Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 135

Thread: Bush Lied? Not really..

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579802]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:[/QUOTE]

    I'm very similiar. I have all my money in money market and ING account..It's wasting away to inflation, but at least it's safe :mad:

    Actually I had a deal fall through to buy an auto repair shop that my brother was going to run, so I'm back to square 1 ...

  2. #42
    Do you really look like flah, flah flunky? Tata toothy?


    [QUOTE=CTM;2579795]har har...

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

  3. #43
    [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]

    On what do you base this bs? You are just purely speculating. There is just no evidence to back up what you are saying here.

    Yes there is no question he had a complete hardon to get Saddam. Want evidence?
    Richard Cohen - a Republican and SOD under Clinton. Couldn't understand during transition talks why Bush's team was the most interested in what they had on Iraq. He was talking about the relative threats the US faced around the world and all Bush's team was interested in was Iraq. An oh by the way Cohen said this before 9/11.

    Richard Clarke - You know who he is. Asked him on 9/12 how can we tie this to Iraq. Clarke said, Mr. President this is most definately the work of AQ. Bush answered well see if we can show anything about Iraq with this.

    Curveball - A guy in German custody. Germany would never let us interview him. He turned out to be a total con artist. When we passed on information he gave us to UN Inspectors they reported that his information was not true and that he was just not credible. Didn't matter. Bush kept putting Curveball's lies in the case for the war. You had to be totally dellusional - which you appear to be in this area - to not believe that Bush WANTED to believe CURVEBALL even though all reason told you that you shouldn't believe him.

    Your theory on how 9/11 changed Bush in how he read intelligence is just that. YOUR theory. How did you come to it? There is certainly no evidence to support it.

    Yes the evidence is that BUSH lied. Even Karen Kwiatkowski who you told me to look up totally makes the case for the war being fought on a propaganda case.

    And believing this makes me a by the numbers guy? Seems like a bit of projection on your part my friend.
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 06-11-2008 at 10:55 PM.

  4. #44
    Wait, Richard Clarke said Bush lied? Oh, it MUST be true, he has no biases or axes to grind. Silly NeoCons doubters.:rolleyes:

  5. #45
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,327
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2579971]On what do you base this bs? You are just purely speculating. There is just no evidence to back up what you are saying here.

    Yes there is no question he had a complete hardon to get Saddam. Want evidence?
    Richard Cohen - a Republican and SOD under Clinton. Couldn't understand during transition talks why Bush's team was the most interested in what they had on Iraq. He was talking about the relative threats the US faced around the world and all Bush's team was interested in was Iraq. An oh by the way Cohen said this before 9/11.

    Richard Clarke - You know who he is. Asked him on 9/12 how can we tie this to Iraq. Clarke said, Mr. President this is most definately the work of AQ. Bush answered well see if we can show anything about Iraq with this.

    Curveball - A guy in German custody. Germany would never let us interview him. He turned out to be a total con artist. When we passed on information he gave us to UN Inspectors they reported that his information was not true and that he was just not credible. Didn't matter. Bush kept putting Curveball's lies in the case for the war. You had to be totally dellusional - which you appear to be in this area - to not believe that Bush WANTED to believe CURVEBALL even though all reason told you that you shouldn't believe him.

    Your theory on how 9/11 changed Bush in how he read intelligence is just that. YOUR theory. How did you come to it? There is certainly no evidence to support it.

    Yes the evidence is that BUSH lied. Even Karen Kwiatkowski who you told me to look up totally makes the case for the war being fought on a propaganda case.

    And believing this makes me a by the numbers guy? Seems like a bit of projection on your part my friend.[/QUOTE]

    You cant quote Bush on saying any of that... We dont know if any of that is even true.

  6. #46
    It's funny that you first assert that you're unaware of Bush ever making the statement that Congress "had the same intel," and then when shown he DID make the statement, you return a few hours later with the "authority" of factcheck.org in your corner while never acknowledging that you were wrong.

    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579684]
    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][/quote]

    I believe you just set the record for the most smarmy strawman arguments in one paragraph.

    Who said Congress was "totally in the dark" about it? Who said Congress saw "absolutely nothing?" Who said goofy Bill Clinton didn't see intelligence on the matter? Oops... Nope, that would be you pretending we (or I) said that. So right off the bat, your premise here is treading water badly. Let's stick to the facts and the specifics of what's been offered, not what you FEEL I believe.

    But, patting yourself on the back after punting to factcheck.org, as if the Annenberg Foundation is the end-all-be-all for debate conclusion? Wow. This is a web site that went to great lengths [URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220002"]defending Sen. George Allen[/URL] and other Pub lawmakers who voted against funding for troops' body armor. This is a web site that [URL="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15381.html"]fawned over McCain[/URL] regarding the "innocuous" 100 years comment. This is a web site that suggests the U.S. job quality market is just fine. Oops, they [URL="http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib200"]read the labor stats wrong[/URL]. Heck, even National Review icon [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200501250808.asp"]Don Luskin documented[/URL] how wrong they were regarding Social Security. The point is, factcheck.org does good work for a good premise, but they're often quite wrong.

    Back on point, your link admits both the Administration as well as Dean were partially incorrect. You link does NOT cover -- and likely was written before -- Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. Your link acknowledged the fact that phase II was pending. It also acknowledged Cheney and Bush's lies to the public, if not to Congress, despite the Department of Energy's and State Department's dissent at the time.

    Further, a [URL="http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm"]Congressional Research Service report[/URL] from late '05 and submitted to Diane Feinstein found that the [I]“President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - [B]have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods[/B].”[/I]

    But, resting your entire premise upon an NIE that was submitted some 48 hours before the rushed vote for the Iraq resolution is interesting. Just why did that vote have to be so quick BEFORE the '02 midterms? Oh, that's right. Iraq was an imminent threat; there was just no time for debate on the floor. :rolleyes:

    Anyhow, are portions of the NIE all you have? Because the facts are that Congress had access to [B]declassified PARTS[/B] of the NIE for a couple days, and little else. Boy King and his handlers had far more to cherry pick from. It's well documented:

    [INDENT][B]Sen. Rockefeller:[/B] [I]"[URL="http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-1-129"]We not only don’t have[/URL], nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief, we don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him...Not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others – they control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t get that they have.”[/I] (Press Conference, 11/4/04)[/INDENT]

    [INDENT][B]The New York Times: [/B][I]"Mr. Cheney [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/politics/22cheney.html"]did not mention [/URL]that the administration had access to far more extensive intelligence than Congress did, like the highly classified daily briefing provided for the president by the Central Intelligence Agency."[/I][/INDENT]

    [INDENT][B]The Washington Post:[/B] [I]Bush and his aides [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html"]had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers[/URL], who were dependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.[/I][/INDENT]

    Shall I provide more, or will you just pretend it's all a big liberal conspiracy and that because you "don't take (me) seriously," you can't be bothered any further?

    It's a lie to suggest lawmakers had the same intel that Boy King had. They didn't. Period.

    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579684]
    Unreal. This is fun, Keep them coming, comrade![/QUOTE]

    Indeed it is, fascist. And I will keep them coming. In round one, you went from being completely unaware that Bush ever made that statement to claiming it "technically" wasn't a lie.

    Now, do you wanna go further on that lie, or shall we move on to another topic they were fraudulent about? If the latter, how about Saddam/AQ links?

    The Bush League lied about a link between AQ and Saddam, and not because they were acting on the best intel they had at the time. They knew it was bunk, and continued to trot it out. For a headstart on your defense, Google former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman. I'll be using his quotes, among others.

    Or you could just pretend you don't take me very seriously again and avoid the challenge altogether.
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 06-12-2008 at 05:07 AM.

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2579975]Wait, Richard Clarke said Bush lied? Oh, it MUST be true, he has no biases or axes to grind. Silly NeoCons doubters.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Well, one of them lied 'Fish.

    Why would Bush lie? It's not like HE had any biases or axes to grind either...:rolleyes:;)

  8. #48
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2579516]
    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]

    he didn't lie per se

    but this was a war of choice not a war of necessity, he made the wrong choice.

  9. #49
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2579975]Wait, Richard Clarke said Bush lied? Oh, it MUST be true, he has no biases or axes to grind. Silly NeoCons doubters.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Richard Clarke was employed by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II - he's a lifelong civil servant - and a dyed in the wool conservative - extremely high credibility.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Press_Coverage;2580056]It's funny that you first assert that you're unaware of Bush ever making the statement that Congress "had the same intel," and then when shown he DID make the statement, you return a few hours later with the "authority" of factcheck.org in your corner while never acknowledging that you were wrong.



    I believe you just set the record for the most smarmy strawman arguments in one paragraph.

    Who said Congress was "totally in the dark" about it? Who said Congress saw "absolutely nothing?" Who said goofy Bill Clinton didn't see intelligence on the matter? Oops... Nope, that would be you pretending we (or I) said that. So right off the bat, your premise here is treading water badly. Let's stick to the facts and the specifics of what's been offered, not what you FEEL I believe.

    But, patting yourself on the back after punting to factcheck.org, as if the Annenberg Foundation is the end-all-be-all for debate conclusion? Wow. This is a web site that went to great lengths [URL="http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220002"]defending Sen. George Allen[/URL] and other Pub lawmakers who voted against funding for troops' body armor. This is a web site that [URL="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15381.html"]fawned over McCain[/URL] regarding the "innocuous" 100 years comment. This is a web site that suggests the U.S. job quality market is just fine. Oops, they [URL="http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib200"]read the labor stats wrong[/URL]. Heck, even National Review icon [URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200501250808.asp"]Don Luskin documented[/URL] how wrong they were regarding Social Security. The point is, factcheck.org does good work for a good premise, but they're often quite wrong.

    Back on point, your link admits both the Administration as well as Dean were partially incorrect. You link does NOT cover -- and likely was written before -- Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. Your link acknowledged the fact that phase II was pending. It also acknowledged Cheney and Bush's lies to the public, if not to Congress, despite the Department of Energy's and State Department's dissent at the time.

    Further, a [URL="http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm"]Congressional Research Service report[/URL] from late '05 and submitted to Diane Feinstein found that the [I]“President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - [B]have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods[/B].”[/I]

    But, resting your entire premise upon an NIE that was submitted some 48 hours before the rushed vote for the Iraq resolution is interesting. Just why did that vote have to be so quick BEFORE the '02 midterms? Oh, that's right. Iraq was an imminent threat; there was just no time for debate on the floor. :rolleyes:

    Anyhow, are portions of the NIE all you have? Because the facts are that Congress had access to [B]declassified PARTS[/B] of the NIE for a couple days, and little else. Boy King and his handlers had far more to cherry pick from. It's well documented:

    [INDENT][B]Sen. Rockefeller:[/B] [I]"[URL="http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-1-129"]We not only don’t have[/URL], nor probably should we have, the Presidential Daily Brief, we don’t have the constant people who are working on intelligence who are very close to him...Not just the White House, but the CIA, DOD [Department of Defense], others – they control information. There’s a lot of intelligence that we don’t get that they have.”[/I] (Press Conference, 11/4/04)[/INDENT]

    [INDENT][B]The New York Times: [/B][I]"Mr. Cheney [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/politics/22cheney.html"]did not mention [/URL]that the administration had access to far more extensive intelligence than Congress did, like the highly classified daily briefing provided for the president by the Central Intelligence Agency."[/I][/INDENT]

    [INDENT][B]The Washington Post:[/B] [I]Bush and his aides [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html"]had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers[/URL], who were dependent on the administration to provide the material…Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release.[/I][/INDENT]

    Shall I provide more, or will you just pretend it's all a big liberal conspiracy and that because you "don't take (me) seriously," you can't be bothered any further?

    It's a lie to suggest lawmakers had the same intel that Boy King had. They didn't. Period.



    Indeed it is, fascist. And I will keep them coming. In round one, you went from being completely unaware that Bush ever made that statement to claiming it "technically" wasn't a lie.

    Now, do you wanna go further on that lie, or shall we move on to another topic they were fraudulent about? If the latter, how about Saddam/AQ links?

    The Bush League lied about a link between AQ and Saddam, and not because they were acting on the best intel they had at the time. They knew it was bunk, and continued to trot it out. For a headstart on your defense, Google former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman. I'll be using his quotes, among others.

    Or you could just pretend you don't take me very seriously again and avoid the challenge altogether.[/QUOTE]

    Nancy, I retuned "hours later" because I have a life; a commute, kids to play with and read to prior to them going to sleep, a wife to talk to, etc. Crazy as that sounds, my life doesn't revolve around getting back to nutjobs like you who believe in every conspiracy in the book. Incidentally, McCain did not even come close to saying he wanted 100 years of war, and Obama has lied about those comments. But you probably don't believe that.

    Bush didn't lie, and you admit it. You think the lame qualification of "technically" matters at all? He either lied or he didn't and you and Queens have absolutely zero evidence that he did. What's especially laughable to me is that Queens relies on Clinton guys to bolster his case. Amazing.

    I did know that Bush said those words, I was baiting you. It's actually quite easy. I wanted to see if you could back it up and I was surprised that you could. Most of your posts about your kooky conspiracies are not backed up at all.

    I get it, it's not the Dem's fault they didn't read the NIE because hey, they only had 11 days and it was 100 pages. You can't expect them to read 10 pages a day on something as trivial as voting to authorise the use of military force. And NIE's are not credible when they hurt your position, but the gospel when they atack it (Iran). I see how that works; when you need an NIE to be unreliable to prove Bush lied, it is unreliable (Iraq). When you need it to be gospel to prove Bush lied, it is gospel (Iran). That works out pretty well for you, huh? And NYT quotes - oooooh.

    This is getting boring. Is this seriously all you guys have? Seriously?

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2580146]McCain did not even come close to saying he wanted 100 years of war...[/QUOTE]

    You're right...he didn't "say" that.

    But to say it wasn't close is disingenuous. He said our presence in Iraq for the next 100 years would "be fine with me...I hope it would be fine with you"...

    I dare him to say that again in a nationally televised debate w/ Obama. I double dog dare him...:D

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk[/url]

  12. #52
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I was just reading the report. Ha ha...yeah, Bush was lieing about Iraq and AQ all right. The report even says so right here:

    "Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq."

    "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

    "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." [url]http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/v1.pdf[/url]

    Take a look at the 9/11 Comission's reort regarding Al Shifa. Because Clnton, Gore, Berger, Tenet and Clarke all thought it was a joint venture of Iraq, AQ and the Sudan.

    But Bush lied.....you guys are too much...seriously.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2580161]You're right...he didn't "say" that.

    But to say it wasn't close is disingenuous. He said our presence in Iraq for the next 100 years would "be fine with me...I hope it would be fine with you"...

    I dare him to say that again in a nationally televised debate w/ Obama. I double dog dare him...:D

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk[/url][/QUOTE]

    We've been in Europe and Korea for decades. Do you consider us to be at war in those countries. Obama runs around saying McCain wants 100 years of war. That is mendacious and you and he know it. But Obama is different...it says so right on the label.

  14. #54
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2580146]Nancy, I retuned "hours later" because I have a life; a commute, kids to play with and read to prior to them going to sleep, a wife to talk to, etc. Crazy as that sounds, my life doesn't revolve around getting back to nutjobs like you who believe in every conspiracy in the book. Incidentally, McCain did not even come close to saying he wanted 100 years of war, and Obama has lied about those comments. But you probably don't believe that.

    Bush didn't lie, and you admit it. You think the lame qualification of "technically" matters at all? He either lied or he didn't and you and Queens have absolutely zero evidence that he did. What's especially laughable to me is that Queens relies on Clinton guys to bolster his case. Amazing.

    [B]I did know that Bush said those words, I was baiting you. [/B] It's actually quite easy. I wanted to see if you could back it up and I was surprised that you could. Most of your posts about your kooky conspiracies are not backed up at all.

    I get it, it's not the Dem's fault they didn't read the NIE because hey, they only had 11 days and it was 100 pages. You can't expect them to read 10 pages a day on something as trivial as voting to authorise the use of military force. And NIE's are not credible when they hurt your position, but the gospel when they atack it (Iran). I see how that works; when you need an NIE to be unreliable to prove Bush lied, it is unreliable (Iraq). When you need it to be gospel to prove Bush lied, it is gospel (Iran). That works out pretty well for you, huh? And NYT quotes - oooooh.

    This is getting boring. Is this seriously all you guys have? Seriously?[/QUOTE]

    LOL... Sure you were baiting me...Of course you knew it all along... :rolleyes: It's not getting boring for you, it's getting dire... You're not fooling anyone.

    But, wow... wtf are you talking about? Now you're just conjuring up your debate opponent's entire position? Are you on medication? I know you think you're too important, but did you even read my post, or just skim it lazily? It certainly appears the latter.

    Your pissy retort is so chalk full of crap, I don't quite know where to begin. But I'll try.

    - No where did I admit Bush didn't lie. Are you on drugs?
    - when did I make the qualification Boy King "technically lied?" Nope, never happened. He flat lied, there's no "technically" about it, so you might wanna either go back and read my post slower, or just stop making strawman arguments that make you come off as being really bad at this whole blogging thing.
    - The "hours later" comment had nothing to do with your timeliness, but with your shift in gears from not being aware he ever made the statement to pretending it wasn't a lie. So your overdramatic explanation about your busy lifestyle came off as fairly pretentious, but an understandable obfuscation of the issue being discussed.
    - your irrelevant tangent about the veracity of the "100 years" comment shows you either miss the point entirely that was being made about FactCheck.org, or you simply needed more distraction from the fact that Bush lied. Boring.
    - Who said Dems weren't partially at fault? You're still not denying they didn't have access to all the same intel that the cabal had, including the PDB, which you didn't dare touch. GOod choice.
    - Your fascination with the NIE over and over again like a broken record, both in support of your lame defense, and in attacking the NIE's Iran deductions, says nothing about the FACT that lawmakers DIDN'T have all the same intel that the WH did.
    - Two related things you'd be wise to absorb in that Con man head of yours: 1) i back up all my assertions with method and reason, 2) i don't buy every "conspiracy theory"... If you knew my post history, you'd be well aware of those two facts... Regardless, I'm now convinced you're not a reader, but a skimmer. ... Either way, you go right ahead making up shyt. Why stop now?


    You're not disputing the fact that the assertion [I]"Congress had the same intel"[/I] is a lie, you're merely dancing around the issue while creating strawman arguments I never said and going off on irrelevant tangents. That makes you a little Ray Bolger yourself.

    [IMG]http://www.wallsoffame.com/assets/images/5_8_bolger.jpg[/IMG]
    Last edited by Press_Coverage; 06-12-2008 at 08:40 AM.

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2580165]We've been in Europe and Korea for decades. Do you consider us to be at war in those countries. Obama runs around saying McCain wants 100 years of war. That is mendacious and you and he know it. But Obama is different...it says so right on the label.[/QUOTE]

    1.) Comparing Iraq to Korea and Germany doesn't cut the mustard. Had the American been told prior to the war that we would maintain a presence there for a century...I seriously doubt public and congressional support would have been very high.

    2.) I, myself, have never claimed Obama to be "different". In fact, scan through a previous post of mine...I referred to Obama as a "Black Bush". The Obama camp is running their campaign very similar to how the Bush team did. Hit McCain over and over again with "half-truths" to keep him on the defensive. Misconstruing Mccain's comments of 100 years of occupation to 100 years of war is very very Rove-like IMO and had the roles been reversed...Republican operatives would be on the attack the same exact way. It is mendacious(I learned a new word today! Hooray! :D) to engage McCain like that. But guess what? 2004 showed that campaigns run like that win...so we should all get used to it.

  16. #56
    Classic JI political forum thread. Posts run the gammut of that found in the 'posting pyramid':

    [IMG]http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg[/IMG]

  17. #57
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2580165]We've been in Europe and Korea for decades. Do you consider us to be at war in those countries. Obama runs around saying McCain wants 100 years of war. That is mendacious and you and he know it. But Obama is different...it says so right on the label.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. While I do believe Obama generally plays politics differently (to his own benefit mind you) then Rove and the Clintons, this is right out that playbook..

  18. #58
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    [QUOTE=Black Death;2580177]Classic JI political forum thread. Posts run the gammut of that found in the 'posting pyramid':

    [IMG]http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    That's awesome, Death...:D

  19. #59
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2580182]That's awesome, Death...:D[/QUOTE]

    It is isn't it?!

    I expect to find it on threads here in future, TBH. :yes: :D

  20. #60
    24 - it would be more appropriate simply to title the thread: "Bush Lied? No."

    If he had lied about Iraq, he'd have been booted, end of story. The liberals can't hang him on that so they just repeat "Bush lied" until they believe it, but, as we all no, there is no proof in the pudding, just hate. Always has been the case.

    That article should be required reading. Thanks.

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