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

[Redfish]

President Bush.

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, it is pure intelligence, keen insight and ruthlessly analytic logic that makes you realize Republicans are evil and Democrats are pure as the driven snow for doing and saying the same thing. Only a truly critical mind could realize that.

Gotcha



How's the kool-aid? Cool, grape, that's your favorite, isn't it?

You need a new spin. The one you are using is all used up

Yes, a lie repeated to leftists becomes the truth, you're tired of hearing the facts, which is both parties said and did the same thing

"People have understood that the Democrats who you speak of who said the same things that the Bush administration said, did so because they had faith and trust in what the administration told them"

The repeated lie exactly.

Then you continue with blah, blah

As I said, you just believe lying politicians who tell you their actions weren't their fault, it was their enemy's fault.



The reality is both parties were responsible for that fiasco and should be held accountable. But that won't happen as long as partisan drones like you parrot their lies

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

 

[Camp]

President Bush.

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

 

[kaz]

You need a new spin. The one you are using is all used up

Yes, a lie repeated to leftists becomes the truth, you're tired of hearing the facts, which is both parties said and did the same thing

"People have understood that the Democrats who you speak of who said the same things that the Bush administration said, did so because they had faith and trust in what the administration told them"

The repeated lie exactly.

Then you continue with blah, blah

As I said, you just believe lying politicians who tell you their actions weren't their fault, it was their enemy's fault.



The reality is both parties were responsible for that fiasco and should be held accountable. But that won't happen as long as partisan drones like you parrot their lies

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Saddam even said he played up having WMDs because he thought it would deter an invasion.

What's wrong with what the Democrats are doing besides that they aren't man enough to stand behind their own mistakes is that they detract from the real lesson of the war, that we need a better foreign policy that doesn't involve our running in front of every bullet for the rest of the world while they undercut us and stab us in the back

 

[kaz]

President Bush.

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

 

[Redfish]

President Bush.

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

Don't confuse libtards with facts, it makes their little heads implode.

 

[kaz]

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

Don't confuse libtards with facts, it makes their little heads implode.

Don't worry. Granted it would if they grasped it, so they are perfectly safe.

A liberal "fact" is anything that supports a liberal argument, no matter how factually inaccurate it is, and a liberal "lie" is anything that contradicts a liberal argument, no matter how factually accurate it is

 

[Faun]

President Bush.

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

WTF?? "Nearly all the Democrats in Congress agreed?" Only 110 out of Democrats out of 257 voted for the bill.

 

[Faun]

You need a new spin. The one you are using is all used up

Yes, a lie repeated to leftists becomes the truth, you're tired of hearing the facts, which is both parties said and did the same thing

"People have understood that the Democrats who you speak of who said the same things that the Bush administration said, did so because they had faith and trust in what the administration told them"

The repeated lie exactly.

Then you continue with blah, blah

As I said, you just believe lying politicians who tell you their actions weren't their fault, it was their enemy's fault.



The reality is both parties were responsible for that fiasco and should be held accountable. But that won't happen as long as partisan drones like you parrot their lies

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

 

[Faun]

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

Don't confuse libtards with facts, it makes their little heads implode.

Ya mean like in post #1045?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, a lie repeated to leftists becomes the truth, you're tired of hearing the facts, which is both parties said and did the same thing

"People have understood that the Democrats who you speak of who said the same things that the Bush administration said, did so because they had faith and trust in what the administration told them"

The repeated lie exactly.

Then you continue with blah, blah

As I said, you just believe lying politicians who tell you their actions weren't their fault, it was their enemy's fault.



The reality is both parties were responsible for that fiasco and should be held accountable. But that won't happen as long as partisan drones like you parrot their lies

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

if it makes you feel good, keep believing that. I really don't care what you believe.

Your version of history will always differ from actual history because you are a brain dead liberal with no capacity for independent thinking, you are a sheep and obozo is your sheep dog.

The Clintons believed exactly what Bush believed at the time. So did the UN, UK, EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and virtually the entire world. Saddam had them all fooled because he thought that claiming to have WMDs would somehow save his sorry ass.

 

[Faun]

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

if it makes you feel good, keep believing that. I really don't care what you believe.

Your version of history will always differ from actual history because you are a brain dead liberal with no capacity for independent thinking, you are a sheep and obozo is your sheep dog.

The Clintons believed exactly what Bush believed at the time. So did the UN, UK, EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and virtually the entire world. Saddam had them all fooled because he thought that claiming to have WMDs would somehow save his sorry ass.

It's not matter of believing, I showed the proof. I showed when the Bush administration spread that rumor upon the nation, when they learned it wasn't true, and when they finally revealed the truth. You can't deny it so you cry this vacuous nonsense instead rather than just face facts.

 

[kaz]

Yes, a lie repeated to leftists becomes the truth, you're tired of hearing the facts, which is both parties said and did the same thing

"People have understood that the Democrats who you speak of who said the same things that the Bush administration said, did so because they had faith and trust in what the administration told them"

The repeated lie exactly.

Then you continue with blah, blah

As I said, you just believe lying politicians who tell you their actions weren't their fault, it was their enemy's fault.



The reality is both parties were responsible for that fiasco and should be held accountable. But that won't happen as long as partisan drones like you parrot their lies

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

So Democrats were in the white house 8 out of the 8 1/2 years before 9/11 and they were all over the Senate intelligence committee. The French, Germans, Russians and UN all had better intelligence than us in Iraq and they all said Hussein had a WMD program. Saddam actually used WMDs in the Iran war and against the Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north. Cool trick for a guy who didn't have any.

But W is an evil genius who fooled them all in only six months after eight years of Democrat rule, and Democrats are completely naive trusting sheep who if they come in out of the rain and you tell them it's dry, they will believe you.

Evil genius or too stupid and naive to lead us in a dangerous world. Wow, you paint a bleak scenario for the choice we had.

As for me, I went with Browne (2000) and Badarnak (2004). I made the right choice apparently.

 

[kaz]

The topic is Bush lying. You will not answer the basic question I have repeatedly challenged you or any other Bush defender to answer. You evade the answer by broadening the topic into unrelated issues. The defense of Bush lying often comes down to the one you are using. The Democrats also lied, hence, Bush's lies should be ignored. But Bush is the one who made the final decision that cost all of those lives, based on his lying.
You are still evading the question that proves Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. He told us in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda. That was a major reason people supported the war, including the Democrats us constantly use in comments of support for President Bush. Were is the evidence of that aid and protection?

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

if it makes you feel good, keep believing that. I really don't care what you believe.

Your version of history will always differ from actual history because you are a brain dead liberal with no capacity for independent thinking, you are a sheep and obozo is your sheep dog.

The Clintons believed exactly what Bush believed at the time. So did the UN, UK, EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and virtually the entire world. Saddam had them all fooled because he thought that claiming to have WMDs would somehow save his sorry ass.

He keeps repeating the bush lied people died mantra, but he doesn't care about the war other than to elect Democrats. If he did care about the war, he would be with libertarians and be abhorred by the whole fiasco instead of looking us in the face and saying he genuinely believes that Republicans were evil and Democrats pure as the driven snow when they said and did the same thing

 

[kaz]

You are too stupid to breathe on your own. I said I blame both sides, you stupid mother fucker. That isn't defending W. What part of they are all to blame do you fail to comprehend?

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

if it makes you feel good, keep believing that. I really don't care what you believe.

Your version of history will always differ from actual history because you are a brain dead liberal with no capacity for independent thinking, you are a sheep and obozo is your sheep dog.

The Clintons believed exactly what Bush believed at the time. So did the UN, UK, EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and virtually the entire world. Saddam had them all fooled because he thought that claiming to have WMDs would somehow save his sorry ass.

It's not matter of believing, I showed the proof. I showed when the Bush administration spread that rumor upon the nation, when they learned it wasn't true, and when they finally revealed the truth. You can't deny it so you cry this vacuous nonsense instead rather than just face facts.

What you fail to grasp is that as you keep showing the Republicans to have played fast and loose with the facts, you are indicting the Democrats for the same thing. They were both up to their armpits in it, Sparky.

Here's the fact, Sparky. The real issue is that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq regardless of WMDs. Your diversion to alibi the Democrats obliterates that conversation.

BTW, I said in 2008 I would vote for Obama if I believed he would actually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. My liberal buds were all, well, you have to vote for him then, he will! I said he won't. They said he will.



I called that one...

 

[Camp]

President Bush.

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

So where is the part that shows one of the Clinton's suggesting aid and protection from Saddam to al Qaeda. These articles are about reports of an alleged and speculated connection between Sudan and Iraq in regards to the Al Silifa pharmaceutical facility that Clinton bombed with cruise missiles after the African embassy bombings. This all occurred four years before Bush's and the allegations and speculations remained and still remain just allegations and speculation.

 

[kaz]

acted on the intelligence (?) he was given by a demorat operative, and nearly ALL the demorats in congress agreed, Saddam had to go because of his "Weapons of Mass Destruction".., various chemical gasses which he used on his OWN citizens, not once but several times.

.................

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

So where is the part that shows one of the Clinton's suggesting aid and protection from Saddam to al Qaeda. These articles are about reports of an alleged and speculated connection between Sudan and Iraq in regards to the Al Silifa pharmaceutical facility that Clinton bombed with cruise missiles after the African embassy bombings. This all occurred four years before Bush's and the allegations and speculations remained and still remain just allegations and speculation.

And so the goal posts move again.

Let's say the Redskins beat the Forty Niners 49-0 and I say the Redskins won.

Your reply is, not unless you can prove that in the third quarter on third and two they got the first down with a lateral pass and a three yard run for the first down with a block from the tight end when they were up 28-0 they didn't. Can you prove that?

 

[Camp]

Just answer and respond to the lie he told during his 2003 State of the Union Address. That is what made Iraq different from all the other countries with WMD's, such as Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc. The claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda was the gave changer and key element for invasion.

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

So where is the part that shows one of the Clinton's suggesting aid and protection from Saddam to al Qaeda. These articles are about reports of an alleged and speculated connection between Sudan and Iraq in regards to the Al Silifa pharmaceutical facility that Clinton bombed with cruise missiles after the African embassy bombings. This all occurred four years before Bush's and the allegations and speculations remained and still remain just allegations and speculation.

And so the goal posts move again.

Let's say the Redskins beat the Forty Niners 49-0 and I say the Redskins won.

Your reply is, not unless you can prove that in the third quarter on third and two they got the first down with a lateral pass and a three yard run for the first down with a block from the tight end when they were up 28-0 they didn't. Can you prove that?

I haven't moved any goal post, you have. Redfish made the claim that both Clinton's made the same "aids and protects al Qaeda" comment that Bush made. I challenged and asked for a link. You posted links in response that deflect away from the challenge and failed to respond to the challenge. We have seen this lame method of deceit multiple times in this thread. You guys post threads with the hope no one will notice it is not what is being claimed. It is a bluff and when you get called on your bluff you attempt to change the subject.

 

[kaz]

Its what everyone believed at the time. Both Clintons said exactly the same things.

What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.

Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard

So where is the part that shows one of the Clinton's suggesting aid and protection from Saddam to al Qaeda. These articles are about reports of an alleged and speculated connection between Sudan and Iraq in regards to the Al Silifa pharmaceutical facility that Clinton bombed with cruise missiles after the African embassy bombings. This all occurred four years before Bush's and the allegations and speculations remained and still remain just allegations and speculation.

And so the goal posts move again.

Let's say the Redskins beat the Forty Niners 49-0 and I say the Redskins won.

Your reply is, not unless you can prove that in the third quarter on third and two they got the first down with a lateral pass and a three yard run for the first down with a block from the tight end when they were up 28-0 they didn't. Can you prove that?

I haven't moved any goal post, you have. Redfish made the claim that both Clinton's made the same "aids and protects al Qaeda" comment that Bush made. I challenged and asked for a link. You posted links in response that deflect away from the challenge and failed to respond to the challenge. We have seen this lame method of deceit multiple times in this thread. You guys post threads with the hope no one will notice it is not what is being claimed. It is a bluff and when you get called on your bluff you attempt to change the subject.

Yes, I made the point you are asking for proof the Redskins won by demanding proof "in the third quarter on third and two they got the first down with a lateral pass and a three yard run for the first down with a block from the tight end when they were up 28-0" and I'm saying WTF difference does that make when the final score was 49-0?

Any critical mind heard the same thing from W, the Democrats, the UN, the Germans, the French and the Russians regarding that Hussein was building WMDs. Arguing some nit gotcha point is irrelevant to that. W was President for six months before 9/11. Clinton was President for eight .... years ... before that. That W somehow came in and conned the world is butt stupid. And if you know anything about the Senate intelligence committee and the wide access they have to intelligence, that a hoax that large could be perpetrated by either party on the other is preposterous.

Both parties were guilty. Here's how the Democrats could have actually distinguished themselves in the aftermath.

- We were wrong. The Republicans and we saw the same evidence and we told you (the country) the same thing. However, we have come to realize what was wrong was our policy. We need to stop fighting wars on behalf of other Arab nations and the Euroweenies while they undercut us and stab us in the back. We need to protect the United States of America. We have learned our lesson and challenge the Republicans to do the same.

That would be worth voting for

 

[Faun]

Calm down. It isn't about sides. Republicans and Democrats were equally misled and lied to by Bush and his administration. You are still trying to deflect by shaping the debate about sides and Bush vs. Democrats. The topic is Bush. You have not admitted that he lied. That means you are still defending him. You still refuse to admit that Bush lied to you and everyone else when he stated in no uncertain terms that collusion existed between the people who attacked us on 9/11 and Saddam.

No one lied, not Bush, not the Clintons, not the UN.

repeating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

Yep, the Bush administration most certainly lied. They knew a 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague, yet they let the public believe that for nearly two years until after they started the war they hungered for.

if it makes you feel good, keep believing that. I really don't care what you believe.

Your version of history will always differ from actual history because you are a brain dead liberal with no capacity for independent thinking, you are a sheep and obozo is your sheep dog.

The Clintons believed exactly what Bush believed at the time. So did the UN, UK, EU, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and virtually the entire world. Saddam had them all fooled because he thought that claiming to have WMDs would somehow save his sorry ass.

It's not matter of believing, I showed the proof. I showed when the Bush administration spread that rumor upon the nation, when they learned it wasn't true, and when they finally revealed the truth. You can't deny it so you cry this vacuous nonsense instead rather than just face facts.

What you fail to grasp is that as you keep showing the Republicans to have played fast and loose with the facts, you are indicting the Democrats for the same thing. They were both up to their armpits in it, Sparky.

Here's the fact, Sparky. The real issue is that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq regardless of WMDs. Your diversion to alibi the Democrats obliterates that conversation.

BTW, I said in 2008 I would vote for Obama if I believed he would actually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. My liberal buds were all, well, you have to vote for him then, he will! I said he won't. They said he will.



I called that one...

Do you think I'm surprised to see you still can't understand what I said?