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

[RKMBrown]

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

 

[Camp]

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.

Here it is again, short version.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

 

[Tuatara]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

 

[Redfish]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.

 

[RKMBrown]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

He said we disregarded Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Provided a list of examples of Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Was Gore, D, lying?

 

[Redfish]

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.

Here it is again, short version.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

he said what virtually everyone believed. Both Clintons said exactly the same thing

 

[RKMBrown]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.

Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...

 

[RKMBrown]

Democrats... if you don't take Saddam out you are "looking the other way" as Saddam continues his "brutal terrorism" around the planet. Sanctions? "looking the other way..." The democrats agree to take him out if he does not voluntarily leave... the democrats agree to fund the coming war... Then on the eve of the fight after the decision to go has been made... the Democrats flip... Saddam is just miss-understood... we need to give them more time to change their mind give sanctions a chance... BUSH LIED there's no terrorism going on here none at all ... BUSH LIED. ROFL it's like they think with the media's help and teachers and constant bullshit statements they make in the press they can just rewrite all the facts.

 

[Camp]

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.

Here it is again, short version.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

he said what virtually everyone believed. Both Clintons said exactly the same thing

You are just re-arguing the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This thread and discussion is about whether President Bush lied about one of the most important reasons. The two major factors were WMD's and collusion, a confirmed working relationship with al Qaeda. There was no collusion and working relationship between the two even though Bush said there was. It really is that simple. Bush said that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a lie and you guys can not disprove it.

 

[Camp]

Democrats... if you don't take Saddam out you are "looking the other way" as Saddam continues his "brutal terrorism" around the planet. Sanctions? "looking the other way..." The democrats agree to take him out if he does not voluntarily leave... the democrats agree to fund the coming war... Then on the eve of the fight after the decision to go has been made... the Democrats flip... Saddam is just miss-understood... we need to give them more time to change their mind give sanctions a chance... BUSH LIED there's no terrorism going on here none at all ... BUSH LIED. ROFL it's like they think with the media's help and teachers and constant bullshit statements they make in the press they can just rewrite all the facts.

Everyone believed what the President told them during his State of the Union Address. Nobody believed that after 9/11 the President would lie to the nation and world. He took the trust and faith given to him and abused it. He linked Saddam and Iraq to al Qaeda and told us point blank without reservations that the two had a working relationship. He said that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. What is confusing about that? To now defend the lying by pointing out that people believed the lie and hence gave Bush support, hence making his lie justifiable is just beyond ridiculous. In addition to being ridiculous, it does not change the fact that Bush lied. You seem to be claiming that it is OK to lie as long as people believe the lie.

 

[Faun]

None of those video's have anything to do with giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. There are national leaders all over the world that give support to terrorist groups. There are many nations that produce and stockpile WMD's. This thread is about President Bush telling a lie to get us into the war in Iraq. He claimed that the specific terrorist group al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 were being aided and protected by Saddam. He told us the group that attacked us and was vowing to attack us again had a ally in Iraq that was aiding and protecting them. He told us their was collusion, a working relationship between the two. There was not. That was the lie. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bush told the big lie during his State of the Union Address in 2003.

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

"that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001

 

[Redfish]

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.

Here it is again, short version.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

he said what virtually everyone believed. Both Clintons said exactly the same thing

You are just re-arguing the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This thread and discussion is about whether President Bush lied about one of the most important reasons. The two major factors were WMD's and collusion, a confirmed working relationship with al Qaeda. There was no collusion and working relationship between the two even though Bush said there was. It really is that simple. Bush said that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a lie and you guys can not disprove it.

stating something that you believe (whether true or not) is not lying. He believed it, so did both Clintons, the UN, and most of the world. There was no lie.

 

[Camp]

The Downing Street Memo makes the Bush lie during his State of the Union Address makes his lie particularly heinous. It confirms his active participation in a conspiracy to mislead the public into war previous to his speech where he did exactly that.

downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf

 

[Camp]

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.

Here it is again, short version.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

he said what virtually everyone believed. Both Clintons said exactly the same thing

You are just re-arguing the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This thread and discussion is about whether President Bush lied about one of the most important reasons. The two major factors were WMD's and collusion, a confirmed working relationship with al Qaeda. There was no collusion and working relationship between the two even though Bush said there was. It really is that simple. Bush said that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a lie and you guys can not disprove it.

stating something that you believe (whether true or not) is not lying. He believed it, so did both Clintons, the UN, and most of the world. There was no lie.

Are you pretending to be stupid? Are you unable to discuss this topic without being blind about facts. Show us where the Clinton's, the UN or most of the world said there was a collusion between Saddam and the people who attacked us on 9/11. Show us where anyone told us Saddam was giving aid to al Qaeda. Show us where anyone said Saddam was protecting al Qaeda.

 

[Faun]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.

Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...

This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.

If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.

 

[Redfish]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.

Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...

This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.

If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.

continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.

Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?

 

[Redfish]

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

The President's statement in his State of the Union Address of 2003 has been contested since the night he made it. No one has ever shown evidence that it was true. It has always been considered a lie of great magnitude. I posted a youtube link so you can watch him as he makes the statement. If you want to be able to put it in context you can go ahead and look up the transcript or speech via video in it's entirety. The Presidents 2003 State of the Union Address is readily available on the net. I believe the entire speech is on youtube.

Here it is again, short version.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTpZYH2x9-k

he said what virtually everyone believed. Both Clintons said exactly the same thing

You are just re-arguing the reasons for going to war with Iraq. This thread and discussion is about whether President Bush lied about one of the most important reasons. The two major factors were WMD's and collusion, a confirmed working relationship with al Qaeda. There was no collusion and working relationship between the two even though Bush said there was. It really is that simple. Bush said that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a lie and you guys can not disprove it.

stating something that you believe (whether true or not) is not lying. He believed it, so did both Clintons, the UN, and most of the world. There was no lie.

Are you pretending to be stupid? Are you unable to discuss this topic without being blind about facts. Show us where the Clinton's, the UN or most of the world said there was a collusion between Saddam and the people who attacked us on 9/11. Show us where anyone told us Saddam was giving aid to al Qaeda. Show us where anyone said Saddam was protecting al Qaeda.

those quotes from democrats have been posted many times. Look them up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Democrats... if you don't take Saddam out you are "looking the other way" as Saddam continues his "brutal terrorism" around the planet. Sanctions? "looking the other way..." The democrats agree to take him out if he does not voluntarily leave... the democrats agree to fund the coming war... Then on the eve of the fight after the decision to go has been made... the Democrats flip... Saddam is just miss-understood... we need to give them more time to change their mind give sanctions a chance... BUSH LIED there's no terrorism going on here none at all ... BUSH LIED. ROFL it's like they think with the media's help and teachers and constant bullshit statements they make in the press they can just rewrite all the facts.

Everyone believed what the President told them during his State of the Union Address. Nobody believed that after 9/11 the President would lie to the nation and world. He took the trust and faith given to him and abused it. He linked Saddam and Iraq to al Qaeda and told us point blank without reservations that the two had a working relationship. He said that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. What is confusing about that? To now defend the lying by pointing out that people believed the lie and hence gave Bush support, hence making his lie justifiable is just beyond ridiculous. In addition to being ridiculous, it does not change the fact that Bush lied. You seem to be claiming that it is OK to lie as long as people believe the lie.

ROFL you are full of it. Calling a speech a lie is not the same as the speech being a lie, fool. Are you saying every democrat was lying too? ROFL

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah cause you watched 3hrs of film in ... 5min. lol

Their is nothing in those video's to support your case. There was no aid and protection being given to al Qaeda by Saddam. If there was you would supply the time it appears in any one of those video's. Kind of ridiculous for you to expect people to watch three hours of film to prove a point that no one has claimed to have proven in 12 years. If it is there, tell us the point at which it occurs in which video.

yeah that's what I thought... Oh and it's not 3hrs either. I lied, to check if you even looked at the boxes (that include the time length)...

What is your point? There is nothing in the video's you posted to indicate or suggest Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. You are unable to show that Bush did not lie when he made his claim during his State of the Union Address and you have been shown proof that he did.

What claim was a lie again? I forgot already. Please provide a full citation of that lie, that includes context, not an edited version that changes the context of his statements through the editing process. How would you know if something is not in the video's I linked if you did not watch them? Do you have some extra sensory perception thing we all need to know about?

"that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he [hijacker, Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague" ~ Dick Cheney, VP, 12.9.2001

Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree.

 

[Camp]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

Gore also said that the state of Florida would be under water by now.

Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...

This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.

If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.

continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.

Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?

Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.