• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Obama due the same treatment as Bush?

Is Obama due the same treatment as Bush?

  • Total voters
    41
obvious Child said:
About inspectors. You're going to have to do a lot better then that.

Like Dubya on audio saying he knew the intel was wrong but pushed it anyways. Or Powell telling Dubya that the intel was wrong. Something along that nature.
Click to expand...
He's on record as saying Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors back into the country when they were already in the country. If that's not good enough for you, I'm sorry.
 
obvious Child said:
Btw, are you going to respond to post #91?
Click to expand...

If you like.

I reject your distinction. Islam IS all one team, regardless of rival factions within it.

When the other town's football team comes to beat you, they bring offensive, defensive , and special teams squads. These squads may squabble between themselves, but they all came to your town to beat your team. They also bring waterboys and cheerleaders and equipment managers who will NEVER take the field, but those people came to defeat you also.
 
Billo_Really said:
He's on record as saying Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors back into the country when they were already in the country. If that's not good enough for you, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

All it proves is that Dubya lied about inspectors. The real issue is whether or not he lied about the WMD intel. That is the jackpot. If tapes come to light revealing Bush acknowledging he knew the intel was wrong or someone telling him that he intel was wrong, then we could conclusively argue he lied with the exception of delusionality.
 
obvious Child said:
All it proves is that Dubya lied about inspectors. The real issue is whether or not he lied about the WMD intel. That is the jackpot. If tapes come to light revealing Bush acknowledging he knew the intel was wrong or someone telling him that he intel was wrong, then we could conclusively argue he lied with the exception of delusionality.
Click to expand...
I proved in those half-dozen posts what he lied and when he lied, lie by lie, and I challenge anyone to specifically tell me which one was not a lie.

Aside from that, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this for another day. You debate well and honorably, despite our differences.
 
obvious Child said:
I take it you also think that Christanity is all one team? Cold War Mentality you have.

Work on your trolling.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry, did you just try that intellectually dishonest tactic I was mentioning earlier ? The one where small minds can't stay on topic and claim the misbehavior of another is some kind of defense ? Does it ever make you wonder why you CAN'T talk about Islam in and of itself ? I don't give 2 schlitz about ANYTHING you try to bring up about Christianity, as the mere fact it is about Chrisitianity, in this discussion of Islam, makes it a red herring, and irrelevant.

Work on your ability to stay on topic.
 
Voidwar said:
Oh, I'm sorry, did you just try that intellectually dishonest tactic I was mentioning earlier ? The one where small minds can't stay on topic and claim the misbehavior of another is some kind of defense ?
Click to expand...

Just trying to get a feel for what you actually believe.

You really think that Islam is a monolith, that all sects work together towards a unified goal, that they don't act as balances upon another?

I ask you then, why were the Sunnis and Shias butchering each other? After all, you said they are one team. One team doesn't specifically target itself for brutal elimination.
 
obvious Child said:
You really think that Islam is a monolith, that all sects work together towards a unified goal, that they don't act as balances upon another?
Click to expand...

Apparently some work on comprehension is also called for.

Voidwar said:
When the other town's football team comes to beat you, they bring offensive, defensive , and special teams squads. These squads may squabble between themselves, but they all came to your town to beat your team.
Click to expand...
 
Voidwar said:
Apparently some work on comprehension is also called for.
Click to expand...

Except that they were more interested in killing each other then in killing the Americans. Furthermore, don't forget that the biggest gains in Iraq was by turning groups on each other. The Sunni Awakening Councils essentially destroyed Al Quada in the Sunni Triangle. Not exactly a monolith. On top of that, some of the biggest gains in Indonesia and the Philippines was due to Muslim terrorists joining our side. Again, hardly "one team." Even more so, liberal Muslims in Canada and the US denounced the actions of terrorists and current support for Bin Laden is pretty paltry in the Muslim world. Again not "one team."
Turkey, a Muslim nation stands as a secular one, which aspects of its country willing to overthrow the government to maintain secularism. That's light years away from the Theocracy in Iran.

And squabble doesn't suggest sect-ocide.
 
So you have pointed out several factions.

I told you I don't care.

Name ONE of those "factions" that doesn't want Sharia Law on the PLANET.

If they don't then they aren't Muslim in the first place, as the Dar al Harb and the Dar al Islam are specifically defined in the Koran, and what is to be done with the Dar al Harb is quite clear, war on it till its all conquered, and becomes Dar al Islam.

Muslims don't disagree with the Koran, if they do, they aren't Muslims anymore. If they disagree with other Muslims, what do I care ? If the disagreement comes to violence, again, what do I care ?

Who gives a crap if the opposing teams offense and defense squads fought each other before gameday ?

The infighting you mention, does nothing to change the things I have said.

If some Sunni Arab Warlord gains prestige within his sect for stomping some Shia group, why do I care ? If my enemies fight amongst themselves, it does nothing to convince me that they are not my enemies. Both of these rivals would love to impose Sharia on the rest of the world, but they are weak, with little ability to project force, so they gain small local prestige within their sect by attacking the rival sect next door.
 
Hatuey said:
Was it this one?
Click to expand...

Yes, it proves that Bush did not lie.

Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

Here is an article about the investigation from Washington Post with quotes from the report. There is also criticism of Senator Rockefeller and others who wrote the report.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
Click to expand...

The big lie is "Bush lied."

Game over.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
So you have pointed out several factions.

I told you I don't care.

Name ONE of those "factions" that doesn't want Sharia Law on the PLANET.
Click to expand...

The millions of Muslims in the US and Canada.

Muslims don't disagree with the Koran, if they do, they aren't Muslims anymore. If they disagree with other Muslims, what do I care ? If the disagreement comes to violence, again, what do I care ?
Click to expand...

Whoa there. You seem to be failing to understand the difference between disagree and interpretation. Just because they don't interpret the Koran the same way as you do doesn't make them no longer Muslims, unless you want to apply that logic to all religions, in which I'd have to call you crazy.

Who gives a crap if the opposing teams offense and defense squads fought each other before gameday?
Click to expand...

So you truly believe that they are all going to work in unison towards a final goal?

Again, Cold War Mentality.

The infighting you mention, does nothing to change the things I have said.
Click to expand...

Only because you don't want it to. The fact of the matter is that Muslims are hardly a monolith, with each sect and groups within those sects having their own agendas, own interpretations and own views. Your argument effectively states that Liberal Canadian Muslims who have denounced terrorism are the same as Bin Laden. That's crazy talk. It's like saying super liberal pro-gay protestants are the same as ultra orthodox anti-gay, anti-abortion Catholics.

This really belongs in the Conspiracy subforum.
 
sazerac said:
Game over.
Click to expand...

Your "refutations" of Bush lied posts should be considered spam.

Not Only Did Bush Lie, But Fred Hiatt Lied, Too | Comments from Left Field

Making Light: Bush Lied, and Fred Hiatt Lied Too

Fred Hiatt, over at the Washington Post, makes much of the phrase found in many of the conclusions of the report, “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.” What he doesn’t tell you is that the committee only examined five of George Bush’s speeches, not the totality of the administration’s statements, so this bit from Bush wasn’t addressed:
Click to expand...

The Rockfeller Report which you falsely claim to prove Bush right states this:

Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community....

Statements by the President and Vice-President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The intelligence community assessed that Saddam Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons production capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide such capability in its dual use chemical industry. Intelligence assessments, especially prior to the October 2002 NIE, clearly stated that analysts could not confirm that production was ongoing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
All it proves is that Dubya lied about inspectors. The real issue is whether or not he lied about the WMD intel. That is the jackpot. If tapes come to light revealing Bush acknowledging he knew the intel was wrong or someone telling him that he intel was wrong, then we could conclusively argue he lied with the exception of delusionality.
Click to expand...

That is only half the jackpot. Lots of nations have WMDs, England France Isreal etc. and its no big deal.

The other part to make Iraq the "urgent threat" to our nation justifying invasion and occupation was that Hussein was likely to use the WMDs against us or by supplying them to terrorists (even though if Hussein had WMDs he'd had them for 20 years and there was no evidence he'd ever given them to terrorists or used them in a terrorist attack against us).

So that was the second part that needed a lie: Iraq was an "ally" of Al Queda Bush told us, and he and his administration again and again linked Hussein with AQ.

Thus you had the two components of the urgent threat: The alliance with the terrorist who attacked us and the WMDs to carry it out.

It was all untrue, as report after report has born out.
 
Last edited:
sazerac said:
Yes, it proves that Bush did not lie.

Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

Here is an article about the investigation from Washington Post with quotes from the report. There is also criticism of Senator Rockefeller and others who wrote the report.

The big lie is "Bush lied."

Game over.
Click to expand...

Bush: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda ..."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057798177-post154.html

Game over.

How many times are you going to play and lose this game?
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
Bush: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda ..."
Click to expand...

No lie there, only traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy say otherwise:

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.

Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.

To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings. It is only normal to say that punishment is a necessity in our world, because what is a necessity in the other world must also be necessary in our world on Earth. But, the punishment in the other world is faire and just, and the prophets and messengers of God (peace be upon them all) conducted punishment and called for it in justice, and not on the basis of suspicions and whims.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001""

“Once again, we say that, injustice and the pressure that results from it on people lead to explosions. As explosions are not always organized, it is to be expected that they may harm those who make them and others. The events of September 11, should be seen on this basis, and on the basis of imbalanced reactions, on the part of governments accused of being democratic, if the Americans are sure that these were carried out by people from abroad.

To concentrate not on what is important, but rather on what is the most important, we say again that after having seen that the flames of any fire can expand to cover all the world, it first and foremost, needs justice based on fairness. The best and most sublime expression of this is in what we have learned from what God the Al Mighty ordered to be, or not to be.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Tell me, who are the magical “they” that Saddam said “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings?”

{feel free to link to your answer}
 
There's hardly any point debating people who don't accept the truth when it is presented.
 
obvious Child said:
The millions of Muslims in the US and Canada.
Click to expand...

I say they do want Sharia on the planet, they are just too busy enjoying the fruits of the first world while acting as sleeper cells.
 
Voidwar said:
So you have pointed out several factions.

I told you I don't care.

Name ONE of those "factions" that doesn't want Sharia Law on the PLANET.

If they don't then they aren't Muslim in the first place, as the Dar al Harb and the Dar al Islam are specifically defined in the Koran, and what is to be done with the Dar al Harb is quite clear, war on it till its all conquered, and becomes Dar al Islam.

Muslims don't disagree with the Koran, if they do, they aren't Muslims anymore. If they disagree with other Muslims, what do I care ? If the disagreement comes to violence, again, what do I care ?

Who gives a crap if the opposing teams offense and defense squads fought each other before gameday ?

The infighting you mention, does nothing to change the things I have said.

If some Sunni Arab Warlord gains prestige within his sect for stomping some Shia group, why do I care ? If my enemies fight amongst themselves, it does nothing to convince me that they are not my enemies. Both of these rivals would love to impose Sharia on the rest of the world, but they are weak, with little ability to project force, so they gain small local prestige within their sect by attacking the rival sect next door.
Click to expand...
Sharia Law is none of your god-damn business!
 
sazerac said:
Yes, it proves that Bush did not lie.

Fred Hiatt - 'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple. - washingtonpost.com

Here is an article about the investigation from Washington Post with quotes from the report. There is also criticism of Senator Rockefeller and others who wrote the report.



The big lie is "Bush lied."

Game over.
Click to expand...
So you didn't read anything I posted where I went lie-by-lie, month-to-month and spelled it all out for you. You didn't read it, because you can't argue against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom