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.
Fact is the Cartel straw buying is still going on in AZ due to the lax gun purchasing laws. Furthermore, the Cartels get most of their weapons from the corrupt Mexican police and military.
Bullshit - BUT there is no question that Holder, the most corrupt AG in history, sold guns to the Cartels. That is historical fact. The guns Holder sold them were used to kill federal agents.
Hey, they were collateral damage in Obama's war on the Constitution.
I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
First of all ... really? Wikipedia??Really? Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaI know of only the one report I showed you which clearly stated the 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague.Yes or no there were conflicting reports on the matter. Easy question.Even if Cheney didn't see that White House memo, the Bush administration knew Cheney's claim on national television was wrong. Yet they didn't clear that up for nearly two years. Cheney may or many not have lied that day, but the administration most certainly lied on that matter.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.
What report are you speaking of which said there was a meeting?
I suppose you think his denial wasn't a lie either?IOW you have chosen to put your fingers in your ears you hands over your eyes and scream BUSH LIED till everyone believes you. How much are you being paid to perform the feats of obliviousness?No body is making up the lie that has been discussed about giving aid and protection. That was a lie and you are simply deflecting and deferring because you can not show that it wasn't a blatant lie.Correct. The left argument is that Bush is guilty of lying until proven innocent for every single statement he ever made on every occasion, given whatever out of context bull shit the left wants to make up.I cannot prove that you did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda?Is a lie a negative?You can't proove a negative.Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFL
So you are claiming they were never stopped? Never hindered? You are claiming the inspectors where just lying pieces of shit? Odd.I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
I'm sorry who lied, our allies that gave us the false information, the people our allies relied on for the information, or our leaders who mistakenly took their word for a portion of a sentence of a portion of a paragraph of a portion of a compendium of reasons for why Bush decided to go to war? What evidence do you have again for a lie vs. a mistake?First of all ... really? Wikipedia??Really? Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaI know of only the one report I showed you which clearly stated the 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague.Yes or no there were conflicting reports on the matter. Easy question.Even if Cheney didn't see that White House memo, the Bush administration knew Cheney's claim on national television was wrong. Yet they didn't clear that up for nearly two years. Cheney may or many not have lied that day, but the administration most certainly lied on that matter.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?
What report are you speaking of which said there was a meeting?
Secondly, there is no mention in there of any report stating a 9.11 hijacker met any Iraqi officials in Prague. All it mentions is:
The source for the claim came from a contact the Czech intelligence had within the Iraqi embassy ,[4] described in The Boston Globe as "a single informant from Prague's Arab community who saw Atta's picture in the news after the 11 September attacks, and who later told his handlers that he had seen him meeting with Ani. Some officials have called the source unreliable."[5]
That is not a report and is certainly not justification to make the claim, "pretty well confirmed." Hell, even Cheney knew that since he later lied by claiming he never said that.
At any rate, address this ... regardless if Cheney got the White House memo or not (the memo I showed you determining the story was false) ... the Bush administration let Cheney's claim remain in the public dialog for almost 2 years (and after the war started) before setting the record straight.
How is that not a lie on the part of the Bush administration?
I am asking you for proof. Contrary to popular belief, neither, "widely known," nor, "accepted," constitutes proof of any kind.So you are claiming they were never stopped? Never hindered? You are claiming the inspectors where just lying pieces of shit? Odd.I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
I'll try this again since you avoided it .... the claim that a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague was determine to be false as early as December, 2001. The Bush administration would not publicly admit that until around September, 2003 despite Cheney pushing the false story onto the public in December, 2001.I'm sorry who lied, our allies that gave us the false information, the people our allies relied on for the information, or our leaders who mistakenly took their word for a portion of a sentence of a portion of a paragraph of a portion of a compendium of reasons for why Bush decided to go to war?First of all ... really? Wikipedia??Really? Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaI know of only the one report I showed you which clearly stated the 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague.Yes or no there were conflicting reports on the matter. Easy question.Even if Cheney didn't see that White House memo, the Bush administration knew Cheney's claim on national television was wrong. Yet they didn't clear that up for nearly two years. Cheney may or many not have lied that day, but the administration most certainly lied on that matter.
What report are you speaking of which said there was a meeting?
Secondly, there is no mention in there of any report stating a 9.11 hijacker met any Iraqi officials in Prague. All it mentions is:
The source for the claim came from a contact the Czech intelligence had within the Iraqi embassy ,[4] described in The Boston Globe as "a single informant from Prague's Arab community who saw Atta's picture in the news after the 11 September attacks, and who later told his handlers that he had seen him meeting with Ani. Some officials have called the source unreliable."[5]
That is not a report and is certainly not justification to make the claim, "pretty well confirmed." Hell, even Cheney knew that since he later lied by claiming he never said that.
At any rate, address this ... regardless if Cheney got the White House memo or not (the memo I showed you determining the story was false) ... the Bush administration let Cheney's claim remain in the public dialog for almost 2 years (and after the war started) before setting the record straight.
How is that not a lie on the part of the Bush administration?
"was almost always provided promptly" ROFL...I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
Stop pretending to be an ignorant turd. Look it up yourself. Hint, not on the media matters web site.I am asking you for proof. Contrary to popular belief, neither, "widely known," nor, "accepted," constitutes proof of any kind.So you are claiming they were never stopped? Never hindered? You are claiming the inspectors where just lying pieces of shit? Odd.I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
I showed you the word of the lead weapons inspector who was in Iraq at the time saying, "access to sites has so far been without problems." If you have evidence which proves him wrong, I'd be interested in seeing it.....
Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing."was almost always provided promptly" ROFL...I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
Iraq WMD Timeline How the Mystery Unraveled NPR
I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing."was almost always provided promptly" ROFL...I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
Iraq WMD Timeline How the Mystery Unraveled NPR
No evidence from you equals bullshit from you. I called that one spot on.
You are the one being unreasonable and behaving like a paid shill, or at least a stubborn and brainwashed one. I have not been arguing the merits of going to war in Iraq or not. Other have, but I have tried to refrain from that discussion and tried to stick to the thread topic of whether Bush lied of not. Bush lied and you are unwilling to accept that simple fact. The best you seem to be able to do is attack people who are promoting fact. Bush said what he said and it was a lie that convinced people to support going to war. Period.IOW you have chosen to put your fingers in your ears you hands over your eyes and scream BUSH LIED till everyone believes you. How much are you being paid to perform the feats of obliviousness?No body is making up the lie that has been discussed about giving aid and protection. That was a lie and you are simply deflecting and deferring because you can not show that it wasn't a blatant lie.Correct. The left argument is that Bush is guilty of lying until proven innocent for every single statement he ever made on every occasion, given whatever out of context bull shit the left wants to make up.I cannot prove that you did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda?Is a lie a negative?You can't proove a negative.
There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing."was almost always provided promptly" ROFL...I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...
"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
Iraq WMD Timeline How the Mystery Unraveled NPR
No evidence from you equals bullshit from you. I called that one spot on.
Nah.. you miss-understand. I was against the war before, during, and after. I think Bush was wrong to make his decision. I think Bush used false and incomplete data to make his decision. I think Bush wanted the data to be true. I think the democrats wanted their vietnam. I think Bush wanted to "go" in and finish what his father did not complete. I think a bunch of people probably made up complete and utter lies that became parts of the compendium of data that Bush used and claimed he used to make his decision. I think many of the statements that the Bush team made were incorrect.You are the one being unreasonable and behaving like a paid shill, or at least a stubborn and brainwashed one. I have not been arguing the merits of going to war in Iraq or not. Other have, but I have tried to refrain from that discussion and tried to stick to the thread topic of whether Bush lied of not. Bush lied and you are unwilling to accept that simple fact. The best you seem to be able to do is attack people who are promoting fact. Bush said what he said and it was a lie that convinced people to support going to war. Period.IOW you have chosen to put your fingers in your ears you hands over your eyes and scream BUSH LIED till everyone believes you. How much are you being paid to perform the feats of obliviousness?No body is making up the lie that has been discussed about giving aid and protection. That was a lie and you are simply deflecting and deferring because you can not show that it wasn't a blatant lie.Correct. The left argument is that Bush is guilty of lying until proven innocent for every single statement he ever made on every occasion, given whatever out of context bull shit the left wants to make up.I cannot prove that you did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda?Is a lie a negative?
Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE. I'll repeat... being incorrect is not the same as LYING.There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing."was almost always provided promptly" ROFL...I call bullshit ...It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
Iraq WMD Timeline How the Mystery Unraveled NPR
No evidence from you equals bullshit from you. I called that one spot on.
You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.
I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing."was almost always provided promptly" ROFL...I call bullshit ...
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.
This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences.
"How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003
CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003
... so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job.....
Iraq WMD Timeline How the Mystery Unraveled NPR
No evidence from you equals bullshit from you. I called that one spot on.
You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.
I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing.
No evidence from you equals bullshit from you. I called that one spot on.
You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.
They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.
C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:
The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.
The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.
Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all
