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

[Uncensored2008]

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

Redfish voted for OBAMA?

I find that hard to believe..

 

[Redfish]

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.

Everyone was fooled, no one lied. It was a massive fuck up of intel, but everyone bought into it. Both parties authorized, funded, and supported the Iraq stupidity.

Yes, Bush was CIC, but he could not have gone in without congressional approval and funding.

We get it that you hate Bush, and thats fine. But lying about history is just stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Ah, you like your history the democrat way - just made up out of thin air to promote party double-think..

The No-Fly zones were imposed by Clinton without specific UN authorization, and continued by Bush (a fact that Communists are eager to forget.) However, resolution 688 prohibited Iraq from engaging or hampering coalition forces, so regardless of the origin of the No-Fly zones, the attacks on US Aircraft by Saddam violated resolution 688.

Defense.gov News Article U.S. Firm Against Increased Iraqi No-Fly Violations

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

To those who keep attacking Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret; Bush is not the president.

The biggest fuckup in history, Barack Obama is.

 

[Redfish]

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.

To those who keep attacking Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret; Bush is not the president.

The biggest fuckup in history, Barack Obama is.

Its pretty clear, the Bush attacks are failed attempts to hide the massive failure known as Obama.

 

[Tuatara]

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.

Ah, you like your history the democrat way - just made up out of thin air to promote party double-think..

The No-Fly zones were imposed by Clinton without specific UN authorization, and continued by Bush (a fact that Communists are eager to forget.) However, resolution 688 prohibited Iraq from engaging or hampering coalition forces, so regardless of the origin of the No-Fly zones, the attacks on US Aircraft by Saddam violated resolution 688.

Defense.gov News Article U.S. Firm Against Increased Iraqi No-Fly Violations

Let see, the UN didn't see the validity in the No-Fly Zones and from your article "Saddam declared the no-fly zones invalid following Operation Desert Fox, the coalition's four-day bombing campaign."
So the only ones who think they are valid are the ones imposing them. While you may point out that Saddam violated resolution 688 by engaging or hampering coalition forces, you forgot to mention that US and britain violated resolution 688 with the No-Fly Zones in the first place.

 

[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.

To those who keep attacking Bush, I'm going to let you in on a secret; Bush is not the president.

The biggest fuckup in history, Barack Obama is.

Its pretty clear, the Bush attacks are failed attempts to hide the massive failure known as Obama.

Red Herring from Redfish. The subject is Bush.

 

[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.

Everyone was fooled, no one lied. It was a massive fuck up of intel, but everyone bought into it. Both parties authorized, funded, and supported the Iraq stupidity.

Yes, Bush was CIC, but he could not have gone in without congressional approval and funding.

We get it that you hate Bush, and thats fine. But lying about history is just stupid.

See post # 820

 

[Redfish]

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.

Both Clintons said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same intel. So they also lied using your version of history.

 

[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.

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.

The part that they said they knew... was something that Saddam himself claimed, and something that we knew for a fact based on the FACT THAT WE GAVE IT TO THEM IN THE IRAQ/IRAN WAR. See how that works? Facts we know vs intelligence estimates... pretty simple use of the english language. Try it.

 

[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.

The part that they said they knew... was something that Saddam himself claimed, and something that we knew for a fact based on the FACT THAT WE GAVE IT TO THEM IN THE IRAQ/IRAN WAR. See how that works? Facts we know vs intelligence estimates... pretty simple use of the english language. Try it.

You actually didn't give him the chemical weapons. You knew he was using them and you were supporting him.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran Foreign Policy
This didn't mean that the administration knew that Saddam still had them or that Saddam still possessed Biological or Nuclear weapons.

 

[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.

Both Clintons said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same intel. So they also lied using your version of history.

Yes they did. I never have defended any of the Clinton lies. Bill Clinton should be tried for his bombing campaigns against Iraq , Afghanistan and Sudan.

 

[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.

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.

The part that they said they knew... was something that Saddam himself claimed, and something that we knew for a fact based on the FACT THAT WE GAVE IT TO THEM IN THE IRAQ/IRAN WAR. See how that works? Facts we know vs intelligence estimates... pretty simple use of the english language. Try it.

You actually didn't give him the chemical weapons. You knew he was using them and you were supporting him.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Exclusive CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran Foreign Policy
This didn't mean that the administration knew that Saddam still had them or that Saddam still possessed Biological or Nuclear weapons.

By give I meant sent experts over to train them in the production and use of.

 

[Tuatara]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

 

[RKMBrown]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Both Clintons said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same intel. So they also lied using your version of history.

Yes they did. I never have defended any of the Clinton lies. Bill Clinton should be tried for his bombing campaigns against Iraq , Afghanistan and Sudan.

then you certainly don't support Hillary for president, who is your candidate?

 

[Redfish]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

 

[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.

Both Clintons said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same intel. So they also lied using your version of history.

Yes they did. I never have defended any of the Clinton lies. Bill Clinton should be tried for his bombing campaigns against Iraq , Afghanistan and Sudan.

then you certainly don't support Hillary for president, who is your candidate?

I can't vote in US elections but if I could I would never vote a democrat. Kucunich has been the only one I like. I am more of a Green Party supporter.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Both Clintons said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same intel. So they also lied using your version of history.

Yes they did. I never have defended any of the Clinton lies. Bill Clinton should be tried for his bombing campaigns against Iraq , Afghanistan and Sudan.

then you certainly don't support Hillary for president, who is your candidate?

I can't vote in US elections but if I could I would never vote a democrat. Kucunich has been the only one I like. I am more of a Green Party supporter.

LOL, its a good thing you can't vote here. Kucinich??????????? LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

What I think is very hypocritical is many of those who say the US was justified in going to war because Saddam used chemical weapons. Saddam used many of these chemical weapons when the US under Reagan supported him. These same people think Reagan is the best President ever.

Ayup... justified in this case is a very subjective term. Authoritarians... yeah they always feel they are justified, it comes from seeing yourself as supreme over everyone else.

we cannot police the entire world, but the terrorists and dictators should know that they will be destroyed if they every try to harm the USA or its citizens-------------that fear is what is missing under obozo and his cast of clowns.

The irony being that some Iraquis wanted the USA to topple Saddam and then engage in nation building as a means of transferring our wealth into their back pocket... and we obliged.

Building a new American Empire... ROFL yeah please don't pick any more of these PNAC nut cases for POTUS.