FINAL WMD thread, NO spin, NO off topic

[AEB]

Originally posted by: Gaard
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."


Bush meant to deceive us all into thinking he knew FOR A FACT that Iraq had WMD. (ergo...he lied)

As my links show the evidence that iraq NO DOUBT had WMD is overwhelming. Prove otherwise. Resolutiion 1441 and all the previous talk of the WMD as a FACT. NO DOUBT for sure, etc.

Thanks to whoever made teh bill o'reily comment although he is off soemtimes

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AEB

Originally posted by: Gaard
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."


Bush meant to deceive us all into thinking he knew FOR A FACT that Iraq had WMD. (ergo...he lied)

As my links show the evidence that iraq NO DOUBT had WMD is overwhelming. Prove otherwise. Resolutiion 1441 and all the previous talk of the WMD as a FACT. NO DOUBT for sure, etc.

Thanks to whoever made teh bill o'reily comment although he is off soemtimes

Bush meant to deceive us all into thinking he knew FOR A FACT that Iraq had WMD. (ergo...he lied)

 

[AEB]

No link sto back up your claims but ill play along. Saying "There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD" is a hella of a lot different than saying "I have seen the WMD and they are not good" You say he lied(allbeit without proof) and i say prove it.

 

[DealMonkey]

I believe Bush & Co deceived the nation to go to war w/ Iraq. It makes sense given that much of the cabinet/administration had pre-decided that Iraq needed to be dealt with prior to taking office (see PNAC, Project for a New American Century), you have several former high-level officials now talking about the admin's obsession with getting Saddam pre-9/11. Leading up to the war, you have distortions of the truth, fear-mongering, relying on untrustworthy sources for intel (Iraqi Nat'l Congress, Iraqi defectors, etc.), over-reliance on old intel or cherry-picked intel, etc., etc. They hyped the data to create the story they thought everyone would sign off on.

Now I admit the administration tap-danced around the truth well enough that it's difficult, if not imposssible to accuse them of outright lies, however I believe there was very much a coordinated effort to deceive. Problem is, there's enough raw data to support either side of this issue and therefore the eternal conflict rages on with both sides pointing to data that supports their case of whether the administration was deceptive or not.

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over? I do. Will anyone change their minds about this? Not likely. We don't discuss the 2000 elections anymore do we? Well, some of us don't but seriously, it seems like we've all formed our opinions about it and aren't backing down, so why not just move on? We'll find out in November just how successful this little charade really was . . .

 

[Gaard]

Is there a conservativescum.com site I can go to?

You want me to prove that when someone says NO DOUBT, and there is lots of doubt (intel reports, inspector reports, etc), that he is lying?

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: AEB
No link sto back up your claims but ill play along. Saying "There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD" is a hella of a lot different than saying "I have seen the WMD and they are not good" You say he lied(allbeit without proof) and i say prove it.

He said Iraq had them for a fact and they don't. How is that not a lie in your eyes? If you take a country to war and sacrafice hundreds of troops on what you say is fact but what in reality is a hunch you better have something to fall back on. Its up to Bush to prove it, he took us to war and came back with nothing.

Oh and I was kinda hoping you would reply to my post about you not spinning...just for kicks.

 

[Gaard]

DealMonkey -

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over?

Yes, but this is the FINAL thread. AEB says so.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: AEB
SPIN I SAID NO SPIN! His political affiliation is Democrat


EDIT:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal o f weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
andgrave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

From above link there he is a liberal no disputing

You right kerry was stupid to trust to bush to tell the truth about intel.

Uh, Congress saw the same intel from the CIA Bush did. Its not like Bush force feed Congress fabricated intel, Bush used the same intel Congress had.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard
DealMonkey -

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over?

Yes, but this is the FINAL thread. AEB says so.

Well, in that case, we better make it good! I only wish etech would show up and threaten to show us how wrong we really are. Heh, heh.

 

[AEB]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: AEB
No link sto back up your claims but ill play along. Saying "There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD" is a hella of a lot different than saying "I have seen the WMD and they are not good" You say he lied(allbeit without proof) and i say prove it.

He said Iraq had them for a fact and they don't. How is that not a lie in your eyes? If you take a country to war and sacrafice hundreds of troops on what you say is fact but what in reality is a hunch you better have something to fall back on. Its up to Bush to prove it, he took us to war and came back with nothing.

Oh and I was kinda hoping you would reply to my post about you not spinning...just for kicks.

I missed your post about spinning . But rereading i still dont see where is spinned the URL that i made a note on is only for the quotes, dont read them i dont care.
I said i spun leibermans political afiliation which i did, not the actual issues

Iraq did/does have them for a fact. If i give you 5 dollars and i say can i have 3 dollars and you tell me "i dont have any money" (you hide it in your shoe), so i run over and get a friend and tell my friend he has money but wont give me any. My friend searches you for it but doesnt find it. Two things coul dhave happend. He didnt check your shoe or you gave it to your friend right before my friend went in. Doesnt make me a liar becuase i knew you had it.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I believe Bush & Co deceived the nation to go to war w/ Iraq. It makes sense given that much of the cabinet/administration had pre-decided that Iraq needed to be dealt with prior to taking office (see PNAC, Project for a New American Century), you have several former high-level officials now talking about the admin's obsession with getting Saddam pre-9/11. Leading up to the war, you have distortions of the truth, fear-mongering, relying on untrustworthy sources for intel (Iraqi Nat'l Congress, Iraqi defectors, etc.), over-reliance on old intel or cherry-picked intel, etc., etc. They hyped the data to create the story they thought everyone would sign off on.

Now I admit the administration tap-danced around the truth well enough that it's difficult, if not imposssible to accuse them of outright lies, however I believe there was very much a coordinated effort to deceive. Problem is, there's enough raw data to support either side of this issue and therefore the eternal conflict rages on with both sides pointing to data that supports their case of whether the administration was deceptive or not.

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over? I do. Will anyone change their minds about this? Not likely. We don't discuss the 2000 elections anymore do we? Well, some of us don't but seriously, it seems like we've all formed our opinions about it and aren't backing down, so why not just move on? We'll find out in November just how successful this little charade really was . . .

Lets just disregard the regime change Clinton had proposed. Or how Clinton lead the US into a war under similar circumstances. Damn one man, you have to damn the other even if he isnt a sitting president still.

If Bush lied about Iraq, Clinton lied about Kosovo. History books will rip both of them to shreds.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AEB

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: AEB
No link sto back up your claims but ill play along. Saying "There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD" is a hella of a lot different than saying "I have seen the WMD and they are not good" You say he lied(allbeit without proof) and i say prove it.

He said Iraq had them for a fact and they don't. How is that not a lie in your eyes? If you take a country to war and sacrafice hundreds of troops on what you say is fact but what in reality is a hunch you better have something to fall back on. Its up to Bush to prove it, he took us to war and came back with nothing.

Oh and I was kinda hoping you would reply to my post about you not spinning...just for kicks.

I missed your post about spinning . But rereading i still dont see where is spinned the URL that i made a note on is only for the quotes, dont read them i dont care.
I said i spun leibermans political afiliation which i did, not the actual issues

Iraq did/does have them for a fact. If i give you 5 dollars and i say can i have 3 dollars and you tell me "i dont have any money" (you hide it in your shoe), so i run over and get a friend and tell my friend he has money but wont give me any. My friend searches you for it but doesnt find it. Two things coul dhave happend. He didnt check your shoe or you gave it to your friend right before my friend went in. Doesnt make me a liar becuase i knew you had it.

I told you earlier I spent it.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I believe Bush & Co deceived the nation to go to war w/ Iraq. It makes sense given that much of the cabinet/administration had pre-decided that Iraq needed to be dealt with prior to taking office (see PNAC, Project for a New American Century), you have several former high-level officials now talking about the admin's obsession with getting Saddam pre-9/11. Leading up to the war, you have distortions of the truth, fear-mongering, relying on untrustworthy sources for intel (Iraqi Nat'l Congress, Iraqi defectors, etc.), over-reliance on old intel or cherry-picked intel, etc., etc. They hyped the data to create the story they thought everyone would sign off on.

Now I admit the administration tap-danced around the truth well enough that it's difficult, if not imposssible to accuse them of outright lies, however I believe there was very much a coordinated effort to deceive. Problem is, there's enough raw data to support either side of this issue and therefore the eternal conflict rages on with both sides pointing to data that supports their case of whether the administration was deceptive or not.

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over? I do. Will anyone change their minds about this? Not likely. We don't discuss the 2000 elections anymore do we? Well, some of us don't but seriously, it seems like we've all formed our opinions about it and aren't backing down, so why not just move on? We'll find out in November just how successful this little charade really was . . .

smartest post so far

 

[AEB]

Im supposed to believe you when you lied last time i gave you money? You never showed me any receipts

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I believe Bush & Co deceived the nation to go to war w/ Iraq. It makes sense given that much of the cabinet/administration had pre-decided that Iraq needed to be dealt with prior to taking office (see PNAC, Project for a New American Century), you have several former high-level officials now talking about the admin's obsession with getting Saddam pre-9/11. Leading up to the war, you have distortions of the truth, fear-mongering, relying on untrustworthy sources for intel (Iraqi Nat'l Congress, Iraqi defectors, etc.), over-reliance on old intel or cherry-picked intel, etc., etc. They hyped the data to create the story they thought everyone would sign off on.

Now I admit the administration tap-danced around the truth well enough that it's difficult, if not imposssible to accuse them of outright lies, however I believe there was very much a coordinated effort to deceive. Problem is, there's enough raw data to support either side of this issue and therefore the eternal conflict rages on with both sides pointing to data that supports their case of whether the administration was deceptive or not.

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over? I do. Will anyone change their minds about this? Not likely. We don't discuss the 2000 elections anymore do we? Well, some of us don't but seriously, it seems like we've all formed our opinions about it and aren't backing down, so why not just move on? We'll find out in November just how successful this little charade really was . . .

Lets just disregard the regime change Clinton had proposed. Or how Clinton lead the US into a war under similar circumstances. Damn one man, you have to damn the other even if he isnt a sitting president still.

If Bush lied about Iraq, Clinton lied about Kosovo. History books will rip both of them to shreds.

just curious, but what did clinton lie about kosovo?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Lets just disregard the regime change Clinton had proposed. Or how Clinton lead the US into a war under similar circumstances. Damn one man, you have to damn the other even if he isnt a sitting president still.

If Bush lied about Iraq, Clinton lied about Kosovo. History books will rip both of them to shreds.

You need to re-read the OP in this thread. This is about Bush, not Clinton. Repeat, the topic of the thread is "I got really tired of people claiming Bush is a liar." If you want to start your own thread about how Clinton is a big fat liar too, then more power to ya.

 

[AEB]

topic please guys all i want is for someone to show me if bush lied

EDIT: thanks deal i was writing mine when you posted yours i guess

 

[sandorski]

Bush's arguements are nothing but Spin.

 

[AEB]

Ill use your sig now san

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AEB
Im supposed to believe you when you lied last time i gave you money? You never showed me any receipts

Doesn't matter if you believe me, you can't know FOR SURE.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I believe Bush & Co deceived the nation to go to war w/ Iraq. It makes sense given that much of the cabinet/administration had pre-decided that Iraq needed to be dealt with prior to taking office (see PNAC, Project for a New American Century), you have several former high-level officials now talking about the admin's obsession with getting Saddam pre-9/11. Leading up to the war, you have distortions of the truth, fear-mongering, relying on untrustworthy sources for intel (Iraqi Nat'l Congress, Iraqi defectors, etc.), over-reliance on old intel or cherry-picked intel, etc., etc. They hyped the data to create the story they thought everyone would sign off on.

Now I admit the administration tap-danced around the truth well enough that it's difficult, if not imposssible to accuse them of outright lies, however I believe there was very much a coordinated effort to deceive. Problem is, there's enough raw data to support either side of this issue and therefore the eternal conflict rages on with both sides pointing to data that supports their case of whether the administration was deceptive or not.

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over? I do. Will anyone change their minds about this? Not likely. We don't discuss the 2000 elections anymore do we? Well, some of us don't but seriously, it seems like we've all formed our opinions about it and aren't backing down, so why not just move on? We'll find out in November just how successful this little charade really was . . .

Lets just disregard the regime change Clinton had proposed. Or how Clinton lead the US into a war under similar circumstances. Damn one man, you have to damn the other even if he isnt a sitting president still.

If Bush lied about Iraq, Clinton lied about Kosovo. History books will rip both of them to shreds.

just curious, but what did clinton lie about kosovo?

Yes, I'd like to know too. What would he lie about?

 

[AEB]

Well we did find illegal missles(were too long range) so i do know FOR SURE. I saw the money as you were telling me you didnt have it! thatgs 100%

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AEB
Well we did find illegal missles(were too long range) so i do know FOR SURE. I saw the money as you were telling me you didnt have it! thatgs 100%

That was a Chuck E Cheese token you saw, not the money you claim I had. (Those missiles weren't WMD, were they?)

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I believe Bush & Co deceived the nation to go to war w/ Iraq. It makes sense given that much of the cabinet/administration had pre-decided that Iraq needed to be dealt with prior to taking office (see PNAC, Project for a New American Century), you have several former high-level officials now talking about the admin's obsession with getting Saddam pre-9/11. Leading up to the war, you have distortions of the truth, fear-mongering, relying on untrustworthy sources for intel (Iraqi Nat'l Congress, Iraqi defectors, etc.), over-reliance on old intel or cherry-picked intel, etc., etc. They hyped the data to create the story they thought everyone would sign off on.

Now I admit the administration tap-danced around the truth well enough that it's difficult, if not imposssible to accuse them of outright lies, however I believe there was very much a coordinated effort to deceive. Problem is, there's enough raw data to support either side of this issue and therefore the eternal conflict rages on with both sides pointing to data that supports their case of whether the administration was deceptive or not.

With as often as this issue pops up around here, don't we all just find ourselves saying the same thing over and over? I do. Will anyone change their minds about this? Not likely. We don't discuss the 2000 elections anymore do we? Well, some of us don't but seriously, it seems like we've all formed our opinions about it and aren't backing down, so why not just move on? We'll find out in November just how successful this little charade really was . . .

Lets just disregard the regime change Clinton had proposed. Or how Clinton lead the US into a war under similar circumstances. Damn one man, you have to damn the other even if he isnt a sitting president still.

If Bush lied about Iraq, Clinton lied about Kosovo. History books will rip both of them to shreds.

just curious, but what did clinton lie about kosovo?

Yes, I'd like to know too. What would he lie about?

The reasons for war. Almost all the evidence Clinton used to go to war, was false, fabricated, or severly exaggerated.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Lets just disregard the regime change Clinton had proposed. Or how Clinton lead the US into a war under similar circumstances. Damn one man, you have to damn the other even if he isnt a sitting president still.

If Bush lied about Iraq, Clinton lied about Kosovo. History books will rip both of them to shreds.

You need to re-read the OP in this thread. This is about Bush, not Clinton. Repeat, the topic of the thread is "I got really tired of people claiming Bush is a liar." If you want to start your own thread about how Clinton is a big fat liar too, then more power to ya.

Then you fvcking liberals need to stop comparing Clintons preceived successes(the economy) to Bushs precieved failures. You can compare administrations unless you are willing to look at the successes and the faults of each. So stfu already. I will bring Clinton up because you leftists do all the time. I guess its akin to reports that show democrats/democrat policy in good light are credible, but when same reports show the same about republicans, they arent credible(see Michigan, see unemployment, etc etc etc).