The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

[LaMidRighter]

Yeah he was real classy playing with that guitar while people in NO were drowning in the streets...

While their mayor(first response) and our then governer(second response) did everything absolutely the wrong way and forced the third responders to have to carry the major burden of the emergency work. I live in this state and my dad was national guard, I am familiar with emergency protocol and trust me, it wasn't the president's fault entirely, or even a major portion of it, but you can continue to stay on the other side's talking points.

He was real classy when he didn't raise taxes to pay for his war and put that repayment burden on future generations... Actually I consider that treasonous, but that's just me.

Because he didn't raise taxes? You know the revolution started because of excessive taxation right? Besides, defense is mandated by the constitution, other programs should have been cut in lieu of a tax increase that are NOT provided for by the United States constitution. Funny you should want more taxes for a war you seem bitter about and one that was voted for on a bi-partisan basis. How is it Bush's war if it was voted on by both sides. BTW, don't try that whole Bush lied tactic, it's played out.

He was real liberal on his "no child left behind" program that he underfunded so that it didn't actually work...

Ted Kennedy authored the bill if my memory serves correctly, but yeah, Bush should have put the veto pen to it, I agree.

 

[LaMidRighter]

re the bolded part...
and how have they shown their gratitude? by killing our troops on the streets...we should bail out of there and let the chips fall where they may...

Ordinarily I would agree with that statement, but the power vacuum that would create would be a nightmare scenario IMO.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Because he didn't raise taxes? You know the revolution started because of excessive taxation right?

Do you realize how many times MORE taxes we now pay in comparaison to the tax that sparked the revolution?

Besides, defense is mandated by the constitution, other programs should have been cut in lieu of a tax increase that are NOT provided for by the United States constitution. Funny you should want more taxes for a war you seem bitter about and one that was voted for on a bi-partisan basis. How is it Bush's war if it was voted on by both sides. BTW, don't try that whole Bush lied tactic, it's played out.

Ok, looking at the Downing street memo... it's possible he DID NOT lie, by having the CIA present him with ONLY the intelligence that would allow for a war on Iraq, he didn't HAVE to lie...

The thing is : support for a war would be reduced, possibly greatly reduced if the people knew that it meant making cuts in other areas. The reason being, if the people SAW what the costs of an aggressive war they might not be so apt to send the soldiers to die.

That may be part of why the cost for the war started at such a lowballed number of what, 1-5 billion? and now it's cost what? half a trillion?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Do you realize how many times MORE taxes we now pay in comparaison to the tax that sparked the revolution?

Yes I do, and it is borderline treason to ask for that much or more.

Ok, looking at the Downing street memo... it's possible he DID NOT lie, by having the CIA present him with ONLY the intelligence that would allow for a war on Iraq, he didn't HAVE to lie...

Third party memo? Hmmm, I kinda like to have more concrete evidence than that.

The thing is : support for a war would be reduced, possibly greatly reduced if the people knew that it meant making cuts in other areas. The reason being, if the people SAW what the costs of an aggressive war they might not be so apt to send the soldiers to die.

Doesn't matter, defense(military), Infrastructure(roads and bridges), And printing money are all that the government are allowed and required to do.

That may be part of why the cost for the war started at such a lowballed number of what, 1-5 billion? and now it's cost what? half a trillion?

Regardless of the fact that this war has cost less than the "war on poverty" or war on drugs, neither of which have any defensive purposes whatsoever, costs of war change as things develop, this is true for all wars and always has been.

 

[JMak]

Third party memo? Hmmm, I kinda like to have more concrete evidence than that.

It's worse than that merely being a third party memo (which misunderstands the status of the memo anyway). It's at least four steps removed if I recall correctly. That memo records the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.

Bush critics assert, just as Bman is, that the Memo reveals that the administration manipulated or faked intelligence. Which is a curious charge considering that the conclusions and estimates reached from that allegedly faked intelligence were very nearly the same as the prior conclusions and estimates provided to the Clinton administration. But facts rarely matter to some people.

 

[ADK_Forever]

It's worse than that merely being a third party memo (which misunderstands the status of the memo anyway). It's at least four steps removed if I recall correctly. That memo records the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.

Bush critics assert, just as Bman is, that the Memo reveals that the administration manipulated or faked intelligence. Which is a curious charge considering that the conclusions and estimates reached from that allegedly faked intelligence were very nearly the same as the prior conclusions and estimates provided to the Clinton administration. But facts rarely matter to some people.

You guys are a laugh riot! :2rofll: No matter what proof is put in front of you, you just keep on yammering the same crap. Do you really believe that if you say a falsehood enough times that it will eventually come true? Holy shiite, Batman!!!

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to discredit former U.S. Ambassador, Joe Wilson?

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to expose a covert CIA agent?

Why did Bush and Cheney NOT listen to any of the intelligence experts who told them "repeatedly" that the story about Iraq buying yellow cake uranium from Niger could NOT be authenticated?

Why did Bush refuse to remove those 16 words from his speech "AFTER" he was told, in no uncertain terms, by CIA Director Tenet that the original Italian documents, that led them on the yellow cake wild goose chase, were suspected forgeries?

Bush and Cheney knew BEFORE invading an innocent country that Iraq had NO connection with 9/11 and that it had no WMDs!

You neo-cons can repeat your stories about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 more times and nothing will change. :lol:

Your antics remind me of the definition of "insane": Doing (or in your case "saying") the same thing over and over and over, expecting different results.

I'll give you this, you ARE relentless. But, so is a dog chasing his tail.

 

[JMak]

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to discredit former U.S. Ambassador, Joe Wilson?

I'm not sure about such a conspiracy or that they were seeking to discredit Wilson. But I would argue that the White House has some recourse to fight against lies and that's what they were doing wrt Wilson. The Senate concluded that Joe Wilson was a liar (for example, relying on forged documents that he hadn't seen). I would expect the White House to respond to such lies.

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to expose a covert CIA agent?

They didn't. The CIA outted her first to the Cubans. Then Joe Wilson via David Corn at The Nation outted her. Then Richard Armitage, Powell's right-hand man and no friend of Bush, outted her.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald completely disagrees with you about Plame being illegally outted.

Why did Bush and Cheney NOT listen to any of the intelligence experts who told them "repeatedly" that the story about Iraq buying yellow cake uranium from Niger could NOT be authenticated?

They did listen. They listened to Joe Wilson who upon his return told the CIA debriefers that a Niger trade official believed that Iraq was attempting to purchase enriched uranium. Joe Wilson was peddling that Iraq had not purchased such material, but that was never the question because the claim was that Iraq was attempting to purchase enriched uranium.

Why did Bush refuse to remove those 16 words from his speech "AFTER" he was told, in no uncertain terms, by CIA Director Tenet that the original Italian documents, that led them on the yellow cake wild goose chase, were suspected forgeries?

Because the Brits were not backing off their intelligence.

Bush and Cheney knew BEFORE invading an innocent country that Iraq had NO connection with 9/11 and that it had no WMDs!

Bush and Cheney knew? Evidence, please?

Now you're just lying, again.

I love how you insist on lying and twisting facts to suit your wild conspiracies...very entertaining...

 

[OhioPlayer]

What is more important?
a) protection/safety
b) individual rights

Without safety and protection "we the people" would not be that concerned about individual rights if America was invaded or bombed.

Imagine if Russia nuked the U.S.A, would you be more concerned about individual rights or safety and protection for the citizens of America?

 

[LaMidRighter]

It's worse than that merely being a third party memo (which misunderstands the status of the memo anyway). It's at least four steps removed if I recall correctly. That memo records the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.

Bush critics assert, just as Bman is, that the Memo reveals that the administration manipulated or faked intelligence. Which is a curious charge considering that the conclusions and estimates reached from that allegedly faked intelligence were very nearly the same as the prior conclusions and estimates provided to the Clinton administration. But facts rarely matter to some people.

I'd always heard third party memo, but hey, why use something concrete when anything will do? Right? If such a far removed document can be used to accuse the president of such horrible things then it will be easy to impeach presidents we don't agree with in the future, possibly Mr. Obama will be the new test case? I am joking but hey, Clinton's purjury conviction didn't phase the same side that overuses a very suspicious methodology for proving their opponents guilt.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Originally by ADK_Forever
Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby *conspired to discredit former U.S. Ambassador, Joe Wilson*?

I'm not sure about such a conspiracy or that they were seeking to discredit
Wilson. But I would argue that the White House has some recourse to fight
against lies and that's what they were doing wrt Wilson. The Senate concluded that Joe Wilson was a liar (for example, relying on forged documents that he hadn't seen). I would expect the White House to respond to such lies.

Are you sure about anything? :roll:

Hey, bold faced Liar, Bush is on his way out of town, right after he pardons his gang and himself. He's not going after anyone because he knows he's as much a criminal as you are a liar.

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby *conspired to expose a covert CIA agent*?

They didn't. The CIA outted her first to the Cubans. Then Joe Wilson via David Corn at The Nation outted her. Then Richard Armitage, Powell's right-hand man and no friend of Bush, outted her.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald completely disagrees with you about Plame being illegally outted.

Prove it LIAR!

Why did Bush and Cheney NOT listen to any of the intelligence experts who told them "repeatedly" that the story about Iraq buying yellow cake uranium from
Niger *could NOT be authenticated*?

They did listen. They listened to Joe Wilson who upon his return told the CIA debriefers that a Niger trade official believed that Iraq was attempting to
purchase enriched uranium. Joe Wilson was peddling that Iraq had not purchased
such material, but that was never the question because the claim was that Iraq
was attempting to purchase enriched uranium.

Prove it Liar!

Joe Wilson wasn't "peddling" anything. He found out what dubya and dickie were doing by accident.

Why did Bush refuse to remove those 16 words from his speech "AFTER" he was told, in no uncertain terms, by CIA Director Tenet that "the original Italian
documents, that led them on the yellow cake wild goose chase, were suspected
forgeries"?

Because the Brits were not backing off their intelligence.

Prove it Liar!

The Brits didn't have the latest intel. dubya and dickie did!
THAT dog won't hunt LIAR!

*Bush and Cheney knew BEFORE invading an innocent country that Iraq had NO connection with 9/11 and that it had no WMDs!*

Bush and Cheney knew? Evidence, please?
Now you're just lying, again.

I love how you insist on lying and twisting facts to suit your wild
conspiracies...very entertaining...

And I love how whenever facts are smashed up into your lying face, that prove you're WRONG again!, you revert to a child and cry, "You liar". Puh-leeze. Grow up and join the discussion.... you LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! :2wave::2wave::2wave:

I'm curious, just how many times have you called someone a liar? Kind of a weak argument, don't ya think?

 

[LaMidRighter]

You guys are a laugh riot! :2rofll: No matter what proof is put in front of you, you just keep on yammering the same crap. Do you really believe that if you say a falsehood enough times that it will eventually come true? Holy shiite, Batman!!!

What proof? The suspect Downing street report? Fareinheit 9/11? I haven't seen CREDIBLE evidence of this Bush lied assertion, when you find it I will listen.

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to discredit former U.S. Ambassador, Joe Wilson?

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to expose a covert CIA agent?

A) Joe Wilson had no credibility, he was inconsistent about the Yellow Cake story, among other things. B) Valerie Plame was not a covert operative when Richard Armitage "outed" her. buh-bye.

Bush and Cheney knew BEFORE invading an innocent country that Iraq had NO connection with 9/11 and that it had no WMDs!

They knew that Iraq had WMD's, they knew they might STILL have them, and that they needed to act. They never said Iraq had connections directly to 9/11 but that they were aiding Al-quida, which captured documents showed to be true.

Your antics remind me of the definition of "insane": Doing (or in your case "saying") the same thing over and over and over, expecting different results.

Unlike people who say that socialism will work if done the right way, after it's consistently failed miserably for over a century.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You neo-cons

Oh, and get with the picture, it's not neo-cons anymore, it's Nazi, Fascist, @#$hole, *insert epithet here*, etc. By the way, I'm a constitutionalist, get your facts straight before you throw the talking point insults around.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Without safety and protection "we the people" would not be that concerned about individual rights if America was invaded or bombed.

That's we built things like NORAD to defend ourselves from outside threats...

The best way to ensure that protection is by making a good name for ourselves around the world... not exactly america's strong suit...

Let's start smaller than being invaded/ bombed... let's say your home gets invaded... would you rather be 'seucred' by police that take an average of 10 minutes or so to respond, or would you rather have the freedom to keep yourself secure in the 10 seconds it takes to pick up aim and fire??

The only way that I would feel secure would be if I had my own police officer that sat outside my house that could be called on at a moments notice... but with that level of police force going around, you'd hardly have the freedom to do very much more than to go to work and go home... or else you might become a victim of the very security you're so eager to promote.

On the global scale, the best way to become secure is to make a good name for ourselves around the world, which hasn't been America's strong suit, much further than Europe, Israel, and a few other scattered friends. This type of security is provided by the military, and the multi-billions of dollars they receive to ensure the protection of the homeland.

Imagine if Russia nuked the U.S.A, would you be more concerned about individual rights or safety and protection for the citizens of America?

If a nuke went off in the US, I would have greater concerns than my own security OR freedom... My concern would be surviving the nuclear war, and it's after-effects, and the 'Road Warrior' type scenario that would be left behind with the survivors... in which case I would be happy to know that I had the freedom to protect myself prior to that level of disaster. (Assuming of course I survived a nuclear bomb going off in the US... as in NOT being in the city in which the bomb went off.

Ever hear that quote : "Those that would sacrifice a small amount of freedom for security, will get nor deserve neither."

 

[JMak]

Prove it LIAR!

It's already been proven here by jin1776, the most recent being last week. In a thread that you posted in. As well, we all know that no one illegally outted Plame because the Special Prosecutor did not charge and prosecute anyone for doing so.

Prove it Liar!

March 5, 2002 Wilson debriefed by CIA just after returning from Niger (SSCI report, p.43-44): "Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, XXXX businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.”

Wilson conveniently left out this contact from his NYT op-ed despite including it in his debrief with the CIA.

Joe Wilson wasn't "peddling" anything. He found out what dubya and dickie were doing by accident.

Huh? Plame suggested that her husband be dispatched to Niger to investigate this "crazy report" about Iraq seeking to buy enriched uranium from Africa.

What Wilson was peddling is in that NYT op-ed I just cited above. Virtually everything he put in that op-ed was a lie. And that's not my conclusion. That's the conclusion of the Senate Select Intelligence Cmte. See this WaPo article detailing not only his wife's role is getting Wilson sent to Niger, but his lies, too.

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Look, if you're gonna debate, you have an obligation to know what you're talking about.

Prove it Liar!

The Brits didn't have the latest intel. dubya and dickie did!
THAT dog won't hunt LIAR!

They didn't have the latest intelligence? LMAO!

Look, clown, as I just demonstrated above and confirming my previous comment, Bush didn't get any advice to remove those 16 words. The brits still stand behind their intelligence that Iraq attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Africa. Hell, Joe Wislon established this, dolt.

And I love how whenever facts are smashed up into your lying face, that prove you're WRONG again!, you revert to a child and cry, "You liar". Puh-leeze. Grow up and join the discussion.... you LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! :2wave::2wave::2wave:

Um, you're the only one ranting, "Liar" over and over.

I'm curious, just how many times have you called someone a liar? Kind of a weak argument, don't ya think?

That never is my argument. On the other, you have demonstrated that calling someone a liar is your only argument. This recent post of yours is explicit about that.

Meanwhile, as usual, I provide my sources, both primary and secondary...you? All you have is, literally, is calling me a liar.

You're dismissed...again.

 

[Jessica]

You guys are a laugh riot! :2rofll: No matter what proof is put in front of you, you just keep on yammering the same crap. Do you really believe that if you say a falsehood enough times that it will eventually come true? Holy shiite, Batman!!!

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to discredit former U.S. Ambassador, Joe Wilson?

Why do you think Bush and Cheney and Rove and Libby conspired to expose a covert CIA agent?

Why did Bush and Cheney NOT listen to any of the intelligence experts who told them "repeatedly" that the story about Iraq buying yellow cake uranium from Niger could NOT be authenticated?

Why did Bush refuse to remove those 16 words from his speech "AFTER" he was told, in no uncertain terms, by CIA Director Tenet that the original Italian documents, that led them on the yellow cake wild goose chase, were suspected forgeries?

Bush and Cheney knew BEFORE invading an innocent country that Iraq had NO connection with 9/11 and that it had no WMDs!

You neo-cons can repeat your stories about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 more times and nothing will change. :lol:

Your antics remind me of the definition of "insane": Doing (or in your case "saying") the same thing over and over and over, expecting different results.

I'll give you this, you ARE relentless. But, so is a dog chasing his tail.

Give it up, ADK.
You can try to talk to a dog as you would a human and tell them pooping on the floor is bad all you want, but it will not do any good.
For them to understand, you need to stick their nose in it. :2razz:
Unless you have a videotape of Bush saying flat-out that he lied about Iraq and other issues in an indisputable way that would incriminate himself (Ya. Right. Like anyone would do that. The right doesnt understand that part though.) then they will never understand.
Oh, and it has to come from FAUXNEWS else they'll dispute it as bias and edited or something. :roll:

 

[Jessica]

They knew that Iraq had WMD's, they knew they might STILL have them, and that they needed to act. They never said Iraq had connections directly to 9/11 but that they were aiding Al-quida, which captured documents showed to be true.

Huh? WMDs? But they don't. They didn't. They do not have. They never did. None were ever found. Saddam admitted he used it as a ploy to keep people (Iran included) in line.

As far as Al-Qaeda/Saddam/Iraq ties, it's what they call fuzzy politics. Saddam supports Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda attacked the US, but Saddam has nothing to do with 911? Huh? Why did we attack him then? Why then? Why not after Bin Laden? Or was going to liberate a country that doesn't really want us more important at that time than getting Bin Laden? Why did we go to Iraq when the 911 commission that BUSH APPOINTED said that Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan and North West Pakistan and not in Iraq?

India paid for this one. So did the dead Americans and British citizens that were in India the other day. Remember they captured one of the terrorists. Where did he say he was from? Pakistan! Yet... we're in Iraq... :shock:

 

[JMak]

Give it up, ADK.
You can try to talk to a dog as you would a human and tell them pooping on the floor is bad all you want, but it will not do any good.
For them to understand, you need to stick their nose in it. :2razz:
Unless you have a videotape of Bush saying flat-out that he lied about Iraq and other issues in an indisputable way that would incriminate himself (Ya. Right. Like anyone would do that. The right doesnt understand that part though.) then they will never understand.
Oh, and it has to come from FAUXNEWS else they'll dispute it as bias and edited or something. :roll:

Riiight, we just don't understand...

So what you're saying is that you rely on intellectual dishonesty and bad faith in debates.

I mean, you're demanding that some of us take, on faith, that Bush lied, simply because you said so. But then, again, you're the same people that smear Bush as a dummy. So, you would have us believe that this dummy knew what the entire US intelligence community and the intelligence agencies of the UK, France, Germany, Israel, and Russia did not...on faith, right? :roll:

Come on. Dont you see the unreasonableness of such a position?

And if you're going to argue that Bush lied, then what about Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Rockefeller, and John Kerry? All of them saw the raw intelligence estimates from CIA, NSA, DIA, State's INR, et al. Rockefeller and Edwards concluded that Iraq was an imminent threat based on those estimates. Clinton not only had the raw estimates but also her own people sifting thorugh the raw intelligence data. She concluded that Iraq was a growing threat, a dangerous threat. John Kerry arrived at the same conclusion.

And this follows on the heels of Bill Clinton concluding the same thing about Saddam Hussein. Were all of these people lying, too?

Or we they just not as stupid as Bush to know truth? :roll:

Now notice in my comments to ADK that I did not rely on Fox News. I relied on an actual SSIC report and the Washington Post. So there goes another point of yours.

I don't envy your position. You've argued yourself into a corner and you cannot get out of it without abandoning one of your untenable positions. You'll either have to argue that Bush really was not dumb or that Bush didn't lie.

So what's it going to be, clowns?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Give it up, ADK.
You can try to talk to a dog as you would a human and tell them pooping on the floor is bad all you want, but it will not do any good.
For them to understand, you need to stick their nose in it. :2razz:
Unless you have a videotape of Bush saying flat-out that he lied about Iraq and other issues in an indisputable way that would incriminate himself (Ya. Right. Like anyone would do that. The right doesnt understand that part though.) then they will never understand.
Oh, and it has to come from FAUXNEWS else they'll dispute it as bias and edited or something. :roll:

EVEN IF that all happened, there'd still be some that would justify that somehow...

 

[Jessica]

EVEN IF that all happened, there'd still be some that would justify that somehow...

They have. His cabinet. All the ones that left and wrote books that the Bush administration (as well as many rights) dismiss as being lies, or for money, or for revenge or some other cause that makes Bush look better than he is and cast doubts upon the neighsayers.

 

[Jessica]

I don't envy your position. You've argued yourself into a corner and you cannot get out of it without abandoning one of your untenable positions. You'll either have to argue that Bush really was not dumb or that Bush didn't lie.

Blah blah blah ... too long, did not read.

But I did notice this part, so this part I will comment on because it's pure rubbish. HAHA

I never said Bush was stupid, or did I say Bush didn't lie.

I think you meant that I would have to abandon one of my positions of either Bush being dumb or that he lied. That would make more sense, even though I never did say he was dumb. I think he speaks like an idiot, however. He does stupid things. But that doesn't make him an idiot.
So, Let's abandon that one, shall we?
We'll just leave it as BUSH LIED. Get used to it. It's the truth. Just like you have to get used to Obama being President. It's the truth. You and your (to use your words) clowns can argue he wasn't a citizen, or whatever you want - Truth is :Bush lied, people died and Obama is YOUR PRESIDENT!

I love it!

 

[JMak]

Huh? WMDs? But they don't. They didn't. They do not have. They never did. None were ever found. Saddam admitted he used it as a ploy to keep people (Iran included) in line.

Ok, what can we conclude form this comment?

There's no question that Iraq developed and possessed wmd's. Hussein used wmd's against the Iranians, the Kurds, and the Shia near Basra. Hence, your assertion that they never did have them is plain false. Now, are you ignorant and simply posting these assertions despite your ignorance or are you intentionally lying?

While Hussein admitted to misrepresenting his nuclear ambition, that didn't extend to bio/chem weapons. Until Hussein acknowledged this it was completely unclear whether he had, per the ceasefire with the US and 16 different UN Security Council resolutions requiring him to disclose, dismantle, and destroy his wmd's and wmd programs, actually dismantled and destroyed his wmd's and wmd programs. The UN inspections regime was never intended to "discover" wmd's or wmd programs, but to verify Hussein's compliance with the ceasefire and UN resolutions requiring disarming. That's why the ceasefire and resolutions required Hussein to disclose his weapons and weapons programs and which resulted in Iraq submitting to the UN a 12,000 page document disclosing these.

As far as Al-Qaeda/Saddam/Iraq ties, it's what they call fuzzy politics. Saddam supports Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda attacked the US, but Saddam has nothing to do with 911? Huh? Why did we attack him then? Why then? Why not after Bin Laden?

Again, how do we assess these comments.

Are you really asking why the US invaded Iraq and removed Hussein's regime from power? In 2008? Bush made clear in the Fall of 2002 what his basis was (please read his 10/7/02 speech in Cincinnati, OH) for war: wmd's and wmd programs; supporting terrorism; violating the ceasefire agreement with the US (such violation, by itself, warranted military action, as recognized by international law); and gross human rights violations (gassing the Kurds being one). Congress relied on 23 separate factors for authorizing the use of force in its resolution authorizing Bush to use military force.

So, if you didn't know these things then you're ignorant. Further, that you didn't know them but continue participating in this discussion, well, now you're being intellectually dishonest and acting in bad faith.

Or was going to liberate a country that doesn't really want us more important at that time than getting Bin Laden?

Uh, you do realize that the US had been in Afghanistan long before Iraq was invaded, right? And that effort was to remove the Taliban and find bin Laden, right?

Why did we go to Iraq when the 911 commission that BUSH APPOINTED said that Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan and North West Pakistan and not in Iraq?

Uh, Iraq was not a response to 9/11. Bush and Congress didn't propose going into Iraq because Iraq had some link to 9/11.

India paid for this one. So did the dead Americans and British citizens that were in India the other day. Remember they captured one of the terrorists. Where did he say he was from? Pakistan! Yet... we're in Iraq... :shock:

LMAO!!

Intellectual dishonesty and laziness, ignorance, hypocrisy...all wrapped into a nice little red bow.

You lament that the US is in Iraq, which you consider an unwarranted war and not connected to 9/11, but you also lament the fact that the US ain't in Pakistan. Help me out here...what warrants invading Pakistan? It didn't have anything to do with 9/11. It did not violate a ceasefire it signed with the US and recognized by international law.

I see, war in Iraq is bad because you disagree with it. War in Pakistan, though, you're all for it.

Shameful hypocrisy at its best.

 

[JMak]

Blah blah blah ... too long, did not read.

Of course not. You are motivated by partisan derangement, not reasoned consideration and knowledge.

But I did notice this part, so this part I will comment on because it's pure rubbish. HAHA

I never said Bush was stupid, or did I say Bush didn't lie.

No, never said Bush was stupid? And I didn't say you did comment that Bush didn't lie.

I think you meant that I would have to abandon one of my positions of either Bush being dumb or that he lied.

That's what I did post...

So, Let's abandon that one, shall we?
We'll just leave it as BUSH LIED. Get used to it. It's the truth.

The truth? Based on what? That you think he lied?

As we so clearly demonstrated above you're either ignorant or a liar or both. Hence, your mere assertions that he lied ring rather hollow.

Just like you have to get used to Obama being President. It's the truth. You and your (to use your words) clowns can argue he wasn't a citizen, or whatever you want - Truth is :Bush lied, people died and Obama is YOUR PRESIDENT!

Hmmm, I think I was the first poster here to criticize fellow DP'ers for even arguing about Obama's citizenship. So now you're lying, again.

Color me underwhelmed by your claims of what the truth is. :roll:

 

[Sir Loin]

As I said after a recent display of "knowledge" by Jessica, there but for the grace of God goes I. Or you. Or a tapeworm.:lol:

 

[LaMidRighter]

Give it up, ADK.
You can try to talk to a dog as you would a human and tell them pooping on the floor is bad all you want, but it will not do any good.
For them to understand, you need to stick their nose in it. :2razz:

How condescending for someone who blindly follows a particular sides talking points. You're relatively new here and I haven't seen anything that hasn't been hashed out years ago, and was debunked years ago.

Unless you have a videotape of Bush saying flat-out that he lied about Iraq and other issues in an indisputable way that would incriminate himself (Ya. Right. Like anyone would do that. The right doesnt understand that part though.) then they will never understand.

You don't understand, bring credible sources, not biased sources or those that would not hold up in a court of law or else you look like a hack, which is what people have been trying to tell your side FOR YEARS.

Oh, and it has to come from FAUXNEWS else they'll dispute it as bias and edited or something. :roll:

And here it is FAUXNEWS, that's a hoot. It's Fox news, calling it that shows you are just passing along talking points, Fox News has been shown to be the most(that is the largest number) centrist news organization in the main stream with NBC(public access) being the LEAST(that would be the smallest number). I'll let your condescending nature slide when you bring some critical thinking and original thought and/or insults to the debate, as of right now, it's getting boring.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Huh? WMDs? But they don't. They didn't. They do not have. They never did. None were ever found. Saddam admitted he used it as a ploy to keep people (Iran included) in line.

As far as Al-Qaeda/Saddam/Iraq ties, it's what they call fuzzy politics. Saddam supports Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda attacked the US, but Saddam has nothing to do with 911? Aiding and abetting Huh?

Aiding and abetting, you are either being intentionally dense or are naive and need to learn the nature of crime and alliances, Saddam may not have had anything to do with 9/11, probably didn't, he may not have known it was going to happen, but he was compliant with Al-Quaida, he patched up wounded Al-Quaida members and gave sanctuary. IT IS ON PAPER!

Why did we attack him then?

Here, Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

Why then? Why not after Bin Laden?

Who says we aren't going after Bin Laden?

Or was going to liberate a country that doesn't really want us more important at that time than getting Bin Laden?

Guess you missed the latest opinion polls in that country, the open and democratic election in '04, and the government of Iraq coming up with a pending timetable with the option to extend our welcome if they cannot secure their borders and internals.

Why did we go to Iraq when the 911 commission that BUSH APPOINTED said that Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan and North West Pakistan and not in Iraq?

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/"]http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/"]http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

India paid for this one. So did the dead Americans and British citizens that were in India the other day. Remember they captured one of the terrorists. Where did he say he was from? Pakistan! Yet... we're in Iraq... :shock:

You don't know anything about the current war, but you all of a sudden know everything about why these terrorists attacked innocent civillians in a country that is minding it's own business? :doh I think you need my Homer avatar, so I guess the Somalian pirate attack was part of the green movement? or maybe money was involved ya think?