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

[hangover]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's **** ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

Na, Shrub and Cheney made sure the troops died for Halliburton profits.

 

[Redfish]

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's **** ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

Na, Shrub and Cheney made sure the troops died for Halliburton profits.

first of all neither of them benefitted from Halliburton profits. Second, there is no other company that does what Halliburton does and they would have made their money war or no war. In fact, they probably would have made more if the war had not happened.

as usual, your talking points are nothing but partisan bullshit, as are you.

 

[Camp]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's **** ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

He campaigned for the Presidency on the promise that he would end the war in Iraq. You are whining that Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to the majority of Americans who voted for him to do exactly what he did.
As far as Americans dying for nothing, that is false. Whenever Americans answer the call they are dying for something honorable. It may not be for a reason that fits your description of "something" or "nothing", but that is a fault of yours, not everyone has the fault you have.

 

[Faun]

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

Damn, man we get it, you blame Bush. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not change anyone's mind about what happened and why.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Like I said ... even Bush blames Bush ...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

Guess that makes him a fool too, huh?

Well he could have taken the obama approach and blamed his predecessor.

Like you're doing now?

 

[hangover]

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

Na, Shrub and Cheney made sure the troops died for Halliburton profits.

first of all neither of them benefitted from Halliburton profits. Second, there is no other company that does what Halliburton does and they would have made their money war or no war. In fact, they probably would have made more if the war had not happened.

as usual, your talking points are nothing but partisan bullshit, as are you.

Take a reading comprehension class. I said they died for Halliburton profits.....but Cheney still gets kickbacks to this day from when he was CEO.

 

[Dot Com]

Bush did much more than lie...

• Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News
  Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11 - ABC News - similar pages
  The revelation came as legislators demanded an explanation after an FBI memo alluding to ignored warning signs about Sept. 11 emerged. Two months before ...

• The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - NYTimes.com
  http://www.nytimes.com / 2012 / 09 / 11 / opinion / the-bush-white-house-was... - similar pages
  Sep 10, 2012 ... In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when ...

• Bush Received More Warnings About 9/11 Than We Realized ...
  http://www.businessinsider.com / new-report-shows-how-man... - 416k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... The Bush White House ignored even more warnings about September 11 than we thought, according to journalist Kurt Eichenwald, who has a ...

• FITTON: Clinton White House ignored 9/11 warnings - Washington ...
  http://www.washingtontimes.com / news / 2013 / nov / 6 / fitton-how-911-warnings- / - 167k -similar pages
  Nov 6, 2013 ... It took 11 years, but Judicial Watch recently received a response to a 2002 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that revealed another ...

• NBC: Evidence piles up that Bush administration got many pre-9/11 ...
  http://investigations.nbcnews.com / _news / 2012 / 09 / 11 / 13809524-evidence-piles-... - 253k - similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eichenwald wrote of the warnings in his new book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the .... So after 9/11, Bush was tired of all the Middle East BS.

• September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories ...
  http://en.wikipedia.org / wiki / September_11_attacks_adv... - 206k - similar pages
  The 9/11advance-knowledge conspiracy theories center on arguments that certain institutions ... Some of the primary concerns include whether the Bush administration or United ... Mueller said this warning should have been followed more vigorously. .... suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored.

• Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings -- NYMag
  http://nymag.com / daily / intelligencer / 2012 / 09 / bush-administration-igno... - 307k -similar pages
  Sep 11, 2012 ... Eleven years to the day after September 11 and more than seven years after the release of the government's 9/11 Commission Report, newly ...

• Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
  http://www.washingtonpost.com / wp-dyn / content / article / 2006 / 09 / 30 / AR2006093000282.html - similar pages
  Oct 1, 2006 ... Two Months Before 9/11, an UrgentWarning to Rice ... President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies. As they all knew, a coherent plan ...

• Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9/11 warnings - Mar 23 ...
  CNN.com - Former antiterror adviser says Bush ignored 9 11 warnings - Mar 23 2004 - 59k - similar pages
  Mar 23, 2004 ... WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House's former counterterrorism coordinator blasts President Bush in a television interview and a new book, ...

• Jason Leopold | Bush Ignored 9/11 Warnings - Truthout
  Jason Leopold Bush Ignored 9 11 Warnings - 61k - similar pages
  Jan 31, 2006 ... Bush Administration Ignored 9/11 Warnings By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t | Report. Tuesday 31 January 2006. President Bush and Vice ...

It's quite amazing how many of the people who insist Hillary is not fit to be president because 4 people are dead due to her lack of protecting them; are the same folks who voted to re-elect Bush after 3,000 people died when Bush failed to protect us.

^ that

 

[there4eyeM]

A criminal, anyway.

what specifically was the criminal act?

Serious questions only, please.

 

[Camp]

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

Na, Shrub and Cheney made sure the troops died for Halliburton profits.

first of all neither of them benefitted from Halliburton profits. Second, there is no other company that does what Halliburton does and they would have made their money war or no war. In fact, they probably would have made more if the war had not happened.

as usual, your talking points are nothing but partisan bullshit, as are you.

Halliburton acts as a middleman and subcontracts out to other businesses and even individuals. In other cases they form companies or divisions within Halliburton to meet specific requirements. There are other companies that do the same thing. Bechtel is one of them. They can be as bad at abusing the government as Halliburton, but to say Halliburton is the only company that could do this work is false.

 

[Faun]

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

Na, Shrub and Cheney made sure the troops died for Halliburton profits.

first of all neither of them benefitted from Halliburton profits. Second, there is no other company that does what Halliburton does and they would have made their money war or no war. In fact, they probably would have made more if the war had not happened.

as usual, your talking points are nothing but partisan bullshit, as are you.

What complete and utter bullshit. It's well documented (http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/UploadedFiles/Cheney Gift Trust Agreement.pdf) that he donated profits from Halliburton to charity and then wrote those charitable contributions off on his taxes.

I don't know about Bush, but Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, absolutely profited from the war.

 

[Theowl32]

Halliburton? You stupid moronic brainwashed sacks of shit. That has been completely debunked! You stupid ignorant puppets. You ******* hypocrites. All of you are lying double talking goddamn morons.

 

[Tuatara]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's **** ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

I hope you are not one of those same conservatives that are screaming that Obama should have left the troops in Iraq because that would be very hypocritical of you.

 

[Faun]

Halliburton? You stupid moronic brainwashed sacks of shit. That has been completely debunked! You stupid ignorant puppets. You ******* hypocrites. All of you are lying double talking goddamn morons.

Debunk this ...

http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/UploadedFiles/Cheney Gift Trust Agreement.pdf

 

[Tuatara]

Halliburton? You stupid moronic brainwashed sacks of shit. That has been completely debunked! You stupid ignorant puppets. You ******* hypocrites. All of you are lying double talking goddamn morons.

He said while ignoring the evidence. You sound very angry. Perhaps you are in need of valium.

 

[Dot Com]

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

Damn, man we get it, you blame Bush. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not change anyone's mind about what happened and why.

You are making a fool of yourself.

It is only recently that even Bush's strongest supporters have been willing to admit he made mistakes. They still however argue that he did not lie and that his mistakes were made because he had bad intelligence, just like everyone else. Unless it is established that he in fact lied and did not base his decision on bad intelligence, but rather supported his lies with purposely used manipulated misleading intelligence, there is no way for us to learn from our mistake of trusting him and future Presidents, even and especially after a tragedy of the proportion of 9/11. We know now that a President will use such an incident for nefarious reasons.

I remember when his former Sec of the Treasury said that Bu$hCo was talking invasion from Day 1

 

[Camp]

Halliburton? You stupid moronic brainwashed sacks of shit. That has been completely debunked! You stupid ignorant puppets. You ******* hypocrites. All of you are lying double talking goddamn morons.

So show us the evidence that your foul, immature rant has any merit to it.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

... next excuse ...

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Even if Cheney didn't see that White House memo, the Bush administration knew Cheney's claim on national television was wrong. Yet they didn't clear that up for nearly two years. Cheney may or many not have lied that day, but the administration most certainly lied on that matter.

Yes or no there were conflicting reports on the matter. Easy question.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFL

You can't proove a negative.

Is a lie a negative?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's **** ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this ******* stupid

I hope you are not one of those same conservatives that are screaming that Obama should have left the troops in Iraq because that would be very hypocritical of you.

I could care less what you hope for

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

... next excuse ...

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.

 

[Camp]

Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

... next excuse ...

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

The issue, we are discussing is the difference between being wrong and lying.

That is how you want to spin it. What was Bush wrong about when he declared the aid and protection being given by Saddam to al Qaeda. What event or incident equals aid and protection. Bush had all those years in Iraq with the tools of imprisonment and even torture to obtain even a small shred of evidence to back up his statement. No one ever found it. There was nothing for Bush to be wrong about. No mistaken interpretation of evidence. No misleading or faulty intelligence. In this case, aid and protection from Saddam to al Qaeda, there is no reference to anything to classify this allegation as being wrong. It was pure lie.