Bush didn't just lie........

[BlindBoo]

They start shedding tears over the 5 sandNIGGERS

Keeping it classy.

 

[Redfish]

Every decision of Bush's was bad? LOL! So backstopping the banks when they ceased lending to each other was bad? Cutting taxes to get us out of the Clinton recession was bad? Rolling out a drug benefit for Medicaid that has come in under projections is bad?
You are an idiot. Just a cop out idiot who couldnt argue hsi way out of a paper bag.

Yes the bank bailout was bad, for many reasons. First, bad banks should have been allowed to fail so that good banks would benefit. Chapter 13 is not new. There's a reason we have bankruptcy courts.

Yes, the way Bush cut taxes, was horrible. Giving half the country a 100% tax cut? Really? Half the country going to zero taxes? History will mark that tax cut as the final nail in the coffin of a downward spiral of socialism in this country.


Yes, tax payer funding of the legalized drug cartel through medicare (aka socialized medicine) is really really bad.

So, you must also think that obozo's bailout of GM and Chrysler were also bad and that those companies should have been allowed to fail and go through bankruptcy?

The bush tax rates were continued by obama and the dem controlled congresss, so where is your denigration of them?


I do agree with you that big pharma is raping the country.

You asked... "So, you must also think that obozo's bailout of GM and Chrysler were also bad and that those companies should have been allowed to fail and go through bankruptcy?" Yes.

You asked... "The bush tax rates were continued by obama and the dem controlled congresss, so where is your denigration of them?" The topic was Bush... yes I could have added an oh yeah and the democrats wanted it this way.. cause well they did.

GM did file for bankrupcy: General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The company received $33 billion in debtor-in-possession financing to complete the process.[5] GM filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the Manhattan New York federal bankruptcy court on June 1, 2009 at approximately 8:00 am EST. June 1, 2009 was the deadline to supply an acceptable viability plan to the U.S. Treasury. The filing reported US$82.29 billion in assets and US$172.81 billion in debt.[6][7] [8][9][10]

After the Chapter 11 filing, effective Monday, June 8, 2009, GM was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average and replaced by Cisco Systems. From Tuesday 2 June, old GM stock has traded Over the Counter (Pink Sheets/OTCBB), initially under the symbol GMGMQ[11] and currently under the symbol MTLQQ.

On July 10, 2009, a new entity completed the purchase of continuing operations, assets and trademarks of GM as a part of the 'pre-packaged' Chapter 11reorganization.[12][13] As ranked by total assets, GM's bankruptcy marks one of the largest corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcies in U.S. history. The Chapter 11 filing was the fourth-largest in U.S. history, following Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Washington Mutual and WorldCom Inc.[14] A new entity with the backing of the United States Treasury was formed to acquire profitable assets, under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, with the new company planning to issue an initial public offering (IPO) of stock in 2010.[15] The remaining pre-petition creditors claims are paid from the former corporation's assets.[12][15]

True. However, that's not all that happened. There were also multiple failed bailouts. And Obama circumvented traditional bankruptcy court proceedings and employed crony capitalism by handing over assets to the union, screwing over the other asset holders, and assigning a government "czar" to manage the fiasco.

right, the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM.

 

[Redfish]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

TRANSLATION: Hillary is fucking toast - so scream BOOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH

Oh, is it racist to point out the demagoguery of you sleazy fucks?

just curious, how does one fuck toast?

 

[Uncensored2008]

just curious, how does one fuck toast?

I can't say, but in Hillary's case, it would be VERY dry toast....

 

[Redfish]

just curious, how does one fuck toast?

I can't say, but in Hillary's, it would be VERY dry toast....

the mental image is sickening. It amazes me that the dems can back an old, tired, angry, ugly, failed, corrupt, lying person like the hildebeast.

The only answer is they have no one else, and I find that very telling about the future of the dem party.

 

[RKMBrown]

just curious, how does one fuck toast?

I can't say, but in Hillary's, it would be VERY dry toast....

the mental image is sickening. It amazes me that the dems can back an old, tired, angry, ugly, failed, corrupt, lying person like the hildebeast.

The only answer is they have no one else, and I find that very telling about the future of the dem party.

There are others... The dem party is like a terrorist cell, cut off the head of the beast and you get 3 more heads.

 

[The Rabbi]

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

Who's on second?

He's in left field for sure.
The no fly zone was instituted to keep Saddam's airforce from entering those areas. The Americans patrolled them periodically. Saddam shot at those patrols, violating his cease fire agreement.
WHat is hard to understand about this?

 

[Tuatara]

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

It was his country. He can do anthying that is outside of Resolution 687 to protect himself. I think it was stupid of him to do it but not one aircraft was shot down by Iraq. Hardly a reason to go to war for.

 

[Tuatara]

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.
Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

Who's on second?

He's in left field for sure.
The no fly zone was instituted to keep Saddam's airforce from entering those areas. The Americans patrolled them periodically. Saddam shot at those patrols, violating his cease fire agreement.
WHat is hard to understand about this?

I miss the old days at Whistlestopper when some conservatives would actually do research.

... the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. ...
Other countries, notably China and Russia, have condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they insist there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions.

BBC News MIDDLE EAST No-fly zones The legal position

Based upon Resolution 688 of The UN Security Council, which stated that civillian populations needed protection. However the resolution did not mention the creation of the No-Fly Zones and UN General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones illegal.

Civilian or Combatant A Challenge for the 21st Century - Anicee Van Engeland - Google Books

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

Who's on second?

He's in left field for sure.
The no fly zone was instituted to keep Saddam's airforce from entering those areas. The Americans patrolled them periodically. Saddam shot at those patrols, violating his cease fire agreement.
WHat is hard to understand about this?

I miss the old days at Whistlestopper when some conservatives would actually do research.

... the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. ...
Other countries, notably China and Russia, have condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they insist there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions.

BBC News MIDDLE EAST No-fly zones The legal position

Based upon Resolution 688 of The UN Security Council, which stated that civillian populations needed protection. However the resolution did not mention the creation of the No-Fly Zones and UN General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones illegal.

Civilian or Combatant A Challenge for the 21st Century - Anicee Van Engeland - Google Books

OK so you're taking the position that Saddam was a poor misunderstood patriot.
You get that he lost the war, right? That the US imposed the no fly zone because he was killing his own people and therefore we took steps, right?
No, you are a tool and a half.

 

[Faun]

Who said anything about al Qaeda?

Bush and his buddys did.

The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002
So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002
Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002
This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at New Mexico Welcome
10/28/2002
He's got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
10/28/2002
This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at South Dakota Welcome
10/31/2002
We know he's got ties with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at New Hampshire Welcome
11/1/2002
in terms of its [Iraq's] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
11/2/2002
He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
11/2/2002
We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
11/2/2002
This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002
And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
11/3/2002
He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
11/3/2002
This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome
11/4/2002
He's had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome
11/4/2002
This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome
11/4/2002
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Speech
1/28/2003
"Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." Bush 2/16/2003

"I continue to believe — I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." Dick Cheney 1/21/2004

Just to list a few

That was nowhere in Rumsfeld's objectives you posted.

You rejected those objectives when you stated "First off Donald Rumsfeld doesnt speak for the entire US government" so I decided to tackle things Bush said before the war. Also if you clearly read the resolution you refer to Al Qaeda is mentioned. "Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."

Again, check the Iraq Resolution passed by Democrats in Congress. That lists the objectives. We accomplished every one of them.

I did. It doesn't list objectives. It lists the "many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq."

Yes there were contacts between the two. Yes Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism. Yes t was hard to distinguish Iraq, a state actor of terrorism, from al Qaeda, a non state actor of terrorism. Yes, you cited Rumsfeld and I showed how we achieved all his objections. Yes the Resolution does state objectives. Yes there were UN resolutions as well, which the UN refused to enforce, probably because they were getting paid off by Saddam.
So far you protest only that I've made my case and you havent.

There were no contacts between the two. Amazingly, no matter how many times this idiocy is debunked, brain-dead right-wing zombies continue to try and keep the story alive. Meanwhile, here in reality ...

Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

 

[Tuatara]

Yes there were contacts between the two.

No there wasn't. Provide documentation.

Yes Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism.

So does the US. Way more than Iraq.

Yes t was hard to distinguish Iraq, a state actor of terrorism, from al Qaeda, a non state actor of terrorism.

No it wasn't.

Yes, you cited Rumsfeld and I showed how we achieved all his objections.

Did you missed the part where I showed 4 of the objectives were null and void, and 2 others were not achieved and the ones that were, were at a great loss of innocent human life. That is not any kind of victory.

Yes the Resolution does state objectives.

Point them out, I'm looking at the page right now.

Yes there were UN resolutions as well, which the UN refused to enforce, probably because they were getting paid off by Saddam.

The UN knew there was a heavy amount of BS going around.

So far you protest only that I've made my case and you havent.

You are delusional. I have provided documentation, you haven't.

 

[Tuatara]

Oh my my my. "I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft."
Here is RESOLUTION 687 from 1991 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm Please point out the part about No-Fly Zones.

So your position is that the no fly zones were actually permission for Saddam to shoot at our planes? Im not getting this. Or you arent.

Who's on second?

He's in left field for sure.
The no fly zone was instituted to keep Saddam's airforce from entering those areas. The Americans patrolled them periodically. Saddam shot at those patrols, violating his cease fire agreement.
WHat is hard to understand about this?

I miss the old days at Whistlestopper when some conservatives would actually do research.

... the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. ...
Other countries, notably China and Russia, have condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they insist there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions.

BBC News MIDDLE EAST No-fly zones The legal position

Based upon Resolution 688 of The UN Security Council, which stated that civillian populations needed protection. However the resolution did not mention the creation of the No-Fly Zones and UN General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones illegal.

Civilian or Combatant A Challenge for the 21st Century - Anicee Van Engeland - Google Books

OK so you're taking the position that Saddam was a poor misunderstood patriot.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. How dishonest. What next the ad-hominems

You get that he lost the war, right?

This has never been about who won or lost a war. The US is the largest military superpower on the planet. If they couldn't win a war against a crippled Iraq then they'd be the lauging stock of the world. This has been about the reasons they went to war and the lies they presented to the world.

That the US imposed the no fly zone because he was killing his own people and therefore we took steps, right?

We have been over this.

No, you are a tool and a half.

The mudslinging has started. I will take that as your defeat. Thanks for playing. Rookie.

 

[Faun]

bullshit, there was no "similar threat" stopped by clinton. where do you get this shit?

He pulls it out of his ass.
There was a prior bombing at the WTC. It was very successful. Clinton did nothing.

According to the lunatic right, Bush Sr. must have been to blame for that.

anyone using a clown face avatar has zero credibility. your dem/lib handlers cancelled the instruction for all dem/libs to use clown face avatars several weeks ago, did you miss the memo?

I have this avatar because it seems to annoy your brain-dead right-wing zombies. Your proof that it's working. Besides, the clown in my avatar is none other than Mitt Romney. Did you vote for him for president?

"your proof" is proof of your lack of basic reading, writing, and grammar skills.

Yes, I voted for Romney and the country would be much better off today if 2% more of voters had voted for him.

Then you voted for a clown and all you can do about it is whine about grammatical errors.

 

[Tuatara]

Maybe the lie that Saddam really was no threat to the US and hadn't ever been? Maybe that the yellow cake and aluminum tubes were in no way related to a nuclear program, Maybe because there were no mobile germ warfare labs in Iraq

Maybe becaue we didn't have to worry about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud

Maybe Saddam was merely misunderstood. Maybe Saddam wasnt actually undermining sanctions with the help of the French, the Germans, and the UN. Maybe Saddam hadnt fired on US jets in the no fly zone. Maybe Saddam didnt actually have a WMD program. Maybe Saddam wasnt a state sponsor of terrorism for 20 years.
Nah. Really Nutjobber is pushing his usual line of shit, already disproven over and over.

This really irks me. Bush apologists bring it up time and time again. The No-Fly Zones were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom, and France. The reason for them was Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. It has nothing to do with Iraq defending their territory against American aircraft. While many in the US cite United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorizing the operations, the resolution contains no authorization.
Also of note not one human life was lost as a result of Iraqis firing upon the aircraft.

The no fly zones were set up because Saddam had a nasty habit of bombing his own people, specifically the Kurds in the North.

I did not specify why they were put up there but yes, in a nutshell, that is the reason. I merely pointed out what the NFZ entailed.

He agreed to the them in the truce. But then he decided to test us out and started firing on us.

Again, I can only repeat this so many times. The NFZ was put in place to keep Saddam from flying his aircraft to attack the Kurds. Nothing to do with him firing upon US aircraft.

Thank G-d for George W Bush. If Gore had been elected who knows how many American flyers would have been killed.

The NFZs were put up during George HW Bush's and Clinton's presidency. You do know that there were 2 separate NFZs.

So what is your point about the Zones then? That they didnt really count? Saddam's violations were a violation of his cease fire agreement.

I see you lack basic comprehension skills. The NO-Fly Zones were never a part of the Cease Fire Agreement. Put it to rest. Move on to something else.

 

[Faun]

He pulls it out of his ass.
There was a prior bombing at the WTC. It was very successful. Clinton did nothing.

According to the lunatic right, Bush Sr. must have been to blame for that.

anyone using a clown face avatar has zero credibility. your dem/lib handlers cancelled the instruction for all dem/libs to use clown face avatars several weeks ago, did you miss the memo?

I have this avatar because it seems to annoy your brain-dead right-wing zombies. Your proof that it's working. Besides, the clown in my avatar is none other than Mitt Romney. Did you vote for him for president?

"your proof" is proof of you lack of basic reading, writing, and grammar skills.

Yes, I voted for Romney and the country would be much better off today if 2% more of voters had voted for him.

Notice he is deflecting from his claim that Clinton prevented a prior bombing, when in fact the opposite is the case.

According to the lunatic right, Bush Sr. must have been to blame for that.

anyone using a clown face avatar has zero credibility. your dem/lib handlers cancelled the instruction for all dem/libs to use clown face avatars several weeks ago, did you miss the memo?

I have this avatar because it seems to annoy your brain-dead right-wing zombies. Your proof that it's working. Besides, the clown in my avatar is none other than Mitt Romney. Did you vote for him for president?

"your proof" is proof of you lack of basic reading, writing, and grammar skills.

Yes, I voted for Romney and the country would be much better off today if 2% more of voters had voted for him.

Notice he is deflecting from his claim that Clinton prevented a prior bombing, when in fact the opposite is the case.

yeah, funny how he made that claim and then ran like a scalded ass ape.

Oh, look .... stupid in stereo! Morons, what did I run from? I posted proof of my claim in post #712. Do you need me to explain it to ya? I certainly don't mind since it's apparently too complicated for you.

 

[Tuatara]

To those who keep defending Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret. You are allowed to say you were fooled. It doesn't mean you have to become a liberal. You can still be a conservative. You can still claim you like smaller government, you can still complain about Obama and Hillary, you can still watch fox news, you can still keep your guns. Just admit you were lied to or mislead. There is no shame in that. You were angry, you were still reeling from the 911 attacks. Bin Laden still hadn't been found, you were looking for retribution. You can still cling to all your conservative ideals and values. Nobody will call you a leftist or a democrat for admitting Bush lied. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

 

[Faun]

To those who keep defending Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret. You are allowed to say you were fooled. It doesn't mean you have to become a liberal. You can still be a conservative. You can still claim you like smaller government, you can still complain about Obama and Hillary, you can still watch fox news, you can still keep your guns. Just admit you were lied to or mislead. There is no shame in that. You were angry, you were still reeling from the 911 attacks. Bin Laden still hadn't been found, you were looking for retribution. You can still cling to all your conservative ideals and values. Nobody will call you a leftist or a democrat for admitting Bush lied. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

Gruber has a word for people like them.

 

[RKMBrown]

To those who keep defending Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret. You are allowed to say you were fooled. It doesn't mean you have to become a liberal. You can still be a conservative. You can still claim you like smaller government, you can still complain about Obama and Hillary, you can still watch fox news, you can still keep your guns. Just admit you were lied to or mislead. There is no shame in that. You were angry, you were still reeling from the 911 attacks. Bin Laden still hadn't been found, you were looking for retribution. You can still cling to all your conservative ideals and values. Nobody will call you a leftist or a democrat for admitting Bush lied. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Bush was wrong. Bush made bad decisions. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

 

[Tuatara]

To those who keep defending Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret. You are allowed to say you were fooled. It doesn't mean you have to become a liberal. You can still be a conservative. You can still claim you like smaller government, you can still complain about Obama and Hillary, you can still watch fox news, you can still keep your guns. Just admit you were lied to or mislead. There is no shame in that. You were angry, you were still reeling from the 911 attacks. Bin Laden still hadn't been found, you were looking for retribution. You can still cling to all your conservative ideals and values. Nobody will call you a leftist or a democrat for admitting Bush lied. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

There's a difference between being wrong and lying. Bush was wrong. Bush made bad decisions. Give it a try. I promise it won't hurt.

yes, you are right. There is a differnce. If Bush & Co. said We believe Saddam has....then they would be wrong. They have stated many times using their belief.
If Bush & Co. said We know Saddam has ...then that would be a lie because they didn't know. They did this several time also. Throw in the fact that they were caught trying to fix the intelligence for an invasion and the case for lies becomes a "slam dunk". See what I just did there. I used one of Bush's catch phrases. This is fun.