Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative. At least I don't go around claiming I know what a President thinks and knows like a certain retard does. Further I already said it is what I thought and I might be wrong. Unlike you, that keeps claiming you KNOW what Bush thought, thinks and believes. Unlike you that keeps claiming all the Dems that said exactly what Bush said were just mistaken but Bush lied. Unlike you that keeps claiming a President somehow got the Intel community to lie to Congress and got Congress to not ask for its own briefings and intel sources. Unlike you that keeps claiming every intel agency in the world lied for Bush in the run up to the Iraq invasion.
Go ahead reminds about those super secret mind reading abilities you have.
"so what? He wasn't my Senator or my Representative."
Outside of Senator Daschle and Senator Allen, Senator Cleland's election loss in Georgia was likely the most reported on loss by an incumbent senator in the last six years. Everyone, with a nominal interest in politics knows the Cleland story, and knows he was a senator.
Honestly, you really should refrain from commenting in any more political threads. It's getting embarassing.
yo.... retired gunny.... no comment?
Already commented, your attempt to claim you know what Bush did or did not believe is funny as hell. Or would be if it were not so down right ignorant.
If 5 guys tell me 5 stories and I happen to believe 2 of them and not the other 3, I am not lying if I say so.
If my intel guys tell me that Saddam Hussein has never accounted for all his weapons, that he continues to claim he has them, that he continues to have the capability to make more, that he has shown in the past he wants to make and use them, that he has in fact used them numerous times in the past, that he is trying to weasel out of inspections without ever proving he got rid of all his weapons and capability. If all of that is repeated by EVERY Ally I have including my political rivals. Then ya, I am going to say he HAS them and believe it even if some of the people tell me " we can not be sure".
That you can not understand that, I do not believe. This is a game your playing. There is no way your this retarded.
I have NEVER said I thought I knew what he "believed". I merely stated that he KNEW that there was degrees of doubt and uncertainty. For him to KNOW that and continue to state otherwise is a lie...stating absolute certainty serves to convey a false impression that absolute certainty did, in fact, exist when it did not. Lie.
Wrong again, you do not know what Bush knew or even what he BELIEVED. And in the end what you BELIEVE determines whether you lied or not. He can not have lied if he believed he was telling the truth. No matter how you try to stretch and bend it.
I believe God exists, I can not prove it and there are millions of people that will tell you he does not exist and even more that will tell you he may exist but they have doubts. Doesn't mean I am lying when I tell you God exists.
Again, for the dimwitted, I have never - repeat - NEVER said I knew what Bush believed. I do claim to know what many analysts said he was told. If he was told that intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD's came laden with doubt and uncertainty (which is their assertion), whether he believed it or not, saying "THERE IS NO DOUBT..." "THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" IS, in fact, a lie.
And yet me telling you God exists is not a lie. I wonder why that is? There has to be INTENT for there to be a lie, so what someone BELIEVES is definately important in determining a lie.
Again, because YOU have doubts does not mean I have doubts even if you told me your doubts.
And before we invaded and failed to find what YOU want to call WMD's there was every reason to believe he had them and have no doubt he had them.
no. you are mistaken.
If the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers and, in spite of that, Bush had said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", that would NOT have been a lie. That would have been his BELIEF.
But when he and his minions said THERE IS NO DOUBT or THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that IS a lie...because, whether or not they believed it or put mush stock in it, it WAS there, presented to them in intelligence reports. There WAS doubt. There WAS uncertainty. They were told that.
Ergo: lies
no. you are mistaken.
If the intelligence came with caveats and qualifiers and, in spite of that, Bush had said "I BELIEVE that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's", that would NOT have been a lie. That would have been his BELIEF.
But when he and his minions said THERE IS NO DOUBT or THERE IS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that IS a lie...because, whether or not they believed it or put mush stock in it, it WAS there, presented to them in intelligence reports. There WAS doubt. There WAS uncertainty. They were told that.
Ergo: lies
\
Slamdunk!
Yup, a slam dunk on your ignorant ass for making a patently false claim again. Neither you nor anyone else on this board know what Bush was told, by whom, nor what certainty he was provided. WE do know that the CIA Director at the time used slam dunk in a sentence though, he STATED for the record it was a SLAM DUNK that the intel on Saddam was right.
Intell. reports come to the President from numerous sources, numerous countries, including Great Britain, Russia, Germany, S. Korea, Japan, France, etc., I could go on and on with other sources, including from many in the Middle East.......
YOU have seen NONE of these reports
YOU don't have a clue what intell was available
YOU don't have a clue what caveats or qualifiers were presented
YOU don't have any idea what weight, IF ANY these alledged caveats were given
YOU don't have any idea what certainly any of these countries placed on their sources....
YOU don't know shit, (to make a long story short)
Any doubt in some peoples minds, other than the President or those that made statement are irrelevant to your rant....
Gore KNEW, Pelosi was positive, and many others made accusations without ifs or buts.....without caveats and without qualifiers
All theirs opinions expressed fear of Saddam, past fear, present fear, and future fear.....
Its time to put your insane liar rant to rest. Its become a pathetic obsession with you....your parsing of words borders on fanaticism....you use the same tactic to defend the likes of Durban to explain he didn't say what he plainly did say, and condemn Bush to accuse him of lying when he plainly states what he believes......you need to realize when its time to fade away, to STFU and take a deep breath...
he stated for the record that the case could which could be made was a slam dunk.
I, of course, do not know what Bush HEARD, but I have listened to enough former analysts report that every bit of intelligence they sent to the white house was laden with caveats and qualifiers.... that none of it contained any absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles. Team Bush knew that the intelligence could not support the assertion that it provided absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles. WHen Team Bush went ahead and repeatedly made that claim - it served to convey a false impression.
ergo: LIE.
The only lie here is yours. You do not know what was said, conveyed or provided, you do not know what the President believed or whom he agreed with on intel reports, you ignore the fact numerous NON Bush talking heads and Democratic leaders were all positive and SURE that Saddam was a threat, that Saddam had or could make more WMD, that Saddam was working on Nuclear weapons.
By your own standards you keep lying to us.
Bush said no doubt. That was a lie. If there was NO doubt, where are the WMDs.
There was NO DOUBT. ALL the Dems agreed. all the Foreign Governments agreed, even BLIX agreed. Saddam even had his Generals convinced.
