Bush never lied to us about Iraq - Page 12

Pull My Finger · 06-23-08, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

...more partisan obsession...

Again, it’s not a partisan issue.

Do you know how many of them saw ALL the intelligence? How many of the people (Dem or Rep) had their information handed to them by those who already cherry picked the evidence? Those people likely did believe what they were saying.

The ones (Rep or Dem) who made public statements knowing that the public was being misled by a puffed up case for a war with Iraq are liars.

I don’t see where political colors matter

My name is juvenile, certainly not to be taken seriously, which CAUSED the irony I admit… However, without getting into details, your name IS an irony.

Two totally different ironies…

Quote:

“There's bullet-proof evidence of links between al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein."
Rumsfeld, September 27, 2002

WASHINGTON POST Al-Qaeda Hussein links dismissed
MSNBC: 9/11 panel sees no links
BBC: Saddam had no link to Al-Qaeda
ABC: Report shows no links

Quote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

DOWNING STREET MEMO
WIKI: The Downing Street Minutes
TIME: Follow the Yellowcake Road
WIKI: Niger uranium forgeries

Quote:

“We know where they (WMD) are.”
Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

“I did not (say that). I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were...”
Rumsfeld, May 26, 2006

BBC: Iraq had no WMD
GUARDIAN: No WMD in Iraq
USA TODAY: Iraq had no WMD
PBS: No WMD found in Iraq
MSNBC: Iraq had no WMD before invasion
CNN: No evidence Iraq stockpiled
WASHINGTON POST: US almost all wrong on weapons
GUARDIAN: Officials knew Iraq had no WMD

FOX: Hundreds of WMD found in Iraq

Quote:

“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
George W. Bush, Sept. 6, 2006

Peace

Pull My Finger · 06-23-08, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

If he accomplishes the above without telling an explicit lie then no, he did not also lie. One can be easily be dishonest and manipulative without lying. That's why the English language has a plethora of behavioral descriptives such as those above.

Same deceit, same objective, same words…

Thesaurus

Manipulate – tamper with, change fraudulently, manage by crafty means, influence deviously, control illegally, falsify, direct unethically, deceive, defraud

Dishonest – corrupt, untrustworthy, fraudulent, disposed to cheat, false, lacking integrity, crooked, unscrupulous, deceitful, insincere, underhanded, misleading, deceptive

Lie – falsehood, prevarication, falsification, fib, fabrication, deception, deceit, misrepresentation, equivocation, misstate

Anything look familiar…?

Se…

man…

tics…

Peace

Iriemon · 06-23-08, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Quote:
Please stop avoiding my questions and attempt to answer them honestly and without all your diversions, projections and denials.

Thank you for illustrating that facts and the historic record are meaningless to someone who has a political agenda and will make any claim, false or otherwise, to support their myopic views.

Bottom line is, neither I, nor anyone else who supports this Administration on the Iraq issue is trying to blame Democrats as you falsely claim; I am not blaming anyone. I don't see any reason to "blame" someone for doing the RIGHT thing.

Misimplying a threat to start a war that was not necessary or justified is NOT THE RIGHT thing. Sorry.

Quote:

Meanwhile, angry Liberals like you who think that peace can be obtained through empty political rhetoric want to point your fingers at anyone and anything that doesn't support your naive and weak arguments and blame them for the entire world's problems blah blah blah blah.

Unlike you angry neocons, for whom war is peace.

Quote:

What is fascinating about such blind denial is that these angry Liberals will never blame the people and ideologies that make the world unsafe; Saddam Hussien, Osama Bin Laden, terrorists who blow up their own mosques and people, terrorists who hide among women and children to ensure that if we do fire on them, there will be headlines about how WE killed innocents.

Nice try to tie in Hussein with Bin Laden. Sounds like a WH speach. But it's been disproven by every intellegence agency in the world. Been listening to Rumsfeld and Cheney speaches from 2002-2004 for your FACTS?

Quote:

What is equally fascinating about such blind denial is how adamant Liberals are that Saddam was not a threat. If he was such a non-threat, why were there so many resolutions for him to comply? Why did so many devote so much time, on BOTH sides of the political aisle, telling us how he WAS a threat? Why is it that when the UN oil-for-food program was exposed as having been corrupted by Saddam, there were no doubts about the entire enforcement issue having possibly been corrupted?

Mostly because the US demanded them. But he was no "urgent threat" justifying war in Mar 2003.

Quote:

It begs the question, after the decision was made on BOTH sides of the aisle to go in, and we did it, what amount of recriminations or impugning this administration would make the situation better for our troops or this nation?

Nice try to blame the Dems on the Iraq war. I would too if I was a Bush apologist.

The truth is it was the Bush adminstration alone that decided to attack Iraq in Mar 2003.

Quote:

The HONEST answer is NOTHING done by the Liberals and the Democrats will make things better. But it is not about winning or succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the issue with you and your fellow Liberals and Democrats. The HONEST answer is that by impugning the people conducting this war, you see an opportunity for political gain, even if it means failure in the Middle East.

Things would definitely have been better if the Bush administration had not decided to rush to war.

I have nothing to gain politically, for the record.

Quote:

That stated, it is not surprising you would choose to avoid answering any questions honestly as it would require introspection into your true motives, and the last thing you want to see is your own motives having a less than honest reason.

Please identify the question you claim I avoided.

Quote:

At a time when our politicians and people need to come together and support the effort, Liberals and their Democrat allies have chosen a path that further divides this nation by impugning it's leaders in front of the entire world. It is pathetic, offensive in my opinion, and a sure sign of weakness. But since when did being WEAK ever bother or occur to a Liberal when the ONLY thing that matters to them is political power, power that they cannot possibly achieve honestly debating their political philosophy.

We need to get out of the "mistaken" war in Iraq. Not plan for a 100 year occupation. It's not about being "WEAK" or pumping up your projection of your manhood. It's about correcting a "mistake" and minimizing further harm this administration and neocons have caused this country.

Quote:

So by all means, continue your re-criminations which do NOTHING to achieve a solution or victory in Iraq and continue your fear mongering about Republican politicians, George Bush and the people who support him. After all, the lives of our troops and achieving success in the Middle East aren't as important as winning a political victory in the fall.

Pretty funny thing to say for a guy who wants the troops to stand and die.

Pull the troops out, no more die. Stay there and more die. So tell me again about how you care about the lives of the troops.

All this is about to you neocons is saving face for the biggest screw up in the history of American foreign policy, and "winning" like its some kind of football game, regardless of how many more thousands die in this "mistaken" and unnecessary war. It's all about your pride and politics.

I predicted many years ago the Bush administration would never withdraw from Iraq because they knew that would leave Iraq in a far more dangerous situation that it was when Hussein was in control, and that rather than expose Iraq for the complete screw up it was, they'd find excuses for staying there until they could pass the buck of this fiasco to the next administration. And whoever gets us out, the neocons can then blame the whole Iraq failure on them.

It's so obvious.

Sergeant Stinger1 · 06-24-08, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

And yet, you still can't back that up with any facts. How ironic.

But hey, make your case about how BAD Bush is and how we should never enforce ANY UN resolutions against Despots....and how our military is only supposed to be used as a form of Boy Scout work camp and not to fight the enemies of freedom. While we're at it, let's direct our anger and hate at Bush and not at the thugs who are blowing up our young men and women, blowing up innocent Iraqi's and blowing up their mosques.

Let's all pretend it's Bush's fault and that he went into Iraq without a coalition of countries who also believed what he did, or received authorization from Democrats who also believed what he did.

Heck, while we play the pretend game, let's also pretend Democrats are more competent, more ethical and less likely to start wars than Republicans. This fantasy should also include the fantastic notion that Government run programs actually work and the solution to all our problems is MORE money for the Government and higher taxes with Democrats in charge.

Watch out for that Rabbit hole....it gets real deep.

-
What part of bush lied'

to the whole world ***INCLUDING THE DEMS*** are you having trouble understanding?
-
STOP PRETENDING!

-
Hummmmm, Dems want MORE $$$$ for the GOV?

You mean like the BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$$ bush asked for to 'liberate a country on a lie'? A country that is WORSE off with bush then they were with Saddam?

-
Geez! I just love how many people are just like my sig says!

Tashah · 06-24-08, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pull My Finger

Same deceit, same objective, same words

Deliniate precisely when Bush told a self-initiated lie that is dependent on no other person or input. Can you do this? No hearsay. Can you place just one supposed Bush lie in total isolation?

Pull My Finger · 06-24-08, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Deliniate precisely when Bush told a self-initiated lie that is dependent on no other person or input. Can you do this? No hearsay. Can you place just one supposed Bush lie in total isolation?

Well first I’d have to assume that by ‘Bush’, you mean the Administration. It was a collaborative effort…

Secondly, it’s apparent that we have differing opinions on what constitutes a lie.

Thirdly, I’m not interested in a debate where we figure out which word to use for getting screwed. It has nothing to do with the reality of how it’s all gone down…

Fourthly, you are in agreement that Bush lied, just that it would be tough to isolate in a trial environment. IMO a competent team of prosecutors could take the Administration down like a prom dress at midnight…

The Downing Street Minutes have proven reputable… Therefore, I would consider this to be a lie:

Quote:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

If you’re familiar with main and sidestream information on the yellowcake scandal, you would be hard pressed to see it as anything but a ‘lie’. Claiming ignorance, or that speech writers had no idea is just so outrageously see through. IMO, with all the evidence considered in a proper forum, this kind of crap would be picked off for what it is… BS

Though not Bush, I consider a representative of the President to count:

Quote:

“We know where they (WMD) are.”
Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

“I did not (say that). I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were...”
Rumsfeld, May 26, 2006

Whether you think they had WMD or not, that is a lie on its very face. I happen to think it’s a lie in the fact that they did NOT know where the WMD were as well.

I see where you’re coming from… I can see how debating the definition of a lie would be pertinent to this thread… Maybe I’m the one who’s out of line dishing out (possibly) undeserved sarcasm… I can’t help but be

with semantics while people are dying because of a ‘insert word’…

Peace

Binary_Digit · 06-25-08, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pull My Finger

If you’re familiar with main and sidestream information on the yellowcake scandal, you would be hard pressed to see it as anything but a ‘lie’. Claiming ignorance, or that speech writers had no idea is just so outrageously see through.

Joseph Wilson determined that senior Iraqi officials did in fact patronize Nigerian officials about "expanding commercial relations" and the Niger officials took to be an attempt to acquire uranium. This was 9 months before that SOTU address.

Truth Detector · 06-25-08, 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
...more partisan obsession...

First and foremost, please do not attribute comments like the above to me when they were not made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pull My Finger

Again, it’s not a partisan issue.

Do you know how many of them saw ALL the intelligence? How many of the people (Dem or Rep) had their information handed to them by those who already cherry picked the evidence? Those people likely did believe what they were saying.

The ones (Rep or Dem) who made public statements knowing that the public was being misled by a puffed up case for a war with Iraq are liars.

I don’t see where political colors matter

It IS a partisan issue. It is made a partisan issue by the actions of Democrats who see this not as a war on terror or proper enforcement of UN resolutions, but as political opportunism. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme.

As for the availability of intelligence, that information was readily available to Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who also saw the SAME threat the previous administration saw, the Republicans saw and this President saw.

You can spin and twist and turn any way you want it. The FACT is clear that a MAJORITY rightly saw Saddam's actions as inconsistent with the UN resolutions and a threat to peace in the region. To suggest that he wasn't is as absurd and as disingenuous as suggesting that this is NOT a partisan issue.

Do yourself a favor and READ the UN resolutions against Iraq, the history leading up to the final warning given to Saddam, Saddam's OWN words before he was executed and the Joint Resolution.

I know you are in PARTISAN denial and don't want to be informed, but even the most myopic child can see the TRUTH beyond the attempts to argue partisan talking points from the Democrat side of the aisle.

Carry on.

Truth Detector · 06-25-08, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sergeant Stinger1

-
What part of bush lied'

to the whole world ***INCLUDING THE DEMS*** are you having trouble understanding?
-
STOP PRETENDING!

-
Hummmmm, Dems want MORE $$$$ for the GOV?

You mean like the BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$$ bush asked for to 'liberate a country on a lie'? A country that is WORSE off with bush then they were with Saddam?

-
Geez! I just love how many people are just like my sig says!

Once again we see the same tired old false rhetoric that Bush lied. Yet denial about all the Democrats who uttered the exact same words Bush did the previous administration that uttered the same words and leaders in other nations like Tony Blair who also believed what this Administration believed.

Your standards for what constitutes a lie are a double standard you fail to apply to the party which is apparently of YOUR preference. However, if one has intelligence and uses that intelligence to make their decision, it cannot be construed a lie because in order for it to have been a LIE, one would have to PRESUME we had PERFECT information regarding the issue.

Part TWO of your denial, as well as others who make the same lame arguments, is a willful avoidance of the fact that the Joint Resolution devotes a mere 204 words of a 1,864 word document to WMDs.

Part THREE of your denial, as well as others who make the same lame arguments, is that there was an overwhelming vote for the JOINT resolution which authorized force.

But heck, when you willingly suspend disbelief and purposely direct your anger and hate of war against this President for purely partisan political purposes and political opportunism, I can see why you would continue to wallow in such abject denial.

There are only TWO explanations for such willing political projection and denial; (1) it is due to the misguided Liberal notion that one should NEVER use military force in ANY situation EVER (unless we are directly attacked) and the naive and absurd notion that one can negotiate/reason with terrorists, despots and dictators; and (2) Liberals see the troop deaths as a political opportunity to get back the political power they so desperately desire, even over the safety of the American people and victory against her enemies.

Both of these naive and misguided notions are dangerous in the extreme and do not serve the interests of this nation and only serve to further divide this nation at a time when it should be working together for victory as long as our troops are carrying out their mission and at risk.

But heck, why worry about how our nation is viewed by others when you can denigrate the mission of our military, denigrate this President in a time of war against our enemies, denigrate people of good character for the simple fact that you do not like their politics and denigrate everyone who would continue to support this administrations efforts to protect Americans.

One has to stand on their head to make sense out of such profound stupidity we see coming from these Democrat politicians. But that is the state we find ourselves in, arguing over the notion that Saddam was not a threat (absurd) and that the UN is some efficient political entity that is best able to deal with despots (regardless of it's poor record to the contrary) and the notion one can fight terrorists who are willing to fly civilian airliners into high rise buildings with legal action and police.

Tashah · 06-25-08, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pull My Finger

I see where you’re coming from… I can see how debating the definition of a lie would be pertinent to this thread… Maybe I’m the one who’s out of line dishing out (possibly) undeserved sarcasm… I can’t help but be

with semantics while people are dying because of a ‘insert word’…

Forget it. My mistake. A lesson learned.