with another General's ideas regarding tactics and strategy - they never have and never will. Sure, you'll find some Generals that think we needed more troops but that proves nothing. Go back and read about any war and how Generals fought tooth and nail with each other about how things should be done.
The basic military doctrine is to have the minimum amount of occupation troops that you need - and not one more. Remember how people bitched and moaned about how we had WAAAY too few troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to topple the governments and setup new governments? Well they were wrong then and wrong now. If we had 500,000 more troops in Iraq do you think we'd have any less violence there? No, in fact there would probably be more.
There were 292 American KIAs in the 1st GUlf War - in "100 Hours" of combat - 100 hours. And Saddam was still in power in Iraq and we didnt occupy an inch of the country.
If the critics of Bush would just sit and THINK instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to oppose ANYTHING Bush does or find fault with EVERY setback then the'd be able to see why things are done they way they have been.
ODShowtime
10-22-2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
The basic military doctrine is to have the minimum amount of occupation troops that you need - and not one more. Remember how people bitched and moaned about how we had WAAAY too few troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to topple the governments and setup new governments? Well they were wrong then and wrong now. If we had 500,000 more troops in Iraq do you think we'd have any less violence there? No, in fact there would probably be more.
My point of view is that the lawlessness that erupted in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's downfall was worsened by the lack of troops. That atmosphere continues to this day. When people were suddenly "free" they went fucking apeshit and stole everything that wasn't nailed down. I've been in riots before (on my front door step) and that mob mentality requires force to be broken up.
Add to that the annoyance of having no water and electricity for months (partly our fault partly not, we could get in-depth) and people were just like "fuck it."
Also, our troops weren't around to secure all kinds of ammo dumps, as well as to be able to execute the house-to-house searches that are necessary to get everyone's personal AK's off the street.
That folly along with not incinerating more of the army when it was still together, compouned with the absolute foolishness of disbanding the army, thereby creating thousands of pissed-off, dirt-poor but decently trained and pre-organized cells leads to the shitstorm out troops are enduring.
The decision itself to go into Iraq is debatable. I think we should have allowed that one last round of diplomacy. I already know you disagree with that.
But, I feel that many of the decisions made after we were there were the REAL shitty ones Schultz.
Warham
10-22-2004, 03:31 PM
One last round of diplomacy?
Was Saddam going to listen to us after the umpteenth time he kicked out inspectors and shot at our planes?
Or were we going to go back to the UN, which Saddam had bribed through the Oil For Food program?
I'd like to know which method was going to work.
ODShowtime
10-22-2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Warham
One last round of diplomacy?
Was Saddam going to listen to us after the umpteenth time he kicked out inspectors and shot at our planes?
Or were we going to go back to the UN, which Saddam had bribed through the Oil For Food program?
I'd like to know which method was going to work.
I know Warham, diplomacy failed for 10 years. But we could have had a much more credible stamp of legitimacy on the invasion, which would have most likely stifled the resistance.
Warham
10-22-2004, 03:40 PM
OD,
There was never going to be a credible stamp. The UN was NEVER going to do anything about Iraq, except maybe slap Saddam on the hand. If we had EVER gone over there, the UN would have had a heart attack, and the European Union would have been their usual snooty selves. George W. Bush or any president wouldn't have had the UN's approval for this invasion.
ODShowtime
10-22-2004, 03:46 PM
recent evidence tends to support your point of view...
Sgt Schultz
10-22-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
My point of view is that the lawlessness that erupted in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's downfall was worsened by the lack of troops. That atmosphere continues to this day. When people were suddenly "free" they went fucking apeshit and stole everything that wasn't nailed down. I've been in riots before (on my front door step) and that mob mentality requires force to be broken up.
Add to that the annoyance of having no water and electricity for months (partly our fault partly not, we could get in-depth) and people were just like "fuck it."
Also, our troops weren't around to secure all kinds of ammo dumps, as well as to be able to execute the house-to-house searches that are necessary to get everyone's personal AK's off the street.
That folly along with not incinerating more of the army when it was still together, compouned with the absolute foolishness of disbanding the army, thereby creating thousands of pissed-off, dirt-poor but decently trained and pre-organized cells leads to the shitstorm out troops are enduring.
The decision itself to go into Iraq is debatable. I think we should have allowed that one last round of diplomacy. I already know you disagree with that.
But, I feel that many of the decisions made after we were there were the REAL shitty ones Schultz.
Fair enough, those are valid points to debate and argue. I submit that much of the problems were caused by our "ally" (bribed) Turkey not allowing the 4th Division to enter Iraq from the north. Most of the "shitstorm" Americans are encountering are not from Iraqis, they are foreign terrorists. No matter what, no matter how many troops we would have had or will have they would have come into Iraq. The water electricy situation improves daily.
ODShowtime
10-24-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Fair enough, those are valid points to debate and argue. I submit that much of the problems were caused by our "ally" (bribed) Turkey not allowing the 4th Division to enter Iraq from the north. Most of the "shitstorm" Americans are encountering are not from Iraqis, they are foreign terrorists. No matter what, no matter how many troops we would have had or will have they would have come into Iraq. The water electricy situation improves daily.
I wonder what it would have taken to successfully bribe Turkey? 3 billion apparently wasn't enough. It would have definitely made a difference in the opening days and weeks if that would have succeeded amd we had a division coming from the North.
The ratio of foreign to local insurgents I think is under dispute depending on who you ask. Logical reasons for the presence of both can be found.
How many more troops do you think we would have needed to make any difference in securing the borders with Syria and Iran?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.