Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Well it seems to me that a president must make the best decision he can with the information before him. With that said, wouldn't look good to project uncertainty.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Libby Trial: A Farce and An Outrage
- Thread starter Adam's Apple
- Start date
Well it seems to me that a president must make the best decision he can with the information before him. With that said, wouldn't look good to project uncertainty.
- Banned
- #102
Well it seems to me that a president must make the best decision he can with the information before him. With that said, wouldn't look good to project uncertainty.
"looking good" may very well have been his intention.....nevertheless, to proclaim absolute certainty and the total absence of any doubt when such was not the case is... "misleading", isn't it? And if it IS misleading and the president knows that stating such certainty is misleading, then... it is "intentionally misleading"... and intentionally misleading is a synonym for "lying". That's just the fact of the matter.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
"looking good" may very well have been his intention.....nevertheless, to proclaim absolute certainty and the total absence of any doubt when such was not the case is... "misleading", isn't it? And if it IS misleading and the president knows that stating such certainty is misleading, then... it is "intentionally misleading"... and intentionally misleading is a synonym for "lying". That's just the fact of the matter.
So according to the left, Pres Bush was lying and/or misleading
But the Dems were only mistaken when they said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's?
Plus, we had an election in 2004 over these talking points - and you lost
glockmail
VIP Member
- Banned
- #104
My atitudes? Why, because I disagree with you? Please be more specific.your attitudes would indicate such.... as well as your penchant for mixing beer and martinis.... not very classy.
When did I say that I mix beer and martinis?
Why not come out and say exactly what is on your mind?
- Banned
- #105
So according to the left, Pres Bush was lying and/or misleading
But the Dems were only mistaken when they said the same thing about Saddam and WMD's?
Plus, we had an election in 2004 over these talking points - and you lost
If a democrat said that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's it was a lie. If a democrat said that they were CERTAIN that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and that they knew right where they were, it was a lie.
and, by the way.... we had another election in 2006 about those talking points and YOU lost.
- Banned
- #107
:
Why not come out and say exactly what is on your mind?
ok
I don't like you very much. I don't like your politics. I don't like you wiseass condescending attitude. I don't share your attraction for horsefaced trannies, and I don't share your plebian taste in libations.
- Banned
- #108
Again I ask you for proof that the President actually said this.
I've given you Team Bush quotes ad nauseum. Learn to read.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
We all know what Pres Bush said.
However mainman wants to IGNORE what his Dems said
As another public service, allow me to help
"Bush lied!" "Bush misled us!" "The President withheld intelligence!" We have heard these particular statements from Democrat politicians pretty much non-stop in recent months. These Democrats are desirous of leading Americans to believe that they only voted to approve the invasion of Iraq because President Bush duped them.
Naturally, the followers of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are only too willing to buy the lies the Democrats are spreading. Yes, yes, I did say lies. Frankly, the lies being told about the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the vote to approve it, are coming directly from the Democrats, not the White House!
As they have tried to placate their Leftist base, by accusing President Bush of misleading them to support the Iraq invasion, they have stopped supporting our troops, as they deserve to be supported. Yes, that is a harsh charge to level, but it is a just charge as well. The fact is this, for all their bluster about being solidly behind our armed forces, the Democrats and those who are parroting their false claims of being misled are undercutting our troops!
The Democrats cannot at once claim to support the military and blast their mission as one based on lies. The cold fact is this, it is the political left, which is talking of cutting, and running (Rep. Murtha), it is the political left, which has accused our troops of torture and targeting civilians (Dennis Kucinish). It is the left, which has called our troops the problem (Ted Kennedy). Guess what, that AIN'T supporting the troops!
So let us look at the statements of these poor, misled Democrats BEFORE the Iraq invasion. Let us recall their own words, their declarations about Saddam, WMD, and Iraq as a threat to America. While we take this trip down memory lane, let us recall the intelligence they saw was exactly the same as the president saw. Then let us decide if the Democrats were misled then, or are just trying to appease their increasingly Leftist base now.
What did John Kerry say? "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002
Hmmm, is this the same John Kerry who repeatedly called the Iraq war the wrong war at the wrong time?
How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.
Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.
Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?
What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."
Congressional Record, October 8, 2002
Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998
Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Hagin was born in Tampa, Florida, and now resides in Dallas, Texas. He is 38, single, loves outdoors, and dreams of having a political column nationally syndicated. Doug has been writing political columns for 7 years, and now his column runs regularly in American Daily, Republican News Daily, the Starr Journal, the Intellectual Conservative, Hour Eleven, the Reality Check, Opinion Editorials, the Ellis County Press, and the Daley News Post along with others. Visit Doug's website at http://doughagin.tripod.com/
© Copyright 2005 by Doug Hagin
However mainman wants to IGNORE what his Dems said
As another public service, allow me to help
"Bush lied!" "Bush misled us!" "The President withheld intelligence!" We have heard these particular statements from Democrat politicians pretty much non-stop in recent months. These Democrats are desirous of leading Americans to believe that they only voted to approve the invasion of Iraq because President Bush duped them.
Naturally, the followers of Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are only too willing to buy the lies the Democrats are spreading. Yes, yes, I did say lies. Frankly, the lies being told about the lead-up to the Iraq War, and the vote to approve it, are coming directly from the Democrats, not the White House!
As they have tried to placate their Leftist base, by accusing President Bush of misleading them to support the Iraq invasion, they have stopped supporting our troops, as they deserve to be supported. Yes, that is a harsh charge to level, but it is a just charge as well. The fact is this, for all their bluster about being solidly behind our armed forces, the Democrats and those who are parroting their false claims of being misled are undercutting our troops!
The Democrats cannot at once claim to support the military and blast their mission as one based on lies. The cold fact is this, it is the political left, which is talking of cutting, and running (Rep. Murtha), it is the political left, which has accused our troops of torture and targeting civilians (Dennis Kucinish). It is the left, which has called our troops the problem (Ted Kennedy). Guess what, that AIN'T supporting the troops!
So let us look at the statements of these poor, misled Democrats BEFORE the Iraq invasion. Let us recall their own words, their declarations about Saddam, WMD, and Iraq as a threat to America. While we take this trip down memory lane, let us recall the intelligence they saw was exactly the same as the president saw. Then let us decide if the Democrats were misled then, or are just trying to appease their increasingly Leftist base now.
What did John Kerry say? "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Congressional Record, October 9, 2002
Hmmm, is this the same John Kerry who repeatedly called the Iraq war the wrong war at the wrong time?
How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.
Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.
Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?
What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."
Congressional Record, October 10, 2002
How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002
Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."
Congressional Record, October 8, 2002
Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998
Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Hagin was born in Tampa, Florida, and now resides in Dallas, Texas. He is 38, single, loves outdoors, and dreams of having a political column nationally syndicated. Doug has been writing political columns for 7 years, and now his column runs regularly in American Daily, Republican News Daily, the Starr Journal, the Intellectual Conservative, Hour Eleven, the Reality Check, Opinion Editorials, the Ellis County Press, and the Daley News Post along with others. Visit Doug's website at http://doughagin.tripod.com/
© Copyright 2005 by Doug Hagin
glockmail
VIP Member
- Banned
- #110
The obvious irony aside, how does that make me a hick?ok
I don't like you very much. I don't like your politics. I don't like you wiseass condescending attitude. I don't share your attraction for horsefaced trannies, and I don't share your plebian taste in libations.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
ok
I don't like you very much. I don't like your politics. I don't like you wiseass condescending attitude. I don't share your attraction for horsefaced trannies, and I don't share your plebian taste in libations.
Looking in the mirror?
- Banned
- #113
rd stats rle:
I stipulate that democrats were worried about Saddam's biological and chemical capabilities. I have never ignored their statements in the least. The point being: they were not the guys in the oval office. the buck stops with george. he misled us... that is a fact.
I stipulate that democrats were worried about Saddam's biological and chemical capabilities. I have never ignored their statements in the least. The point being: they were not the guys in the oval office. the buck stops with george. he misled us... that is a fact.
- Banned
- #115
Looking in the mirror?
you asked me what was on my mind...I told you...and your response was something my daughter used to say when she was in the third grade.
What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
glockmail
VIP Member
- Banned
- #116
But did The President "proclaim absolute certainty and the total absence of any doubt", like you misled us earlier?rd stats rle:
I stipulate that democrats were worried about Saddam's biological and chemical capabilities. I have never ignored their statements in the least. The point being: they were not the guys in the oval office. the buck stops with george. he misled us... that is a fact.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
you asked me what was on my mind...I told you...and your response was something my daughter used to say when she was in the third grade.
What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
You gave such a perfect dicsription of yourself
- Banned
- #119
But did The President "proclaim absolute certainty and the total absence of any doubt", like you misled us earlier?
Team Bush certainly did.
- Banned
- #120
No, that was me, remember?
six of one....
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 465
- Locked
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 253
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 19
- Replies
- 154
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 106
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8104
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-