Where's the proof that Pres. Bush lied?

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No, you didn't. I'm asking for exactly what you are saying was inaccurate? Are you yapping about his State of the Union speech? What part exactly? I know we've been all over that speech so that's why I find it curious you still want to distort what he said. But please do share what exactly was "inaccurate".
Notice that there were questions asked...now please answer them.

CkG

Your questions are answered in the report.

Read it and learn.

Ah, so you won't answer it. Figured as much.

CkG

You won't read the report and learn the answers. Figured as much.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire report here.

BTW, still waiting on your "proof" that the quotes in that database were taken out of context. Since you don't know what's in the report, you made a rather asinine statement.

He'll never give you the "proof" or answer the question just like Bush would not answer the question of why he needed Cheney at his side the for Commission meeting.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

You won't read the report and learn the answers. Figured as much.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire report here.

BTW, still waiting on your "proof" that the quotes in that database were taken out of context. Since you don't know what's in the report, you made a rather asinine statement.

I never claimed the crap in your little database was out of context. What I ASKED was : "is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?"(notice how much was quoted when I asked that question) So one would be able to figure out by that question that I was asking if they were talking about something from Bush's speech.(notice the second unanswered question was asking "What exactly are you talking about")
If you would have answered the question, I would have been fine with that but you chose not to. Also - NOW I'm specifically asking what you are saying was "innacurate". I don't care what some site says - I was asking specifically what part of his speech you are yapping about.
But whatever - keep punching your strawman and keep ignoring the question..I didn't expect anything less from you.

CkG

What speech are you talking about? You came into a conversation between HelloDeli and myself and mention some unspecified speech. I assumed you meant some speech Bush had given which is quoted in the database.

Perhaps if you posed a coherent question, you'd get the answer you seek.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

You won't read the report and learn the answers. Figured as much.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire report here.

BTW, still waiting on your "proof" that the quotes in that database were taken out of context. Since you don't know what's in the report, you made a rather asinine statement.

I never claimed the crap in your little database was out of context. What I ASKED was : "is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?"(notice how much was quoted when I asked that question) So one would be able to figure out by that question that I was asking if they were talking about something from Bush's speech.(notice the second unanswered question was asking "What exactly are you talking about")
If you would have answered the question, I would have been fine with that but you chose not to. Also - NOW I'm specifically asking what you are saying was "innacurate". I don't care what some site says - I was asking specifically what part of his speech you are yapping about.
But whatever - keep punching your strawman and keep ignoring the question..I didn't expect anything less from you.

CkG

What speech are you talking about? You came into a conversation between HelloDeli and myself and mention some unspecified speech. I assumed you meant some speech Bush had given which is quoted in the database.

Perhaps if you posed a coherent question, you'd get the answer you seek.

Perhaps if you'd read - you'd know that's what I'm looking for.
Your post:
"Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified"

I'm asking if you are talking about the speech(state of the union or other) that the left took his statements out of context. But sure - maybe if you would actually try to answer a question instead of beat your partisan blame Bush drums - we'd have come to a conclusion sooner.

Now again - what exactly are you claiming is "inaccurate" and intentionally used? I've already read that BS "report" - I'm asking if you were talking about some speech(SOTU or other). A yes or no would have worked up front...but I guess that was too much to ask...

CkG

 

[ranmaniac]

If Bush presented false evidence in contradiction of his own intelligence agencies, who should take responsibility?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

You won't read the report and learn the answers. Figured as much.

I'm not going to copy and paste the entire report here.

BTW, still waiting on your "proof" that the quotes in that database were taken out of context. Since you don't know what's in the report, you made a rather asinine statement.

I never claimed the crap in your little database was out of context. What I ASKED was : "is this still about that stuff the left tried to take out of context in his speech?"(notice how much was quoted when I asked that question) So one would be able to figure out by that question that I was asking if they were talking about something from Bush's speech.(notice the second unanswered question was asking "What exactly are you talking about")
If you would have answered the question, I would have been fine with that but you chose not to. Also - NOW I'm specifically asking what you are saying was "innacurate". I don't care what some site says - I was asking specifically what part of his speech you are yapping about.
But whatever - keep punching your strawman and keep ignoring the question..I didn't expect anything less from you.

CkG

What speech are you talking about? You came into a conversation between HelloDeli and myself and mention some unspecified speech. I assumed you meant some speech Bush had given which is quoted in the database.

Perhaps if you posed a coherent question, you'd get the answer you seek.

Perhaps if you'd read - you'd know that's what I'm looking for.
Your post:
"Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified"

I'm asking if you are talking about the speech(state of the union or other) that the left took his statements out of context. But sure - maybe if you would actually try to answer a question instead of beat your partisan blame Bush drums - we'd have come to a conclusion sooner.

Now again - what exactly are you claiming is "inaccurate" and intentionally used? I've already read that BS "report" - I'm asking if you were talking about some speech(SOTU or other). A yes or no would have worked up front...but I guess that was too much to ask...

CkG

I was referring to the various speeches in that report where it was proven that they used information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified.

Now, since you interjected yourself into the conversation between HelloDeli and myself, why don't you answer the question instead of answering with a question:

"Well, then, just what would be their intention to use information known to be inaccurate, false, or unverified"

 

[fjord]

A preliminary documentation (by No means exhaustive nor comprehensive):

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception by David Corn
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken
Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America by Lou Dubose (Author), Molly Ivins
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq by Christopher Scheer, et al
Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You by Paul Waldman
Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush by Jerry Barrett (Editor)
The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman
The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind
Against All Enemies by Richard A. Clarke
American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips
Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore (Author)
Worse Than Watergate by John W. Dean
Weapons of Mass Deception by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber
The Book on Bush by Eric Alterman, Mark J. Green
House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: fjord
A preliminary documentation (by No means exhaustive nor comprehensive):

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception by David Corn
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken
Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America by Lou Dubose (Author), Molly Ivins
The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq by Christopher Scheer, et al
Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You by Paul Waldman
Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush by Jerry Barrett (Editor)
The Great Unraveling by Paul Krugman
The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind
Against All Enemies by Richard A. Clarke
American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips
Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore (Author)
Worse Than Watergate by John W. Dean
Weapons of Mass Deception by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber
The Book on Bush by Eric Alterman, Mark J. Green
House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger

The Age of Sacred Terror - Daniel Benjamin
The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity - Joseph Wilson

 

[Gaard]

Riprorin - real quick question...have you read the linked document in this thread?

 

[Klixxer]

I don't know why people are still yapping about this, it is REAL simple, Bush, Cheney and others of the current US admin stated that they knew FOR SURE, WITHOUT A DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's, none has been found, not during the inspections pre-war, not after the war.

It's like if i say that i am SURE you have a dollar in your pocket, it might be probable, i have previously given you a dollar, but if i say i am SURE i am lying.

Poor old Colin got laughed at when he presented the "facts" to the UN, aluminum tubes NOT SUITED FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAN URANIUM ENRICHMENT, turned out to be suited for just about anything BUT uranium enrichment, it wasn't bad intel, the intel just presented the fact that Iraq had purchased the aluminum tubes, the rest was just a fabricated fact, just like everything else the US went to war on. And no matter what you say, this war was about TWO things, WMD's and Al-Quaida connections, that was it, it was what was presented, nothing else, well, no WMD's and no Al-Quaida connections despite the FACTS that the admin KNEW and you are claiming they weren't lying?

 

[conjur]

ooops...n/m