Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 158 of 158

Thread: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    In that report it clearly details how the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith, and the OSP (which was actually created by Paul Wolfowitz at the direction of the Bush administration and who answered to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney) created and disseminated their own alternative intel reports, outside the scope of the actual intelligence community, and provided that to key decision makers. Those reports included the case of a mature link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Those reports were not supported by the intelligence community. That alleged relationship was a key selling point after 9/11. It was repeated and inferred over and over again. Here are some examples.

    Darn, how do you counter that TD? That's not just conspiratorial bull****, that's what Bush, Cheney, and Rice are telling the public based on intel produced by the OSP. And I'll be darned if the Department of Defense didn't have something to say about that in the report. Now why would the Bush administration create an entirely new intelligence apparatus specifically to process raw intel for the invasion of Iraq? Why would they dismiss intel from CIA and DIA analysts in favor of their own alternative intel reports? Could it be that the CIA and DIA did not support the case made by the OSP? Clearly that has been identified as a problem.

    More on this subject can be found in some of the books I've already presented in this thread.

    Uh oh, more straw manning from Truth Detector! Now who didn't see this coming? I didn't say or even infer that the Joint Resolution was about WMD's or that Iraq was ONLY about WMD's. Did I? Can you show one post of mine where I said that? I only said that you were falling back on a line that you attempted to use before, that because the Joint Resolution authorized force that the invasion was justified. That's what I said. I never once stated that the war was ONLY about WMD's and that this was the crux of the Joint Resolution. You can search the entire forum and you will not find a single quote of mine that even remotely hints at this. You have managed to concoct a false position, claim I took it, and then attack me for it. I'll ask this again...what the hell is wrong with you? For all your whining about reading comprehension you certainly seem to have problem with it yourself. Once again we find you straw manning me in the absence of an actual argument.

    And still yet we have you completely avoiding actually discussing the subject, and instead relying on insults and blabbering. I've provided a large amount of relevant information and sources. You've done **** to actually debate the topic.

    You are living up to your reputation here Truth Detector.
    I keep seeing your desperate assertions and attempts to avoid any FACTS that I have posted and your equally desperate assertions to suggest that hearsay and attempts to CYA in novels and books is more relevant than legal documentation and I can only ask you the same old question over and over again; did not the British, the Australians and the previous Clinton administration make the SAME claims that Bush did? It is a simple yes or no question; I posted the exact quotes for you.

    Now, try to follow this, did you also READ the Joint Resolution to go to war in Iraq? A simple yes or no.

    Now having read the document, do you also acknowledge that this is indeed the LEGAL justification to go into Iraq and was overwhelmingly passed in a bi-partisan fashion? yes or no; you have the link to the document?

    If you said yes, how many words are there in the document?

    How many words in the document have to do with WMDs?

    How many words are contained in the document that attempt to assert that Al Qaeda was connected to Saddam?

    These are not difficult questions; but to be honest with you, if you are not going to even give me the courtesy of an honest answer and constantly wander off target with your incessant false assertions about what constitutes a lie, then there is no reason for me to even attempt debating with you.

    Now if you answer those questions HONESTLY and without your typical emotional filled hyper partisan bias, the ONLY way you can make the asinine claims that Bush lied is by making an equivalent asinine assertion that ALL the administrations and Democrats who made the identical claims are also lying to us.

    If the document that was the LEGAL justification for going into Iraq contains only 200 words from a total of 1,857 words on WMDs, then WMDs cannot have been the singular reason for going into Iraq.

    Now if all the FACTS cannot sway you, and the simple fact that Saddam did indeed pose a threat to the world and his neighbors sitting on one of the largest OIL reserves on earth, then no amount of credible intelligent debate will change the obvious denial you tend to wallow in.

    So do me the courtesy of answering my questions and acknowledging the LINKS I provided and quotes made by Liberal Democrats; or run along with your rants about "perceived" cherry picking intelligence and CYA novels intended for gullible consumption.

    The notion that the Agency Director was deliberately feeding everyone BS or that Colin Powell, one of those insiders, was deliberately lying to the UN for purposes even you cannot begin to elucidate requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

    BUT, I will also leave you with this thought; what do you think Bush hoped to gain by purposely misleading the American people and supposedly "lying" about WMDs knowing of course that once we were there the truth would be discovered? I mean, if you are going to foist a lie on the American people, at least falsify and bury some WMDs out in the desert to promote the lie right?

    Oh wait, you still promote the equally asinine idea that Bush is such a HUGE moron, that he was only ingenious enough to fool EVERYONE into a War of choice and was hardly smart enough to fabricate evidence to support the lie.

    You see how asinine that line of thinking is when you actually THINK it out?

  2. #152
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I keep seeing your desperate assertions and attempts to avoid any FACTS that I have posted and your equally desperate assertions to suggest that hearsay and attempts to CYA in novels and books is more relevant than legal documentation and I can only ask you the same old question over and over again; did not the British, the Australians and the previous Clinton administration make the SAME claims that Bush did? It is a simple yes or no question; I posted the exact quotes for you.
    I've already answered your questions. Repeatedly. You are being deliberately obtuse now.

    Now, try to follow this, did you also READ the Joint Resolution to go to war in Iraq? A simple yes or no.
    Yes I have.

    Now having read the document, do you also acknowledge that this is indeed the LEGAL justification to go into Iraq and was overwhelmingly passed in a bi-partisan fashion? yes or no; you have the link to the document?
    No, the Joint Resolution was an authorization for the President to use force as appropriate and necessary to protect the U.S. and enforce Iraqi compliance with the U.N. resolutions. It was passed based upon a consensus that had been influenced by the deliberate presentation of bad or manipulated information by the Bush administration. Further, the force that Bush used was neither appropriate or necessary given all the facts of situation at the time. I have already proven this with my source material.

    If you said yes, how many words are there in the document?
    Word count is irrelevant.

    How many words in the document have to do with WMDs?
    Irrelevant, I never made the case we only went to war over WMD's. How many times must I tell you this. I've also asked you to prove where I every argued this point.
    How many words are contained in the document that attempt to assert that Al Qaeda was connected to Saddam?
    Irrelevant. What is a fact is that Bush campaigned on this alleged relationship, stating they had solid evidence of it, knowing full well they did not.

    These are not difficult questions; but to be honest with you, if you are not going to even give me the courtesy of an honest answer and constantly wander off target with your incessant false assertions about what constitutes a lie, then there is no reason for me to even attempt debating with you.
    You don't want to go there with me on this. I've got about two dozen questions out there for you that you've not touched. I've made not one false assertion. I've asked you identify those false assertions and substantiate your claim. You are a lying coward and have thus far failed to answer my challenge.

    Now if you answer those questions HONESTLY and without your typical emotional filled hyper partisan bias, the ONLY way you can make the asinine claims that Bush lied is by making an equivalent asinine assertion that ALL the administrations and Democrats who made the identical claims are also lying to us.
    I've already addressed this more than once.

    If the document that was the LEGAL justification for going into Iraq contains only 200 words from a total of 1,857 words on WMDs, then WMDs cannot have been the singular reason for going into Iraq.
    Irrelevant. The word count is irrelevant. Further I never made the claim that we went to war on the singular reason of WMD's. I've repeated this to you over and over again. I've asked you to prove where I ever made this claim, over and over again. You've since proven you are a liar, a coward, and completely ignorant of fact.

    Now if all the FACTS cannot sway you, and the simple fact that Saddam did indeed pose a threat to the world and his neighbors sitting on one of the largest OIL reserves on earth, then no amount of credible intelligent debate will change the obvious denial you tend to wallow in.
    You have yet to present any facts and put them into any context that supports any argument. I've already produced documentation showing that our intelligence community did no believe Iraq had WMD's or posed an actual regional threat prior to the invasion. I've produced an investigation that has proven the OSP inappropriately conducted intelligence collection activities, manufactured alternate intelligence assessments that were unsupported by the intelligence community, and presented those to key decision makers in favor of actual CIA and DIA intel.

    I am the only one substantiating a logical case here. Fully 3/4's or more of you input in this debate has been nothing more than insults, rhetoric, and word salad.

    So do me the courtesy of answering my questions and acknowledging the LINKS I provided and quotes made by Liberal Democrats; or run along with your rants about "perceived" cherry picking intelligence and CYA novels intended for gullible consumption.
    I've consistently answered all of your questions. I've went over and above answering them. You've ran like a whimpering coward from mine. I have a multitude of questions still unanswered by you.

    The notion that the Agency Director was deliberately feeding everyone BS or that Colin Powell, one of those insiders, was deliberately lying to the UN for purposes even you cannot begin to elucidate requires the willful suspension of disbelief.
    Blah blah blah blah....recycle your same non-point based on a straw man.

    BUT, I will also leave you with this thought; what do you think Bush hoped to gain by purposely misleading the American people and supposedly "lying" about WMDs knowing of course that once we were there the truth would be discovered? I mean, if you are going to foist a lie on the American people, at least falsify and bury some WMDs out in the desert to promote the lie right?
    Bush led the nation to war because he subscribed a long held neo-conservative belief that U.S. prominence was dependent upon rebuilding our military into a much larger force and reasserting U.S. political and military influence in the Middle East. PNAC-Rebuilding America's Defenses. Read it and weep. Do some research on the Project for a New American Century. It's a who's who of the neo-con hierarchy, many of which made the Bush administrations circle of trust, and the military industrial complex.

    Oh wait, you still promote the equally asinine idea that Bush is such a HUGE moron, that he was only ingenious enough to fool EVERYONE into a War of choice and was hardly smart enough to fabricate evidence to support the lie.
    You are a liar. I never made that argument. You want to try again liar? Quote me ever making that argument. I've addressed this with you more than once.

    You see how asinine that line of thinking is when you actually THINK it out?
    No, I see how asinine your repeated straw manning and refusal to substantiate your case is. All that typing and the majority of it was you recycling your same old tired rhetoric. You have made a single substantiated point this entire debate.

    Do we still have True Debate function on this forum? Consider yourself challenged on the topic of "Did Bush mislead Congress in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq."

    I'm going to wipe the floor with your ass.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-14-09 at 12:03 AM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  3. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I've already answered your questions. Repeatedly. You are being deliberately obtuse now.
    No you haven’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No, the Joint Resolution was an authorization for the President to use force as appropriate and necessary to protect the U.S. and enforce Iraqi compliance with the U.N. resolutions. It was passed based upon a consensus that had been influenced by the deliberate presentation of bad or manipulated information by the Bush administration. Further, the force that Bush used was neither appropriate or necessary given all the facts of situation at the time. I have already proven this with my source material.
    I would love you to point out where within this document it makes the absurd and comedic claims you make which I have bolded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Word count is irrelevant.
    No, your desperate assertions and denial are what are irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Irrelevant, I never made the case we only went to war over WMD's. How many times must I tell you this. I've also asked you to prove where I every argued this point.
    You have got to be kidding me; do you even read your own uninformed desperate rhetoric. Your entire desperate premise is entirely directed towards WMDs and how Bush "cherry picked" the intelligence to support his argument that Saddam had them as if it is the ONLY reason we went in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Irrelevant. What is a fact is that Bush campaigned on this alleged relationship, stating they had solid evidence of it, knowing full well they did not.
    It doesn’t matter what discussions of the war occurred; what is absolutely RELEVANT is the LEGAL justification to go to war which is indeed contained in the Joint Resolution which vast majorities from BOTH parties voted for and felt was JUSTIFIED.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You don't want to go there with me on this. I've got about two dozen questions out there for you that you've not touched. I've made not one false assertion. I've asked you identify those false assertions and substantiate your claim. You are a lying coward and have thus far failed to answer my challenge.
    Overlooking your obvious emotional hysterics; your entire premise and life is nothing more than a vast conspiratorial LIE dude. You haven’t shed ONE tiny shred of evidence supporting the desperate LIBERAL asinine assertion that Bush LIED the American people into a war of choice.

    All we see from you are the desperate clinging to hearsay and innuendo suggesting that yes, there were OTHER OPINIONS out there; but that doesn’t make your case credible or relevant; it just illustrates someone who in their hyper partisan denial who would rather wallow in BS and second guessing decisions made that were Bi_Partisn and enter in to whiney uninformed rants desperately trying to re-define the definition of what a lie is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I've already addressed this more than once.
    You haven’t addressed anything that supports the asinine Liberal lie that Bush “lied” us into war with Iraq basing your entire premise on the second guessing of finding WMDs.

    But let’s also ignore the FACT that 500 tons of yellowcake was transferred to Canada last year; because we all know yellow cake is an essential ingredient for Saddam to make “peace cakes” from right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Irrelevant. The word count is irrelevant. Further I never made the claim that we went to war on the singular reason of WMD's. I've repeated this to you over and over again. I've asked you to prove where I ever made this claim, over and over again. You've since proven you are a liar, a coward, and completely ignorant of fact.
    Your entire premise is based on Bush lying about WMDs. Anyone reading your desperate asinine claims can comprehend this except for YOU; the one who is typing this vast pile of left wing conspiratorial bile.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You have yet to present any facts and put them into any context that supports any argument. I've already produced documentation showing that our intelligence community did no believe Iraq had WMD's or posed an actual regional threat prior to the invasion. I've produced an investigation that has proven the OSP inappropriately conducted intelligence collection activities, manufactured alternate intelligence assessments that were unsupported by the intelligence community, and presented those to key decision makers in favor of actual CIA and DIA intel.
    I have presented all the facts one needs to show what a pile of uninformed Liberal hyper partisan bile your desperate, yet asinine, assertions are.

    I posted links to the Joint Resolution which is the LEGAL justification for war with Iraq. I have posted the EXACT comments regarding the intelligence Democrats and the previous administration has made.

    Your response; they are irrelevant. What a compelling argument that is eh?

    You have provided nothing but a pile of whiney arm chair second guessing, hyperbole and CYA novels written by people who failed their own Government and who, in Clark’s case, ADMITTED they were **** ups.

    I don’t think you even read Clark’s book because it does more to impugn the Clinton Administration than it does Bush’s. But alas, you are “cherry” picking your information to support the asinine Liberal assertion that Bush, who according to these same idiots was such a moron, FOOLED all these smart people with his “cherry picking” of intelligence already presumably “cherry picked” by the previous administration, Democrats and 34 allies who also had access to the intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I am the only one substantiating a logical case here. Fully 3/4's or more of you input in this debate has been nothing more than insults, rhetoric, and word salad.
    No Lerxst, you are the ONLY one ignoring the FACTS I posted and “CLAIM” you are making any sense. But alas, this is the same behavior one sees from alcoholics as well.

    They say the first stage of recovery is admitting you have a problem; yours is comprehending what others are saying, having a coherent understanding of your own argument, which you obviously don’t when you keep claiming your entire premise is not just about WMDs, and honestly answering questions without all your hyperbole and equivocations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    I've consistently answered all of your questions. I've went over and above answering them. You've ran like a whimpering coward from mine. I have a multitude of questions still unanswered by you.
    No, you have consistently avoided answering my questions while wandering off into the logical wilderness with your never ending blather about WMDs. Yet when the document that is the LEGAL justification only refers to WMDs 10% of the time, you declare that irrelevant.

    Bravo; your method of arguing is quite compelling; just declare the FACTS irrelevant and then fabricate your own facts that fit your narrow myopic hyper partisan point of view.

    I am betting that you think my arguments are a defense of the BUSH administration too. But alas, nothing could be FURTHER from the truth; my efforts are merely to support the TRUTH and the FACTS and point out the asinine FALSE assertions made by hyper partisan liberals who are so filled with misplaced hate of Bush that they will willingly swallow any pile of leftist swill that will satiate their hatred of Bush for the mere fact that they disagree with him politically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Blah blah blah blah....recycle your same non-point based on a straw man.
    The ONLY strawman here are your desperate assertions regarding WMDs. But I do find it comedic that you claim that the Joint Resolution and the exact words and beliefs of Democrats in the previous administration are just strawman arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Bush led the nation to war because he subscribed a long held neo-conservative belief that U.S. prominence was dependent upon rebuilding our military into a much larger force and reasserting U.S. political and military influence in the Middle East.

    It's a who's who of the neo-con hierarchy, many of which made the Bush administrations circle of trust, and the military industrial complex.
    I am going to address this asinine assertion in a separate response because it requires waders in order to properly deal with the vast pile of desperate bile you continue to spread here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    You are a liar. I never made that argument. You want to try again liar? Quote me ever making that argument. I've addressed this with you more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    No, I see how asinine your repeated straw manning and refusal to substantiate your case is. All that typing and the majority of it was you recycling your same old tired rhetoric. You have made a single substantiated point this entire debate.
    Yes, the JOINT Resolution and statements made by other intelligence agencies, countries leaders, Democrats and the previous administration are all strawman lies.

    The only thing more comedic than your desperate clinging to your WMD argument is the notion that FACTS are somehow strawman arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Do we still have True Debate function on this forum? Consider yourself challenged on the topic of "Did Bush mislead Congress in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq."

    I'm going to wipe the floor with your ass.
    LMAO; again? Do you know how many Liberals like you have made this challenge and then discovered they are incapable of even getting it up and running?

    You actually think that a TRUE debate will somehow make your fabrications appear more factual?

    I accept any desperate challenge you throw up but I fail to see how it will matter to someone who claims that FACTS are nothing more than strawman and that they are irrelevant.

    Such clown like arguments are better made in the basement than in a True Debate don’t you think?

    The only thing you will be doing as it relates to asses and the floor is picking your sorry ass up OFF the floor.

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Bush led the nation to war because he subscribed a long held neo-conservative belief that U.S. prominence was dependent upon rebuilding our military into a much larger force and reasserting U.S. political and military influence in the Middle East. PNAC-Rebuilding America's Defenses. Read it and weep. Do some research on the Project for a New American Century. It's a who's who of the neo-con hierarchy, many of which made the Bush administrations circle of trust, and the military industrial complex.
    Do you even read the sources you quote?

    I am going to post the purposes of the PNAC and have you break the document down and then ask you to explain to me how this document has supports the asinine assertion that Bush lied us into a war of choice in Iraq:

    ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
    defend the American homeland;
    fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
    perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
    transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
    To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations.

    In particular, the United States must:
    MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
    RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
    REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

    MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.
    CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
    DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
    CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
    EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which;
    maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
    produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
    INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.


    Carry on, I look forward to more of your desperate asinine assertions and attempts to re-define the definition of "a lie."

  5. #155
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    No you haven’t.



    I would love you to point out where within this document it makes the absurd and comedic claims you make which I have bolded.



    No, your desperate assertions and denial are what are irrelevant.



    You have got to be kidding me; do you even read your own uninformed desperate rhetoric. Your entire desperate premise is entirely directed towards WMDs and how Bush "cherry picked" the intelligence to support his argument that Saddam had them as if it is the ONLY reason we went in.



    It doesn’t matter what discussions of the war occurred; what is absolutely RELEVANT is the LEGAL justification to go to war which is indeed contained in the Joint Resolution which vast majorities from BOTH parties voted for and felt was JUSTIFIED.



    Overlooking your obvious emotional hysterics; your entire premise and life is nothing more than a vast conspiratorial LIE dude. You haven’t shed ONE tiny shred of evidence supporting the desperate LIBERAL asinine assertion that Bush LIED the American people into a war of choice.

    All we see from you are the desperate clinging to hearsay and innuendo suggesting that yes, there were OTHER OPINIONS out there; but that doesn’t make your case credible or relevant; it just illustrates someone who in their hyper partisan denial who would rather wallow in BS and second guessing decisions made that were Bi_Partisn and enter in to whiney uninformed rants desperately trying to re-define the definition of what a lie is.



    You haven’t addressed anything that supports the asinine Liberal lie that Bush “lied” us into war with Iraq basing your entire premise on the second guessing of finding WMDs.

    But let’s also ignore the FACT that 500 tons of yellowcake was transferred to Canada last year; because we all know yellow cake is an essential ingredient for Saddam to make “peace cakes” from right?



    Your entire premise is based on Bush lying about WMDs. Anyone reading your desperate asinine claims can comprehend this except for YOU; the one who is typing this vast pile of left wing conspiratorial bile.



    I have presented all the facts one needs to show what a pile of uninformed Liberal hyper partisan bile your desperate, yet asinine, assertions are.

    I posted links to the Joint Resolution which is the LEGAL justification for war with Iraq. I have posted the EXACT comments regarding the intelligence Democrats and the previous administration has made.

    Your response; they are irrelevant. What a compelling argument that is eh?

    You have provided nothing but a pile of whiney arm chair second guessing, hyperbole and CYA novels written by people who failed their own Government and who, in Clark’s case, ADMITTED they were **** ups.

    I don’t think you even read Clark’s book because it does more to impugn the Clinton Administration than it does Bush’s. But alas, you are “cherry” picking your information to support the asinine Liberal assertion that Bush, who according to these same idiots was such a moron, FOOLED all these smart people with his “cherry picking” of intelligence already presumably “cherry picked” by the previous administration, Democrats and 34 allies who also had access to the intelligence.



    No Lerxst, you are the ONLY one ignoring the FACTS I posted and “CLAIM” you are making any sense. But alas, this is the same behavior one sees from alcoholics as well.

    They say the first stage of recovery is admitting you have a problem; yours is comprehending what others are saying, having a coherent understanding of your own argument, which you obviously don’t when you keep claiming your entire premise is not just about WMDs, and honestly answering questions without all your hyperbole and equivocations.



    No, you have consistently avoided answering my questions while wandering off into the logical wilderness with your never ending blather about WMDs. Yet when the document that is the LEGAL justification only refers to WMDs 10% of the time, you declare that irrelevant.

    Bravo; your method of arguing is quite compelling; just declare the FACTS irrelevant and then fabricate your own facts that fit your narrow myopic hyper partisan point of view.

    I am betting that you think my arguments are a defense of the BUSH administration too. But alas, nothing could be FURTHER from the truth; my efforts are merely to support the TRUTH and the FACTS and point out the asinine FALSE assertions made by hyper partisan liberals who are so filled with misplaced hate of Bush that they will willingly swallow any pile of leftist swill that will satiate their hatred of Bush for the mere fact that they disagree with him politically.



    The ONLY strawman here are your desperate assertions regarding WMDs. But I do find it comedic that you claim that the Joint Resolution and the exact words and beliefs of Democrats in the previous administration are just strawman arguments.



    I am going to address this asinine assertion in a separate response because it requires waders in order to properly deal with the vast pile of desperate bile you continue to spread here.







    Yes, the JOINT Resolution and statements made by other intelligence agencies, countries leaders, Democrats and the previous administration are all strawman lies.

    The only thing more comedic than your desperate clinging to your WMD argument is the notion that FACTS are somehow strawman arguments.



    LMAO; again? Do you know how many Liberals like you have made this challenge and then discovered they are incapable of even getting it up and running?

    You actually think that a TRUE debate will somehow make your fabrications appear more factual?

    I accept any desperate challenge you throw up but I fail to see how it will matter to someone who claims that FACTS are nothing more than strawman and that they are irrelevant.

    Such clown like arguments are better made in the basement than in a True Debate don’t you think?

    The only thing you will be doing as it relates to asses and the floor is picking your sorry ass up OFF the floor.
    Your performance in this thread will be your doom home boy.

    I'm glad you didn't puss out.

    I'll point the mods here and we'll get this going.
    *insert profound statement here*

  6. #156
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Do you even read the sources you quote?

    I am going to post the purposes of the PNAC and have you break the document down and then ask you to explain to me how this document has supports the asinine assertion that Bush lied us into a war of choice in Iraq:

    ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
    defend the American homeland;
    fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
    perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
    transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
    To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations.

    In particular, the United States must:
    MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
    RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
    REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.

    MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.
    CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
    DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
    CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
    EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which;
    maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
    produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
    INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.


    Carry on, I look forward to more of your desperate asinine assertions and attempts to re-define the definition of "a lie."
    Yes I do. And what is it exactly that you are trying to point out? You completely glossed over the dirty bits didn't you? And I never said this document proved anything about Bush lying us into war. Show me where I did.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 05-15-09 at 07:41 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  7. #157
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    No you haven’t.
    You're full of **** too.

    I would love you to point out where within this document it makes the absurd and comedic claims you make which I have bolded.
    What? Who said the document said any of that? The support needed to pass the document was based upon manipulated information. You know all those stupid "reading comprehension" insults you hurl at people? Take some of your own advice. Go back and reread. This has become a major habit of yours it seems. Associating arguments with people they didn't make. This True Debate will be a lot of fun if this is how you are going to perform.


    No, your desperate assertions and denial are what are irrelevant.
    Word count is irrelevant because you are associating with an argument I didn't make. Further, the actual word count is absolutely irrelevant...it's what the words say that matter. Not how many letters it takes to say it. By the way I'm still waiting on you to articulate the relevance.


    You have got to be kidding me; do you even read your own uninformed desperate rhetoric. Your entire desperate premise is entirely directed towards WMDs and how Bush "cherry picked" the intelligence to support his argument that Saddam had them as if it is the ONLY reason we went in.
    No, I'm not kidding you, yes I do read my own posts (after all I do write them), and I'm still waiting on you to actually prove I ever said this. Now, the "entire premise" entirely directed towards WMD's, you should be able to easily take a couple of my posts and substantiate this. Please produce them or stop lying to everyone.

    It doesn’t matter what discussions of the war occurred; what is absolutely RELEVANT is the LEGAL justification to go to war which is indeed contained in the Joint Resolution which vast majorities from BOTH parties voted for and felt was JUSTIFIED.
    No, the Joint Resolution is not a "justification" for going to war, it's a document authorizing the President to use force to as appropriate and necessary to defend the U.S. and to enforce Iraqi compliance with the U.N. resolutions. What is at stake here is the premise Bush executed his authority under. There was no justification in what he did because it was neither "appropriate nor necessary" based on the information at hand. Bush knew this.

    Overlooking your obvious emotional hysterics; your entire premise and life is nothing more than a vast conspiratorial LIE dude. You haven’t shed ONE tiny shred of evidence supporting the desperate LIBERAL asinine assertion that Bush LIED the American people into a war of choice.
    Quite the contrary, I've absolutely proven it. And I will prove it again in our True Debate. Congress and the people supported the decision to go to war based upon information the Bush White House provided them with. That information was proven to be inconsistent with the facts that were readily available to the administration. The information was presented as solid and convincing, but they knew it was neither prior to presenting it. A DOD Inspector Generals report as well as testimony from members of various national security organizations have proven this. I've posted source material backing me up. You've simply bloviated, whined, and insulted.

    All we see from you are the desperate clinging to hearsay and innuendo suggesting that yes, there were OTHER OPINIONS out there; but that doesn’t make your case credible or relevant; it just illustrates someone who in their hyper partisan denial who would rather wallow in BS and second guessing decisions made that were Bi_Partisn and enter in to whiney uninformed rants desperately trying to re-define the definition of what a lie is.
    What I have presented was information that was gathered from actual sources who were involved in the situations at the time. I'll give you more when we have our True Debate. I see you have done nothing to actually counter my points still yet. Again, I hope you keep this nonsense up, the amount of work it takes to debunk you will be minimal.

    You haven’t addressed anything that supports the asinine Liberal lie that Bush “lied” us into war with Iraq basing your entire premise on the second guessing of finding WMDs.
    And you are lying once again. Not surprising.
    But let’s also ignore the FACT that 500 tons of yellowcake was transferred to Canada last year; because we all know yellow cake is an essential ingredient for Saddam to make “peace cakes” from right?
    It's not surprise you would try to bring this up, unfortunately for you I actually read things so your blatant dishonesty here is easy to catch. That yellowcake was not a WMD, it was a material that has multiple uses, one of which is for making nuclear weapons, another is fuel, and it had been there, with our knowledge and the U.N.'s knowlege, since the first Gulf War. We knew all about this, it was not a surprise find and it wasn't a WMD. Further there were only three facilities in Iraq that could have ever processed this material into anything of use. They were all located on the Al—Tuwaitha reservation and all three had been destroyed by Israeli and Coalition forces in the 80's and 90's. They were never rebuilt and could not be used to do anything with material. One of them was a nuclear fuel fabrication plant by the way.

    Read a book once in a while and you won't fall on your face so much.

    Your entire premise is based on Bush lying about WMDs. Anyone reading your desperate asinine claims can comprehend this except for YOU; the one who is typing this vast pile of left wing conspiratorial bile.
    Please substantiate your case or stop lying.

    I have presented all the facts one needs to show what a pile of uninformed Liberal hyper partisan bile your desperate, yet asinine, assertions are.
    You've not provided a single valid counter point to any of my arguments. You've bloviated and whined and insulted. What on topic information you have provided has been countered by me based upon your illogical application of it as evidence to support the few claims you actually make. You've not countered me on these at all except to whine.
    I posted links to the Joint Resolution which is the LEGAL justification for war with Iraq. I have posted the EXACT comments regarding the intelligence Democrats and the previous administration has made.
    You don't understand what the Joint Resolution is, let alone how it came to be passed. That is your problem. You are simply assuming that all the information that was provided by the Bush administration to Congress was accurate and factual. I have proven it was not.
    Your response; they are irrelevant. What a compelling argument that is eh?
    And you are once again a dishonest poster. Imagine that. I'm going to destroy you in the True Debate.
    You have provided nothing but a pile of whiney arm chair second guessing, hyperbole and CYA novels written by people who failed their own Government and who, in Clark’s case, ADMITTED they were **** ups.
    Yeah right. We shall see when I pull the corroborated information from them that will facilitate your downfall.
    I don’t think you even read Clark’s book because it does more to impugn the Clinton Administration than it does Bush’s. But alas, you are “cherry” picking your information to support the asinine Liberal assertion that Bush, who according to these same idiots was such a moron, FOOLED all these smart people with his “cherry picking” of intelligence already presumably “cherry picked” by the previous administration, Democrats and 34 allies who also had access to the intelligence.
    You're clueless then. I've not only read the book, I've read it twice in order to thoroughly compare it with other works in terms of trying to track down the claims contained therein. You keep going back to the Clinton administration, but that does nothing to excuse Bush and the fact that he and his administration knew that their intel was questionable at best and completely unsupported by the intelligence community at worst. But you keep playing the obtuse one, it suits you. I'll continue to serve you healthy doses of fact in the True Debate.

    No Lerxst, you are the ONLY one ignoring the FACTS I posted and “CLAIM” you are making any sense. But alas, this is the same behavior one sees from alcoholics as well.
    Well this is certainly more your style. In light of actually making a case you equate me to an alcoholic. You are funny. I like you.

    They say the first stage of recovery is admitting you have a problem; yours is comprehending what others are saying, having a coherent understanding of your own argument, which you obviously don’t when you keep claiming your entire premise is not just about WMDs, and honestly answering questions without all your hyperbole and equivocations.
    More blah blah blah, no substance, no real argument, just vagina mouth.


    No, you have consistently avoided answering my questions while wandering off into the logical wilderness with your never ending blather about WMDs. Yet when the document that is the LEGAL justification only refers to WMDs 10% of the time, you declare that irrelevant.
    More of the same.
    Bravo; your method of arguing is quite compelling; just declare the FACTS irrelevant and then fabricate your own facts that fit your narrow myopic hyper partisan point of view.
    No, that's pretty much what you do. I have provided plenty of source material. Further, you've done nothing to debunk me or my sources. You've held your tummy and bellyached a lot though.

    I am betting that you think my arguments are a defense of the BUSH administration too. But alas, nothing could be FURTHER from the truth; my efforts are merely to support the TRUTH and the FACTS and point out the asinine FALSE assertions made by hyper partisan liberals who are so filled with misplaced hate of Bush that they will willingly swallow any pile of leftist swill that will satiate their hatred of Bush for the mere fact that they disagree with him politically.
    Need a tissue? Or some ALL CAPS brand hankies?

    The ONLY strawman here are your desperate assertions regarding WMDs. But I do find it comedic that you claim that the Joint Resolution and the exact words and beliefs of Democrats in the previous administration are just strawman arguments.
    Lol...okay, do you know what a straw man argument is there Sport?


    I am going to address this asinine assertion in a separate response because it requires waders in order to properly deal with the vast pile of desperate bile you continue to spread here.
    No, you're not going to actually address it. You're going to claim I made an argument I never actually made.


    Yes, the JOINT Resolution and statements made by other intelligence agencies, countries leaders, Democrats and the previous administration are all strawman lies.
    Some of them are, the vast majority are simply individual parroting information they had been provided by the Bush administration. I've already given you examples of this.
    *insert profound statement here*

  8. #158
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,463

    Re: The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

    The only thing more comedic than your desperate clinging to your WMD argument is the notion that FACTS are somehow strawman arguments.
    What facts are you referring to? Your claims regarding arguments I never made are not facts. That you deliberately engaged in dishonest debate tactics by associating me with an argument I have never made, over and over again, that is evidence of the straw man I am referring to. I have no idea in hell what you are talking about, and I doubt anyone else does.
    LMAO; again? Do you know how many Liberals like you have made this challenge and then discovered they are incapable of even getting it up and running?
    Yes again, since you ran from the last one like a coward. Don't remember. Check it out Pollypussypants. http://www.debatepolitics.com/contes...postponed.html

    In that thread is all the evidence anyone needs to see I had it all set up TWICE and you were a no show. It was so convenient you managed to get suspended just prior to the start date both times. The fact that rules were laid out and there were two start dates means it was most certainly ready to go. I challenged you again later and you refused to answer. We will see if you actually show up for this one. I doubt you will. You'll find an excuse.
    You actually think that a TRUE debate will somehow make your fabrications appear more factual?
    What it will do is force you to actually make your case and present these facts. The end result will be that if you do not actually debunk me and prove me wrong, you will be officially recognized as having debated me and lost your ass.

    I accept any desperate challenge you throw up but I fail to see how it will matter to someone who claims that FACTS are nothing more than strawman and that they are irrelevant.
    Yay...let's see if you actually show up this time.

    Such clown like arguments are better made in the basement than in a True Debate don’t you think?
    Uh oh, are you pussing out already TD?
    The only thing you will be doing as it relates to asses and the floor is picking your sorry ass up OFF the floor.
    We'll see.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •