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

[Faun]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

 

[GreenBean]

As even Oliver Stone concedes, the evidence is clear that Bush believed Saddam had WMDs and that Bush was furious when evidence of WMDs, especially nukes, failed to materialize. He demanded from his cabinet members to know how the entire Intelligence Community could have gotten this wrong.

Saddam *did* have some WMDs, i.e., chemical weapons and the means to deliver them, but clear evidence of other WMDs did not turn up.

George Bush Vindicated NY Times Reveals WMDs Found In Iraq

George Bush Vindicated: NY Times Reveals WMDs Found In Iraq

“In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.”

 

[GreenBean]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD

Do me a favor and don't kaz me, ok? The context of these inspections was in regard to my claim that Bush said he invaded Iraq because Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. I was clearly talking about late 2002 through early 2003, the timeframe Bush was talking about.

I moved no goal posts.

Now to bring this debate back on the rails ... was Bush lying when he said, "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..."

Since I have quotes from the lead inspector saying they had no problems inspecting wherever they wanted and since you still have nothing in your hand to counter that and your bluff has been called ........ seems you can't formulate an argument to show he wasn't lying.

Was it Bush That said .....

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

or did he say ...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Nope, but he did claim Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in and that is most certainly a lie. Try to change the current topic with someone interested in playing your silly deflection games.

Perhaps it's a tad too advanced for you little fella but the statement

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

as well as ...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Are both highly relevant , they are among many that libtards such as yourself have been trying to sweep under the carpet for the past decade - One is from Slick Willy Clinton the other from Nancy Pelosi.- but they weren't lying right ---- only Bush --- you clowns are a fking pisser little fella

Neither quote has anything to do with anything I'm saying. Time to give the kneepads back to redfish.

the point, which your are too stupid to get, is that everyone bought into the bad intel. No one lied.

Except Curveball

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war World news The Guardian

 

[BluesLegend]

Bush just didn't lie........there I fixed the OP's title for him.

 

[GreenBean]

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?

You don't even know what you're saying half the time -why would you be surprised that someone else doesn't capice your gobbledy gook, convoluted , half baked assinine fuzzy logic

 

[Faun]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD

Was it Bush That said .....

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

or did he say ...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Nope, but he did claim Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in and that is most certainly a lie. Try to change the current topic with someone interested in playing your silly deflection games.

Perhaps it's a tad too advanced for you little fella but the statement

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

as well as ...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Are both highly relevant , they are among many that libtards such as yourself have been trying to sweep under the carpet for the past decade - One is from Slick Willy Clinton the other from Nancy Pelosi.- but they weren't lying right ---- only Bush --- you clowns are a fking pisser little fella

Neither quote has anything to do with anything I'm saying. Time to give the kneepads back to redfish.

the point, which your are too stupid to get, is that everyone bought into the bad intel. No one lied.

Except Curveball

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war World news The Guardian

And yet, I was able to quote the leaders of Germany, France, and Russia all stating their respective intelligence agencies had no evidence Hussein was building WMD.

Which we now know to be true.

So much for your opinion.

 

[Faun]

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?

You don't even know what you're saying half the time -why would you be surprised that someone else doesn't capice your gobbledy gook, convoluted , half baked assinine fuzzy logic

And yet, he's fighting strawmen because he doesn't understand what I said. That still remains to be the case.

 

[kaz]

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?

I understand what you "said." Prague does not prove your contention W is evil and Democrats pure as the driven snow and W fooled the Democrats, Republicans, French, Russians, Germans and UN starting six months into his Presidency to believe Saddam had WMDs. It's wait for it ... stupid.

If he did that he's an evil genius. And the Democrats are naive sheep we can't possibly entrust with the Presidency in a dangerous world because if you ask them to hold their wallet for them, they will hand it to you. Are you seriously saying Democrats are that mind numbingly gullible that after 8 years in the Presidency and being on the Senate intelligence committee with their broad access to intelligence, W just came in and duped them? You are saying Democrats ignore everything they know and just blindly believe anything they are told, even when it contradicts what they know?

 

[kaz]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

Those don't say exactly what you think they say, and those are governments with constantly shifting positions. If we're going by single quotes, you can probably support they thought aliens were going to invade.

But let's say this was a consistent position from their governments for a second and they mean what you want them to mean instead of what they actually said. So you just nailed Democrats to the cross, yet again. You didn't think that one through, did you Poindexter?

 

[kaz]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD

Nope, but he did claim Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in and that is most certainly a lie. Try to change the current topic with someone interested in playing your silly deflection games.

Perhaps it's a tad too advanced for you little fella but the statement

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

as well as ...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Are both highly relevant , they are among many that libtards such as yourself have been trying to sweep under the carpet for the past decade - One is from Slick Willy Clinton the other from Nancy Pelosi.- but they weren't lying right ---- only Bush --- you clowns are a fking pisser little fella

Neither quote has anything to do with anything I'm saying. Time to give the kneepads back to redfish.

the point, which your are too stupid to get, is that everyone bought into the bad intel. No one lied.

Except Curveball

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war World news The Guardian

And yet, I was able to quote the leaders of Germany, France, and Russia all stating their respective intelligence agencies had no evidence Hussein was building WMD.

Which we now know to be true.

So much for your opinion.

Those are all governments that play multiple sides. As I already pointed out, a single statement from them doesn't prove anything. And the statements were not even what you think they were. For example, the German one said there was no elevated risk, they did not say there was no WMD program.

Here's your standard. If I find a single quote from Israel that they won't attack Iran and tell you that's proof Israel won't attack Iran. Would you believe it? LOL. Obviously not, then you would suddenly get the fallacy of your argument

 

[kaz]

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?

You don't even know what you're saying half the time -why would you be surprised that someone else doesn't capice your gobbledy gook, convoluted , half baked assinine fuzzy logic

And yet, he's fighting strawmen because he doesn't understand what I said. That still remains to be the case.

I plunged California into the sea and you're saying I haven't proven that San Bernardino plunged into the sea.

"Prague" doesn't prove either of your contentions that W was evil or that Democrats are pure as the driven snow. It's a data point. And Democrats had a flood of data including 8 of 8 1/2 years in the Oval office before 9/11 and a constant presence on the Senate Intelligence committee, which you apparently don't grasp the significance of

 

[Faun]

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?

I understand what you "said." Prague does not prove your contention W is evil and Democrats pure as the driven snow and W fooled the Democrats, Republicans, French, Russians, Germans and UN starting six months into his Presidency to believe Saddam had WMDs. It's wait for it ... stupid.

If he did that he's an evil genius. And the Democrats are naive sheep we can't possibly entrust with the Presidency in a dangerous world because if you ask them to hold their wallet for them, they will hand it to you. Are you seriously saying Democrats are that mind numbingly gullible that after 8 years in the Presidency and being on the Senate intelligence committee with their broad access to intelligence, W just came in and duped them? You are saying Democrats ignore everything they know and just blindly believe anything they are told, even when it contradicts what they know?

The Bush administration lied about there being a connection between Iraq and 9.11 and then used that connection to get the American people behind them to support a war against Iraq. How is that not evil?

And again, despite your abject ignorance, Germany, France, and Russia did not buy into Bush's bullshit. That you think they did only serves to highlight what a moron you are.

 

[Faun]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

Those don't say exactly what you think they say, and those are governments with constantly shifting positions. If we're going by single quotes, you can probably support they thought aliens were going to invade.

But let's say this was a consistent position from their governments for a second and they mean what you want them to mean instead of what they actually said. So you just nailed Democrats to the cross, yet again. You didn't think that one through, did you Poindexter?

None of those countries wavered on their belief that Iraq was not building WMD. You remain a fruit loop dingus.

 

[Faun]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD

Perhaps it's a tad too advanced for you little fella but the statement

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

as well as ...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Are both highly relevant , they are among many that libtards such as yourself have been trying to sweep under the carpet for the past decade - One is from Slick Willy Clinton the other from Nancy Pelosi.- but they weren't lying right ---- only Bush --- you clowns are a fking pisser little fella

Neither quote has anything to do with anything I'm saying. Time to give the kneepads back to redfish.

the point, which your are too stupid to get, is that everyone bought into the bad intel. No one lied.

Except Curveball

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war World news The Guardian

And yet, I was able to quote the leaders of Germany, France, and Russia all stating their respective intelligence agencies had no evidence Hussein was building WMD.

Which we now know to be true.

So much for your opinion.

Those are all governments that play multiple sides. As I already pointed out, a single statement from them doesn't prove anything. And the statements were not even what you think they were. For example, the German one said there was no elevated risk, they did not say there was no WMD program.

Here's your standard. If I find a single quote from Israel that they won't attack Iran and tell you that's proof Israel won't attack Iran. Would you believe it? LOL. Obviously not, then you would suddenly get the fallacy of your argument

You're such an idiot. Thanks for the free entertainment.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

I understand what you "said." Prague does not prove your contention W is evil and Democrats pure as the driven snow and W fooled the Democrats, Republicans, French, Russians, Germans and UN starting six months into his Presidency to believe Saddam had WMDs. It's wait for it ... stupid.

If he did that he's an evil genius. And the Democrats are naive sheep we can't possibly entrust with the Presidency in a dangerous world because if you ask them to hold their wallet for them, they will hand it to you. Are you seriously saying Democrats are that mind numbingly gullible that after 8 years in the Presidency and being on the Senate intelligence committee with their broad access to intelligence, W just came in and duped them? You are saying Democrats ignore everything they know and just blindly believe anything they are told, even when it contradicts what they know?

The Bush administration lied about there being a connection between Iraq and 9.11 and then used that connection to get the American people behind them to support a war against Iraq. How is that not evil?

And again, despite your abject ignorance, Germany, France, and Russia did not buy into Bush's bullshit. That you think they did only serves to highlight what a moron you are.

No they didnt lie at all. Nor did they maintain the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was the reason for war. Germany et al were busy making money undermining the sanctions. Of course they opposed war.
You are a partisan ignoramus who can't shine Kaz's shoes much less take him on in a debate.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. It is a lie when it is investigated and it is determined the speaker knew it was untrue when he said but said it anyway. Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Imbecile (and that's an insult to imbeciles, not you) ... a lie of omission is also a lie. The administration knew the story was false for almost 2 years but wouldn't tell the public. And get this ... a forum jester like you doesn't have to understand that's a lie for it to be a lie.

No one really expects you to get it. Here boy, have another Snausages <pats the forum jester on the head>

Awe look at the little pussy with the clown face. Need a tissue boy?

Great, now you're just sucking my dick cause it's in your face.

Crybaby ... waah Bush said they wouldn't let them in but they did let them in and EVERYONE FUCKING KNEW THEY LET THEM IN SO WHAT THE FUCK DID BUSH MEAN? NAH ... WE'LL JUST CRY AND CALL HIM A LIAR ... CAUSE WE ARE DEMOCANTFIGUREITOUTONOUROWNDUMBSHIT CLOWNS.

Oh, look ... another unhinged rightard goes apoplectic after having to face the truth.

You're stupid.

 

[kaz]

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?

I understand what you "said." Prague does not prove your contention W is evil and Democrats pure as the driven snow and W fooled the Democrats, Republicans, French, Russians, Germans and UN starting six months into his Presidency to believe Saddam had WMDs. It's wait for it ... stupid.

If he did that he's an evil genius. And the Democrats are naive sheep we can't possibly entrust with the Presidency in a dangerous world because if you ask them to hold their wallet for them, they will hand it to you. Are you seriously saying Democrats are that mind numbingly gullible that after 8 years in the Presidency and being on the Senate intelligence committee with their broad access to intelligence, W just came in and duped them? You are saying Democrats ignore everything they know and just blindly believe anything they are told, even when it contradicts what they know?

The Bush administration lied about there being a connection between Iraq and 9.11 and then used that connection to get the American people behind them to support a war against Iraq. How is that not evil?

And again, despite your abject ignorance, Germany, France, and Russia did not buy into Bush's bullshit. That you think they did only serves to highlight what a moron you are.

You are rewriting history. The connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda was presented as a threat, not a claim that Al Qaeda was involved in 9/11. Sifting quotes doesn't change that.

This is more of your diversion campaign to alibi the Democrats and white wash their guilt. It's time for Democrats to man up and say they did it, but they were wrong and they learned from that instead of perpetuating the big lie of the Iraq war, the lie that you were lied to

 

[Theowl32]

God I fucking hate liberals.

 

[kaz]

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

Great .... kaz is kazzing again.

Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.

Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder

Interview With Gerhard Schroeder​

Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?

PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.​

Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...

"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002

Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian​

When do you stop lying, liar?

Those don't say exactly what you think they say, and those are governments with constantly shifting positions. If we're going by single quotes, you can probably support they thought aliens were going to invade.

But let's say this was a consistent position from their governments for a second and they mean what you want them to mean instead of what they actually said. So you just nailed Democrats to the cross, yet again. You didn't think that one through, did you Poindexter?

None of those countries wavered on their belief that Iraq was not building WMD. You remain a fruit loop dingus.

More of your lies. Anyone who remembers that era knows that Russia, Germany, France and the UN were not claiming Saddam had no WMDs.

Only children who don't remember it and sheep who remember what they are told to remember think that. Which are you? I don't see no horns, boy

 

[Faun]

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?

I understand what you "said." Prague does not prove your contention W is evil and Democrats pure as the driven snow and W fooled the Democrats, Republicans, French, Russians, Germans and UN starting six months into his Presidency to believe Saddam had WMDs. It's wait for it ... stupid.

If he did that he's an evil genius. And the Democrats are naive sheep we can't possibly entrust with the Presidency in a dangerous world because if you ask them to hold their wallet for them, they will hand it to you. Are you seriously saying Democrats are that mind numbingly gullible that after 8 years in the Presidency and being on the Senate intelligence committee with their broad access to intelligence, W just came in and duped them? You are saying Democrats ignore everything they know and just blindly believe anything they are told, even when it contradicts what they know?

The Bush administration lied about there being a connection between Iraq and 9.11 and then used that connection to get the American people behind them to support a war against Iraq. How is that not evil?

And again, despite your abject ignorance, Germany, France, and Russia did not buy into Bush's bullshit. That you think they did only serves to highlight what a moron you are.

No they didnt lie at all. Nor did they maintain the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was the reason for war. Germany et al were busy making money undermining the sanctions. Of course they opposed war.
You are a partisan ignoramus who can't shine Kaz's shoes much less take him on in a debate.

Oh, look ... the forum jester takes himself seriously.