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

[Faun]

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.

I know of only the one report I showed you which clearly stated the 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague.

What report are you speaking of which said there was a meeting?

 

[Faun]

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.

In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...

"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."​

... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"

 

[Camp]

Anybody want to guess after being destroyed in this "Bush didn't lie" thread, how fast a new "Bush didn't lie" thread will be started by the delusional rw.

 

[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

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

Isn't it fun to see cons caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and still deny their hand is in it? BWAH HA HA HA HA! It's like the cop that shot the black man in the back eight times claiming to be innocent. Being defeated is being defeated, no matter how many times you say you're not. You are just exposing yourself as a total moron. Go ahead, do it some more...moron.

 

[hangover]

Con lies are their basic foreign policy. Ronnie Raygun told so many lies about Iran/contra, he should have been impeached. But he got off by claiming he had Alzheimers. It was him and Ollie North that sold chemical weapons to Hussein, which was used against the Kurds. Raygun also sold missiles to Iran, which the profits of were used to get guns for the contra's, and sold cocaine with Noriega, which was sold to Americans.
Cons are more evil than ISIS or Al Qaeda could ever be.

 

[Tuatara]

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?

I cannot prove that you did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda?

 

[BlindBoo]

Hell we armed mexican cartels..

That's just stupid.

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.

They didn't die for nothing, they died for the Bush Administrations lies. America was not under threat from Iraq and Iraq did not participate in the 9-11 attacks.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Hahaha, Carter is ya'll favorite whipping boy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's just stupid.

IT WAS stupid, but Obama did it anyway, as you know.

Fast and Furious Scandal Returns to Haunt Obama - Businessweek

They didn't die for nothing, they died for the Bush Administrations lies. America was not under eliminate threat from Iraq and Iraq did not participate in the 9-11 attacks.

BOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHH

LOL

You morons were every bit as complicit as Bush - you lie now because you have not so much as a hint of integrity, but the war in Iraq was a bipartisan disaster.

{
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.}

Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16 1998

Go ahead, lie - party above all and all that shit.

 

[BlindBoo]

IT WAS stupid

It is stupid to believe the President armed the cartels during that. Right on queue a unhinged jumps on the stupid train. But then again he has a season pass.

 

[Uncensored2008]

IT WAS stupid

It is stupid to believe the President armed the cartels during that. Right on queue a unhinged jumps on the stupid train. But then again he has a season pass.

Yeah, who are you going to believe, the facts, or the party?

You're ******* insane.

 

[BlindBoo]

IT WAS stupid

It is stupid to believe the President armed the cartels during that. Right on queue a unhinged jumps on the stupid train. But then again he has a season pass.

Yeah, who are you going to believe, the facts, or the party?

You're ******* insane.

Fact is the Cartel straw buying is still going on in AZ due to the lax gun purchasing laws. Furthermore, the Cartels get most of their weapons from the corrupt Mexican police and military.

 

[Lakhota]

Gulf War 2 a Bush Disaster? So was Gulf War 1.

In light of the shocking advances of the Islamic State, the sense that Iraq is coming apart at the seams despite the huge toll of lives and treasure squandered over more than a decade, it's clear that George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the most fateful foreign policy blunder ever made by an American leader.

What's remarkable, however, is that critics of George W.'s actions overlook the fact that it was his father, George H.W.Bush, who, in 1990, set the stage for his son's disastrous moves 13 years later.

It was Papa Bush, after all, who sent American troops halfway around the world to launch the First Gulf War--an error of tragic proportions; responsible in its own way for much of the horror that afflicts the Greater Middle East (and America) to this day.

Ironically, it happened just as the U.S. seemed about to become king of the global roost---the greatest military power the planet had ever known. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no power around to challenge U.S. hegemony. It was left to America to blight its own future.

What is also extraordinary about the First Gulf War is that--like the outbreak of World War I--it was all so unnecessary--the result of feckless leadership, inept diplomacy and shocking miscalculations by both leaders--Saddam Hussein and George H.W. Bush. (I dealt with this at length in my book, "Web of Deceit, The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George w.Bush."

Saddam's ignorance can be understood: a brutal dictator, surrounded for the most part by sycophants, the Iraqi president knew little of the outside world. George H.W. Bush on the other hand, had been Ambassador to China, head of the CIA, had an impressive stable of experienced advisors and could draw upon the U.S.'s vast intelligence capacities.

The problem, however, in the summer of 1990 was that Bush and his top aides were obsessed by the disintegrating Soviet empire. They were largely oblivious to the political storm that was brewing in the Gulf between Saddam Hussein and the leaders of Kuwait.

Saddam had just "won" an incredibly bloody nine-year war with Iran, only to find himself in a mounting feud with his immensely wealthy Gulf neighbor, Kuwait. Saddam's charges against the Kuwaitis were not at all unreasonable.

For starters, they were beggaring Iraq's ravaged economy by manipulating the price of oil. They were also demanding that the bankrupt Iraq pay back huge loans Kuwait had made to help finance Baghdad's sanguinary war against Iran.

As Saddam saw it, by attacking revolutionary Iran, he had been defending Kuwait's interests as well. But now that Iran was defeated and Iraq was bled white, the Kuwaitis wanted their money back.

The Kuwaitis dismissed Saddam's claims and continued to demand their loans be repaid. Riled by what he saw as their arrogant, aggressive stance, Saddam became increasingly belligerent.

At the same time, however, as he was mobilizing his troops, the Iraqi dictator was attempting to figure out how the U.S. would react if he actually proceeded to invade Kuwait. He never got a clear signal.

The blame for that is usually laid at the feet of America's ambassador at the time, April Glaspie. Saddam called her to the Foreign Ministry, railed about the Kuwaitis, and made vague references to his aggressive plans. She replied with the standard line, that the U.S. had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. Washington hoped that everything could be settled peacefully.

But by not flashing a red light, Ambassador Glaspie was simply relaying the very confused and self-contradictory policies of the George H.W. Bush administration itself.

MUCH MORE: Gulf War 2 a Bush Disaster? So was Gulf War 1. Barry Lando

Below is a transcript of the meeting on July 25, 1990 between then-US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and President Saddam Hussein that the Iraqi leader interpreted as a green light from Washington for his invasion of Kuwait eight days later. It speaks for itself. Saddam was shafted by the Bushes - TWICE. rightwinger

Transcript

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

In July, 2003, Bush said Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in ...

"... The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."​

... is that "wrong" or is that "lying?"

It is "widely" known and accepted that on numerous occasions Iraq did not let inspectors do their jobs. Spin it anyway you like, but facts are facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

I cannot prove that you did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda?

Correct. The left argument is that Bush is guilty of lying until proven innocent for every single statement he ever made on every occasion, given whatever out of context bull shit the left wants to make up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fact is the Cartel straw buying is still going on in AZ due to the lax gun purchasing laws. Furthermore, the Cartels get most of their weapons from the corrupt Mexican police and military.

Bullshit - BUT there is no question that Holder, the most corrupt AG in history, sold guns to the Cartels. That is historical fact. The guns Holder sold them were used to kill federal agents.

Hey, they were collateral damage in Obama's war on the Constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I know of only the one report I showed you which clearly stated the 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague.

What report are you speaking of which said there was a meeting?

Really? Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Camp]

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?

I cannot prove that you did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda?

Correct. The left argument is that Bush is guilty of lying until proven innocent for every single statement he ever made on every occasion, given whatever out of context bull shit the left wants to make up.

No body is making up the lie that has been discussed about giving aid and protection. That was a lie and you are simply deflecting and deferring because you can not show that it wasn't a blatant lie.

 

[Camp]

Fact is the Cartel straw buying is still going on in AZ due to the lax gun purchasing laws. Furthermore, the Cartels get most of their weapons from the corrupt Mexican police and military.

Bullshit - BUT there is no question that Holder, the most corrupt AG in history, sold guns to the Cartels. That is historical fact. The guns Holder sold them were used to kill federal agents.

Hey, they were collateral damage in Obama's war on the Constitution.

Why are you changing the subject and attempting to draw attention away from the fact that the posters on this thread have proven with documentation that Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq. Who asked you to talk about Holder and drug cartels in the middle of a discussion about how the Iraq war began with lies by Bush?

 

[Camp]

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.

I know of only the one report I showed you which clearly stated the 9.11 hijacker did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague.

What report are you speaking of which said there was a meeting?

Really? Mohamed Atta s alleged Prague connection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You posted a link that proves Faun's point and disproves yours. So, yes, the answer to your question of "Really" is answered in the positive with the link you failed to read before you posted it.