Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 135

Thread: Bush Lied? Not really..

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2579514]What's sad is people like you continuing to tell the world it's pitch dark out at noon.

    George Bush and the cabal that pulls his strings has been caught in so many profound lies, not only about Iraq and 9/11, but about domestic policy, that you people truly represent pathological behavior at this point...

    We can cover them one by one, if you like. Do you wanna spin "we will make no distinction between .... blah blah blah?" Because they are, in fact, making a blatant distinction between some nations who "harbor them."

    Would you like to move on to lies about troop levels? Or lies about torture? Or the lies that Congress had all the very same intel that the WH did? Or shall we skip to the ongoing lies about Iran, which have been debunked by the intel report, that the cabal still clings to?

    This isn't an "oops, we made mistakes" scenario that you people try and spin. This is a coordinated, remorseless and ongoing policy of deception.[/QUOTE]


    No offense, but I don't take you seriously. And your posts are nothing that hasn't been gone over a million times. You were cute at first with your little tinfoil hat conspiracies, but now you are more like a gnat.

  2. #22
    You asked for it. Denny is listening.

    [QUOTE]Kucinich Forces Vote On Bush's Impeachment

    Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich earlier tried to impeach Vice President Cheney.
    By Ben Pershing
    washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
    Wednesday, June 11, 2008; Page A02

    Having failed in efforts to impeach Vice President Cheney, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) escalated his battle against the administration this week by introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush, using a parliamentary maneuver that will probably force a vote today.

    Kucinich's impeachment measure accuses Bush of taking the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses; he introduced it as a "privileged resolution," which requires the House to take it up within two legislative days. Any lawmaker may offer a privileged resolution, but it is usually done only by party leaders.[/QUOTE]



    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579483]Yeah, not so much. If he did lie, why isn't every single Democrat writing articles of impeachment right now? They'd prove it and win in a landslide, right? The "Bush Lied!" charge is itself a lie. You all know he didn't lie. This is Monday-Morning QBing of the worst kind. I thought you were above such petty politics, but I guess not. It's not enough for you to think he made a disatrous judgment call in good faith, no, he has to be a liar too. Kind of sad, really....[/QUOTE]

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,677
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2579517]The "Forrest Bush" defense.[/QUOTE]

    LOL. Maybe that'll stick. History books will refer to him as George "Forest" Bush.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579519]No offense, but I don't take you seriously. And your posts are nothing that hasn't been gone over a million times. You were cute at first with your little tinfoil hat conspiracies, but now you are more like a gnat.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, I've heard that one several times by guys like you unwilling to get to the meat of the issue and pretend you're "above it all." Witty.

    Yet, I'm not asking you to take me seriously. I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is. Because the fact is, you're running from a challenge you know you can't defend. Your pap may wash on some posters here who are unwilling to lock horns regarding the public record, but there's nothing I enjoy more in my blogging time than watching a Con man poster wriggle and spin and deflect from the facts. No offense.

    I'll ask you once more. Do you wanna tell us how they didn't lie? Let's cover the "Congress same as WH intel" lie, shall we?

    If you avoid a direct challenge, the forum will consider it your white flag; certainly not you being "more serious" than me. Do try and get over yourself...

    :rolleyes:

    Better yet, why don't you move forward with the ultimate capitulation and block me. That way you can run your mouth with an alternate version of Bush League reality, and you'll never have to back up your claims or face a poster here who knows you're completely full of crap and is willing to do the work and show the forum why.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 06-11-2008 at 05:15 PM.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,231
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579516]I don't think it seems reasonable to suggest that he lied, which is different from what you are suggesting. Regarding what you suggest, what do you mean by "mold?" What I think happened is that the official policy of the US towards Iraq changed in 1998 from one of sacntions to one of regime change. I think Bush, rightly or wrongly, saw Iraq as our biggest threat outside of AQ and I think that the nature of intelligence is that POTUS' have to weigh risks of action versus risks on inaction based upon intel that is disagreed upon, often passionately, by various internal groups and is never known with certainty. I think Bush, aftre 9/11, had a lower threshold for inaction than he would have before and in good faith thought he was responding to what he viewed was a threat. I think he did see terrorism in a global, broader context than just 9/11 because terror against us and our allies stretched back decades with different outcomes. I think he wanted to remove Saddam who was a rich, powerful, armed supporter of terrorism and a regional threat to the stability of the ME region which is a hotbed of terrorist activity and creation and also of strategic importance to the US.

    Do I think he had a "hard-on" to get Saddam and knew Saddam was no threat and lied through his teeth to make war? No, I think that is a cartoonish, unreasonable opinion to hold.[/QUOTE]


    I understand what you're saying. I don't think he lied through his teeth. I do believe that he knowingly stretched what he thought to be the truth as far as possible in his pre-war sales pitch. Not in an evil, conspiracy sense, but because in his heart of heart he believed it was the right course of action. He saw an oppurtunity and he took it, nothing more, nothing less.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2579528]I understand what you're saying. I don't think he lied through his teeth. I do believe that he knowingly stretched what he thought to be the truth as far as possible in his pre-war sales pitch. Not in an evil, conspiracy sense, but because in his heart of heart he believed it was the right course of action. He saw an oppurtunity and he took it, nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]


    Fair enough.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,322
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2579452]A mod should merge this thread with the thread Breaking News: Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report. As a matter of fact this article was even copied in that thread.

    It was discussed and yes Bush did lie.[/QUOTE]

    How did he Lie??????? And not get impeached for doing so.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2579527]Yes, I've heard that one several times by guys like you unwilling to get to the meat of the issue and pretend you're "above it all." Witty.

    Yet, I'm not asking you to take me seriously. But the fact is, you're running from a challenge you know you can't defend. Your pap may wash on some posters here who are unwilling to lock horns regarding the public record, but there's nothing I enjoy more in my blogging time than watching a Con man poster wriggle and spin and deflect from the facts. No offense.

    I'll ask you once more. Do you wanna tell us how they didn't lie? Let's cover the "Congress same as WH intel" lie, shall we?

    If you avoid a direct challenge, the forum will consider it your white flag; certainly not you being "more serious" than me. Do try and get over yourself...

    :rolleyes:

    Better yet, why don't you move forward with the ultimate capitulation and block me. That way you can run your mouth with an alternate version of Bush League reality, and you'll never have to back up your claims or face a poster here who knows you're completely full of crap.[/QUOTE]

    When did Bush state that Congress had the same intel as he? Did Bill Clinton lie, too, about Iraq's WMD? He said things indistinguishable from Bush. And the recent "lied" about Iran is hardly that to anyone even remotely familiar with NIEs or their history or what it actually said in detail and not the the politiczed summary released to the media and unexmained by folks such as yourself.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579542]When did Bush state that Congress had the same intel as he? Did Bill Clinton lie, too, about Iraq's WMD? He said things indistinguishable from Bush. And the recent "lied" about Iran is hardly that to anyone even remotely familiar with NIEs or their history or what it actually said in detail and not the the politiczed summary released to the media and unexmained by folks such as yourself.[/QUOTE]

    He said it right here, in his Vets' Day speech of 2005, among many other occassions:

    [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html[/url]

    [INDENT] . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "[/INDENT]

    As for Bill Clinton, of course he lied as well... What's your point?

    As for the NIE, is your position merely that "it's complex?"

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2579528]I understand what you're saying. I don't think he lied through his teeth. I do believe that he knowingly stretched what he thought to be the truth as far as possible in his pre-war sales pitch. Not in an evil, conspiracy sense, but because in his heart of heart he believed it was the right course of action. He saw an oppurtunity and he took it, nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]

    I mostly agree.
    Bush and his cronies in the PNAC set out to invade Iraq along time ago. they simply could not convince others to do so. Now hes in office and all they have to do is convince the Americans the need for this. 9/11 set him up perfectly. He could now paint Saddam as a major threat to a frightened US public and pick and chose intelligence that support his claims. Thats not lying. Its far worse.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105

    WTF? You Did Not Dispute Anything...

    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2579509]hysterical....you claim I'm a conservative shill and this is your response??

    the most "Republican-leaning view of intelligence"??? sh!t- I don't need to do any work to dispute the above- I'll just let the let chairman rockefeller do it for me from october '02....

    [I]"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." [/I]

    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    You are a shill. Your point doesn't dispute anything. Where does Rockeffeler say that Iraq poses more of a threat than al Qaeda? He doesn't.

    Do you think Iraq was more of an imminent threat than al Qaeda in 2002?

    Get a clue.

    Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the new "Axis of Evil" for crying out loud. They were all imminent threats to him, but he chose Iraq.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;2579528]I understand what you're saying. I don't think he lied through his teeth. [B]I do believe that he knowingly stretched what he thought to be the truth as far as possible in his pre-war sales pitch[/B]. Not in an evil, conspiracy sense, but because in his heart of heart he believed it was the right course of action. He saw an oppurtunity and he took it, nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]

    You just described a man lying through his teeth. His ideological and "moral" reasons for doing so are beside the point.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2579550]He said it right here, in his Vets' Day speech of 2005, among many other occassions:

    [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051111-1.html[/url]

    [INDENT] . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "[/INDENT]

    As for Bill Clinton, of course he lied as well... What's your point?

    As for the NIE, is your position merely that "it's complex?"[/QUOTE]

    No, that is not my position on the NIE.

    And Bush lied when he said that on Veteran's Day? Really?

    [url]http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html[/url]

    But you know what, it wouldn't have mattered because the libs didn't even read what they were provided prior to voting on the AUMF, bth classified and declassified versions!

    But hey, Bob Kerrey whined about it, so its definitely true. Congress was totally in the dark about everything. If one syllable of something Bush saw was not emailed to every member of Congress, he lied. Yes, Congress saw absolutely nothing, and neither did Bush's predecessor, who came to the same conclusions Bush did (and let's forget that prior to Bush, all Democrats were singing the "Saddam is a threat that has to be dealth with" tune.) Launch a war that turns out to be unpopular and based on faulty intel? That's okay, it's Bush's fault and we didn't even read the sh*t we we requested! Yee-haw!

    [url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200407/ai_n9457968/pg_1[/url]

    Unreal. This is fun, Keep them coming, comrade!

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    talk about needing to get a clue...

    [QUOTE=SMC;2579556]You are a shill. Your point doesn't dispute anything. Where does Rockeffeler say that Iraq poses more of a threat than al Qaeda? He doesn't.

    Do you think Iraq was more of an imminent threat than al Qaeda in 2002?

    Get a clue.

    Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the new "Axis of Evil" for crying out loud. They were all imminent threats to him, but he chose Iraq.[/QUOTE]

    right- because the intelligence and intelligence estimates at the time showed iran/nk were greater threats than iraq and iraq posed the least threat of the those mentioned....

    please- spew more rat wing talking points....

  15. #35
    [quote=nuu faaola;2579361]There is not a serious person in America who, in 2002, knowing what we know now about what Iraq cost and how many lives it would claim, who would decide to go through with it.

    It was a terrible decision.

    We went because we were told (pick one) Iraq had WMDs, it had operational relationships with terrorist groups, oil revenue would pay for the cost, and we would build a model democracy that would in effect start a democratic domino effect in the middle east.

    We did not invade Iraq to expand Iranian influence to where it did not previously exist, create a new division of Al Qaeda and pacify major cities by putting up Berlin Wall-style barricades and imposing martial law. That's how it stands now.

    Now, reasonable people can and will disagree on how to make the best of a bad situation going forward. [B]No reasonable person, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, can argue that this was a good idea in a manner that is remotely convincing.[/B][/quote]

    Correct. On the other hand, it is still possible that ten years from now, the same statement will be incorrect.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=SMC;2579556]You are a shill. Your point doesn't dispute anything. Where does Rockeffeler say that Iraq poses more of a threat than al Qaeda? He doesn't.

    Do you think Iraq was more of an imminent threat than al Qaeda in 2002?

    Get a clue.

    Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the new "Axis of Evil" for crying out loud. They were all imminent threats to him, but he chose Iraq.[/QUOTE]

    No, Bush actually implied that Iraq was not an imminent threat and that to wait until a threat is imminent can often be too late. That's the whole point of pre-emption. You may disagree and that's fine, but don't misrepresent what actually happened. It really wasn't that long ago.

    For example, even with the benefit of hindsight, at what exact point in AQ become an imminent threat to us? Surely some time prior to 9/11, right? But what if Clinton had talked all about how much of a threat AQ was in 2000, would you have believed him? If 9/11 had not happened and Bush talked all about how AQ was an imminent threat and he sought authorization to invade Afghanistan without 9/11 ocurring first, would you have believed him? No, you would have said AQ is a bunch of idiots running around in moutains with Kalishnikovs and was no threat to anyone.

    Not saying this makes the Iraq War right or wrong. But want people to be accurate about what happened....

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579542]When did Bush state that Congress had the same intel as he? [B]Did Bill Clinton lie,[/B] too, about Iraq's WMD? He said things indistinguishable from Bush. And the recent "lied" about Iran is hardly that to anyone even remotely familiar with NIEs or their history or what it actually said in detail and not the the politiczed summary released to the media and unexmained by folks such as yourself.[/QUOTE]

    Lol...

    "I did not have sexual relations with those WMD's"

    [IMG]http://www.davidstuff.com/opinion/los-clinton.jpg[/IMG]





    I'm not following the arguement, cause frankly I don't care, but when it's necessary to invoke the "[I]Bush couldn't have lied unless Clinton did too[/I]" defense, I'd say the argument might already be lost :yes:




    .

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CTM;2579756]Lol...

    "I did not have sexual relations with those WMD's"

    [IMG]http://www.davidstuff.com/opinion/los-clinton.jpg[/IMG]





    I'm not following the arguement, cause frankly I don't care, but when it's necessary to invoke the "[I]Bush couldn't have lied unless Clinton did too[/I]" defense, I'd say the argument might already be lost :yes:


    .[/QUOTE]

    Well, it's clear you aren't following it. That is not "necessary" and nothing more than a jab. I don't much care either, I just get a kick out of arguing with liberals and I use things like that when posting to people I don't respect. And honestly, calling PC a liberal is an insult to intelligent liberals like Queens and Nuu, to name just a few. I find it funny that no libby ever claims that Clinton lied, is all. But certainly my argument doesn't "need" or rely in any way on that.

    Aren't you supposed to be busy making all of that free money in the deriviatives markets? Why waste your time here?

  19. #39
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579779]

    Aren't you supposed to be busy making all of that free money in the deriviatives markets? Why waste your time here?[/QUOTE]
    har har...

    If it was free money I'd be doing it already ;)

  20. #40
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CTM;2579795]har har...

    If it was free money I'd be doing it already ;)[/QUOTE]

    Just giving you some friendly sh*t. If I had any balls, I'd be jumping in that game too. I am pretty conservative (shocker!) with personal money and now with the kids, am even more so. I am lucky to have a good job and all, but man, sometimes I think I should risk more. I am able to be dispassionate when talking about other people's money, why not my own??:confused:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us