Modern Mainstream Oxymorons

[fallensight]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

No actually he would not be inpeached, its a republican controlled congress, any motion for it would never get up for a vote. to say nothing of the fact that admitting that going was wrong, it would end a great deal of political careers.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

Well there is some screwed up logic. There is not one shread of evidence that Saddam had WMD. Bush lied get over it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

Well there is some screwed up logic. There is not one shread of evidence that Saddam had WMD. Bush lied get over it.

It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: fallensight

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

No actually he would not be inpeached (sic), its a republican controlled congress, any motion for it would never get up for a vote. to say nothing of the fact that admitting that going was wrong, it would end a great deal of political careers.

That's wrong. He can be impeached; all that needs to happen is a simple majority vote in the House. Things aren't always cut-and-dried; people often vote against their party.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

Well there is some screwed up logic. There is not one shread of evidence that Saddam had WMD. Bush lied get over it.

It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

No it is rational to say he lied when he claimed Saddam has WMD when no evidence supports that claim.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

No it is rational to say he lied when he claimed Saddam has WMD when no evidence supports that claim.

No, I still disagree. When someone tells you that Saddam Hussein doesn't have WMDs, and then you repeat that as truth, you are not lying; you are going on the basis of someone else's information. If later a WMD is found buried in Iraq, it doesn't mean you were lying, just that you were mistaken.

There's a difference between lying and being mistaken. Bush had good reason to believe that there were WMDs due to the reports of his own and foreign intelligence agencies. Were they wrong? It doesn't matter in a discussion of whether Bush lied or not.

I'd be interested in seeing statements where the Bush administration said definitely that there were WMDs in Iraq. Can anyone point to any? I think it's unlikely, since the whole leadup to the invasion was a many-months-long effort just to determine if there were WMDs. If you want to find a trumped-up cause for the invasion, it was the rush to battle after Hussein's regime wasn't forthcoming with information for the UN investigation.

 

[alchemize]

I believe Rummy said a few things like "we know where the WMD are".

Anyhow, the whole "Bush Lied, we were duped" thing is a simplistic narrow minded approach to a complex situation. It works well for the simplistic narrow minded left-wingers. A far more accurate representation would be:

"Bush overrelied on intelligence assessments that indicated Iraq still had an active WMD program. He assumed (wrongly) that there was WMD, and politically banked on this. The Dems, lacking of spinal fortitude, and not wishing to seem unpatriotic, gave Bush the authority to commence war. When no WMD's were found, and everyone was found with their pants down, the Dems of course then had to find a way out of their precarious situation. Instead of taking the honorable path of saying 'yes we were duped, by Iraq and Saddam. Perhaps we all rushed too quickly into this war, and perhaps we should find the best solution for our country', instead they tried to make political lemonade by saying 'Bush Lied'..."

But that doesn't fit on a signboard at a political rally very well.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
When TV journalists show videos of Administration members saying something they deny having said twenty-four hours later, those journalists are engaging in ?revisionist history?.

When millions of Americans march in anti-war demonstrations, they are a ?handful of people?.

When a handful of people support an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment, they are an ?overwhelming number of Americans?.

Describes certain members on here to a Tee.

 

[Screech]

If you think Bush was completely honest in his reasons for going to war, you should research the yellowcake reports in conjunction with his state of the union address.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

There are eyewitness reports of Rumsfeld doing just that. You know, former FBI guys who actually know what's going on behind the scenes.

Reason there hasn't been an impeachment? Look who controls all three branches of government. I already have an objective point of view.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

There are eyewitness reports of Rumsfeld doing just that. You know, former FBI guys who actually know what's going on behind the scenes.

Reason there hasn't been an impeachment? Look who controls all three branches of government. I already have an objective point of view.

That's hearsay, especially for me since I am hearing it here. I guess you think it's impossible to buy an FBI agent's tongue, for an FBI agent to misremember or misstate the facts, for a reporter to misinterpret and misreport the facts, for a reporter to manufacture a story told by a private source, for an AT member to do any of these things, etc.? I'm not being difficult-- I just don't believe something's true based on a discussion-board post.

Again, if there were real evidence it would have come out. You can call this the administration covering their tracks, whatever, but impeachment would be the result for sure. It would have to involve the President, though-- not just Rumsfeld.

It's silly to say that the lack of an impeachment is because of Republican control. Every impeachment thus far has been preceded with many calls for impeachment, much public scrutiny and debate, etc. There's never been a serious campaign by either party to impeach Bush.

One thing you have to remember, too, is that impeachment is what happens when the House casts an impeachment vote. Clinton was impeached-- he just didn't lose his office.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

There are eyewitness reports of Rumsfeld doing just that. You know, former FBI guys who actually know what's going on behind the scenes.

Reason there hasn't been an impeachment? Look who controls all three branches of government. I already have an objective point of view.

That's hearsay, especially for me since I am hearing it here. I guess you think it's impossible to buy an FBI agent's tongue, for an FBI agent to misremember or misstate the facts, for a reporter to misinterpret and misreport the facts, for a reporter to manufacture a story told by a private source, for an AT member to do any of these things, etc.? I'm not being difficult-- I just don't believe something's true based on a discussion-board post.

Again, if there were real evidence it would have come out. You can call this the administration covering their tracks, whatever, but impeachment would be the result for sure. It would have to involve the President, though-- not just Rumsfeld.

It's silly to say that the lack of an impeachment is because of Republican control. Every impeachment thus far has been preceded with many calls for impeachment, much public scrutiny and debate, etc. There's never been a serious campaign by either party to impeach Bush.

One thing you have to remember, too, is that impeachment is what happens when the House casts an impeachment vote. Clinton was impeached-- he just didn't lose his office.

You are beating a dead horse. The Bush administration have been asked many times about the dissenting opinions from the intelligence agency and why they NEVER espoused any of those during the run up to the war. You can't seem to grasp the concept that you can lie by omitting data just as easily as you can lie by blatantly stating false information.

As for the impeachment, why don't you write each of the 435 Reps and the 100 Senators asking them to force Bush and his administration officials to testify UNDER OATH about how they used the pre-war intelligence. As a real kicker, have the investigation/hearing be lead by a bi-partisan or independant commission.

Maybe you can also get Pat Roberts to release Phase II of the pre-war intelligence report (the part that deals with the above subject) that he has squelched for over 2 years now. Even after making stupid comments like this:

At the time of the report's release (July 9, 2004), Democratic members of the committee expressed the hope that "phase two" of the investigation, which was to include an assessment of how the Iraqi WMD intelligence was used by senior policymakers, would be completed quickly. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) said of phase two, "It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."

On March 10, 2005, during a question-and-answer session after a speech he had given at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Senator Roberts said of the failure to complete phase two, "[T]hat is basically on the back burner." Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), vice chairman of the Committee, made a statement later that day in which he said, "The Chairman agreed to this investigation and I fully expect him to fulfill his commitment... While the completion of phase two is long overdue, the committee has continued this important work, and I expect that we will finish the review in the very near future."

In a statement regarding the release of the report of the presidential WMD commission on March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts wrote, "I don?t think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence. I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

On April 10, 2005, Senators Roberts and Rockefeller appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press program. In repsonse to a question about the completion of phase two of the investigation, Roberts said, "I'm perfectly willing to do it, and that's what we agreed to do, and that door is still open. And I don't want to quarrel with Jay, because we both agreed that we would get it done. But we do have--we have Ambassador Negroponte next week, we have General Mike Hayden next week. We have other hot-spot hearings or other things going on that are very important."

Moderator Tim Russert then asked Senator Rockefeller if he believed phase two would be completed, and he replied, "I hope so. Pat and I have agreed to do it. We've shaken hands on it, and we agreed to do it after the elections so it wouldn't be any sort of sense of a political attack. I mean that was my view; it shouldn't be viewed that way."

As of June, 2006, phase two of the Committee's investigation had not yet been completed.

I'm hoping that you will put your unweilding support of Bush's truthiness to admit that it is nearly impossible to come to the conclusion that he lied or did not lie when the person that can bring light to that issue adamantly refuses to allow it to be brought to light.

If not, just stop posting now because it is completely obvious that you are nothing but a fanboi who will never disagree with anything that this administration does even if they admit to it.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm hoping that you will put your unweilding support of Bush's truthiness to admit that it is nearly impossible to come to the conclusion that he lied or did not lie when the person that can bring light to that issue adamantly refuses to allow it to be brought to light.

If not, just stop posting now because it is completely obvious that you are nothing but a fanboi who will never disagree with anything that this administration does even if they admit to it.

You missed some words in there, but I get your meaning. First, I said earlier in this very thread that Clinton appeared to be more dishonest, but that Bush is worse because he's wrecking the country; therefore I am no Bush "fanboi". There's nothing stopping an investigation into these things by the Democratic party; tell me, why haven't they raised issues such as the failure to complete Phase 2 of the investigation you mentioned above? I'd be thrilled to see that happen. There's nothing I hate worse than corruption, and we don't have reliable ways of exposing it in this country.

It is not being a "fanboi" to say that you can't call someone a liar without basis. You can't do it and be taken seriously, anyway. You can say "Bush may have lied", but to state definitely that he did lie without evidence is to make an ass of yourself. That's all I've said; I haven't supported the Bush administration in any way. I asked for actual evidence that they lied, and none was forthcoming. Who's the fanboi now?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I'm hoping that you will put your unweilding support of Bush's truthiness to admit that it is nearly impossible to come to the conclusion that he lied or did not lie when the person that can bring light to that issue adamantly refuses to allow it to be brought to light.

If not, just stop posting now because it is completely obvious that you are nothing but a fanboi who will never disagree with anything that this administration does even if they admit to it.

You missed some words in there, but I get your meaning. First, I said earlier in this very thread that Clinton was more dishonest, but that Bush is wrecking the country; therefore I am no Bush "fanboi". There's nothing stopping an investigation into these things by the Democratic party; tell me, why haven't they raised issues such as the failure to complete Phase 2 of the investigation you mentioned above? I'd be thrilled to see that happen. There's nothing I hate worse than corruption, and we don't have reliable ways of exposing it in this country.

It is not being a "fanboi" to say that you can't call someone a liar without basis. You can't do it and be taken seriously, anyway. You can say "Bush may have lied", but to state definitely that he did lie without evidence is to make an ass of yourself. That's all I've said; I haven't supported the Bush administration in any way. I asked for actual evidence that they lied, and none was forthcoming. Who's the fanboi now?

They did raise the issue. What do you think prompted Reid calling for a closed session last August? What happened when Conyers tried to hold a hearing on the use of pre-war intelligence? The GOP shoved him in a basement room and then turned off the power on him.

Feingold, Conyers and a couple dozen other dems have called for cnesure/impeachment hearings. Pelosi stated that hearings are ruled out if Dems take control after the midterms. How can you state that they haven't done anything without acknowledging that they have done what they have the power to do?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

leaving the wool snugly over your eyes- more impressive!

Those who believe such lists hold any meaning or significance are the ones with the wool snugly covering their eyes. Do you know how many such lists are circulating the internet at any one time? I have encountered similar lists that criticize the sometimes hypocritical or ironic contradictions amongst liberals.

Anyone with an objective mind can easily dismiss such postings for what they are.

So are you nominating "thinking liberal" as the next oxymoron

 

[JEDIYoda]

seen this before....
old news.....
too bad you didn`t give credit to the author....

 

[Steeplerot]

Quit your crying, it is not from a email group but some random points from another forum and I added a bit of my own.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Read: "Lalalalala they didn't lie, lalalala I can't hear you.......lalala they didn't coerce the intelligence community into telling them things they wanted to hear......lalalalalala hey give me back that wool!"

Yawn. Typical Republican disbelief. Maybe you just don't want to accept it yet.

That's pretty stupid. He would have been impeached already if there were evidence of those things. Acting smart-alecky on an anonymous Internet forum sure won't prove anything, that's for sure, although you get props for trying. You might want to take a more objective view if you want to learn the truth.

P.S. I'm not a Republican. I'm just not a fool, either.

There are eyewitness reports of Rumsfeld doing just that. You know, former FBI guys who actually know what's going on behind the scenes.

Reason there hasn't been an impeachment? Look who controls all three branches of government. I already have an objective point of view.

That's hearsay, especially for me since I am hearing it here. I guess you think it's impossible to buy an FBI agent's tongue, for an FBI agent to misremember or misstate the facts, for a reporter to misinterpret and misreport the facts, for a reporter to manufacture a story told by a private source, for an AT member to do any of these things, etc.? I'm not being difficult-- I just don't believe something's true based on a discussion-board post.

Again, if there were real evidence it would have come out. You can call this the administration covering their tracks, whatever, but impeachment would be the result for sure. It would have to involve the President, though-- not just Rumsfeld.

It's silly to say that the lack of an impeachment is because of Republican control. Every impeachment thus far has been preceded with many calls for impeachment, much public scrutiny and debate, etc. There's never been a serious campaign by either party to impeach Bush.

One thing you have to remember, too, is that impeachment is what happens when the House casts an impeachment vote. Clinton was impeached-- he just didn't lose his office.

I think you're confusing the issue that the burden of truth was on us, and not the Bush Administration. I enjoyed Rumsfeld's little quip "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". Which, while grammatically true, is very very weak. Using this logic, I could accuse you of harboring terrorists in your house, and have you put in jail as long as I wanted. All I'd have to do when it's pointed out that I've so far found no terrorists in your house is say "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence!"

Bush accused Saddam of not disarming himself. Therefore, the burden of evidence was on them. In the court of law, their case would have been thrown out.

Now, I know you like to think that the evil evil intelligence community provided them with misleading information, but come on, surely you have PROOF of this. I mean, unless there's absolute proof, how can you say that...?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
That's hearsay, especially for me since I am hearing it here. I guess you think it's impossible to buy an FBI agent's tongue, for an FBI agent to misremember or misstate the facts, for a reporter to misinterpret and misreport the facts, for a reporter to manufacture a story told by a private source, for an AT member to do any of these things, etc.? I'm not being difficult-- I just don't believe something's true based on a discussion-board post.

Again, if there were real evidence it would have come out. You can call this the administration covering their tracks, whatever, but impeachment would be the result for sure. It would have to involve the President, though-- not just Rumsfeld.

It's silly to say that the lack of an impeachment is because of Republican control. Every impeachment thus far has been preceded with many calls for impeachment, much public scrutiny and debate, etc. There's never been a serious campaign by either party to impeach Bush.

One thing you have to remember, too, is that impeachment is what happens when the House casts an impeachment vote. Clinton was impeached-- he just didn't lose his office.

When Bush 'lies' he does not necessarily have to do it himself. He can be given biased or cooked intelligence by members of his team. Team members can make the statement which get attributed to his administration, and by proxy, to Bush.

Taken from another thread (thanks noto12ious & morkinva) here are a couple of links for you:

1. A video clip of an ex CIA agent confornting Rumsfeld with his own statements about WMD in Iaq which he basically denies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ndwQDFhzHc&eurl=

2. A discussion between Cooper Anderson & the CIA agent on CNN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1JLEU9-Wg&eurl=

3. Plans for Iraq began on 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." ? meaning Saddam Hussein ? "at same time. Not only UBL" ? the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden."

4. Actual copy of staffers notes on a meeting with Rumsfeld on 9/11:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/66726692@N00/100545349/

Do you think anyone, leave alone the president, is going to come out & say, "Yeah I was lying" on such a massive issue as the Iraq war? Even if they know they are wrong they will still try to hide it and bury any scrutiny of their methods and planning. Wasn't it Bush who in one his first acts as president made all past presidential papers not open to public forever?

 

[oslama]

You should send these to David Letterman's writing, some of them may make the TOP ten list

serious

 

[kage69]

When thousands of scientific experts declare global warming a reality, we need more study before we can act. When we get information from a single source named Curveball, we must take action before it?s too late.

I can't bring myself to laugh at this one, sadly it's pretty damn accurate :|

When Dick Cheney told someone to f*** off on the Senate floor, he was, as promised, bringing dignity back to Washington politics.

There's my laugh... :laugh: Honor and dignity folks, honor and dignity...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

(This has been refuted a dozen times here -- in depth -- but let's do a quick review, one more time.)

The problem is the Bush administration did NOT merely limit its claims to "we suspect Iraq still retains some WMD capabilities." Instead, it loudly and repeatedly insisted as unquestionable fact that Iraq had "massive stockpiles", "thousands of liters", a "reconstituted nuclear weapons program", a fleet of UAVs ready to strike the American mainland, aluminum tubes "only suitable" for use in an enrichment centrifuge, and an imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud". There was Rumsfeld's "We know where they are." and Powell's "These are facts, not assertions."

The truth, however, is that our intelligence agencies were NOT presenting these claims as unquestionable facts. They presented a wide range of estimates and speculative worst-case scenarios, loaded with caveats and qualifications. BushCo cherry-picked the worst of those, further exaggerated them in some documented cases, ignored all the footnotes and disclaimers, and publically declared their speculation as fact. BushCo engaged in blatant fear-mongering, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting both the extent of and their certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. In short, BushCo lied. Period.

The only reason Bush has not been held accountable is because the Republicans control Congress and have squelched any attempts for a full and independent investigation. Hell, they have yet to even deliver their partisan "investigation" into possible Bush administration misuse of intelligence data -- the Phase II report -- something they initially promised to deliver two years ago. The Republicans' single greatest nightmare right now is Democrats with subpoena power. That's one of the reasons I expect them to do anything and everything to maintain control in November.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

No it is rational to say he lied when he claimed Saddam has WMD when no evidence supports that claim.

No, I still disagree. When someone tells you that Saddam Hussein doesn't have WMDs, and then you repeat that as truth, you are not lying; you are going on the basis of someone else's information. If later a WMD is found buried in Iraq, it doesn't mean you were lying, just that you were mistaken.

There's a difference between lying and being mistaken. Bush had good reason to believe that there were WMDs due to the reports of his own and foreign intelligence agencies. Were they wrong? It doesn't matter in a discussion of whether Bush lied or not.

I'd be interested in seeing statements where the Bush administration said definitely that there were WMDs in Iraq. Can anyone point to any? I think it's unlikely, since the whole leadup to the invasion was a many-months-long effort just to determine if there were WMDs. If you want to find a trumped-up cause for the invasion, it was the rush to battle after Hussein's regime wasn't forthcoming with information for the UN investigation.

Lets see some inteligence reports stating for a fact that Iraq had WMD.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
President Bush didn't lie about going to war, or his reasons for same; it's a well-established fact that the intelligence community reported that there were WMDs in Iraq.

the intelligence community speculated that there WMD in Iraq, but Bush and crew lied when they tried to push that speculation off on us as fact.

No, that's not correct. Nobody has successfully proven that they lied, and your claim on an anonymous Internet board certainly doesn't serve as proof. The intelligence community didn't just speculate-- they reported many actual facts. Not only has no one shown that they lied, it's not reasonable to assume that they lied.

I'm willing to bet you're a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat! How's that for speculation!

Straight up wrong, I'm independent and have almost always favor the Republican candates over the Democats' offerings. Even as dissapointed as I am with Bush I couldn't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I can understand that this might be a partisan thing for you, but for me it is only a matter of truth, and the turth is we were lied too here.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The difference is only the Republican double-think is supposed to excuse massive violation of the constitution

This is the greatest myth of all the usual liberal talking points.

needless deaths of American soldiers

Really a matter of perspective...not to turn this into a debate about the Iraq war, as there is little question that the Bush Administration were not honest brokers in selling the invasion, or perpetuating...as for the long term strategic benefits of our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is hard to say...on the one hand, we have made a mess of Iraq...on the other, we have Al Quaida so tied up in its own backyard that they have been unable to project their resources very extensively beyond the confines of the Middle East...something to think about.

and outright murder in foreign nations

If you think the Bush Administration is the first in American history with innocent blood on its hands, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in South Dakota.


I don't disagree that Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, have demonstrated a strong capacity for double-speak...its just the talking points that these threads tend to gravitate to are largely a matter of perspective...throwing in rhetoric and labeling only adds fuel to the fire.