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

[Faun]

Translation: you didn't even have a pair in your hand and you got called while bluffing.

No evidence from you equals bullshit from you. I called that one spot on.

I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.

There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.

You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.

 

[Faun]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.

There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.

You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.

Context matters... When he's saying they would not let them in, he's talking from the context of the reports of Iraq playing shell games with the stuff, with Iraq not being able to account for the stuff, etc...

Here's the timeline:

The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."


The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

 

[RKMBrown]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

They were incorrect. They were just reporting incorrect information that they were given from our allies. It's all in the link I provided. Again, being incorrect, based on false information is not the same as lying. When people said and thought the world was flat, they were not lying they were incorrect. When the ones that knew the world was round said it was flat to keep from being hung, those were lies. See how that works?

 

[Faun]

There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.

You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.

Context matters... When he's saying they would not let them in, he's talking from the context of the reports of Iraq playing shell games with the stuff, with Iraq not being able to account for the stuff, etc...

Here's the timeline:

The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."


The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Holyfuckingshit!

That's the same stuff from the link you posted earlier. There was nothing on that site indicating Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in -- meaning there's nothing in anything you copied & pasted from it.

Bush said Hussein "wouldn't let them [inspectors] in."

That's a lie.

You're inability to prove otherwise affirms as much.

 

[RKMBrown]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

 

[Faun]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

They were incorrect. They were just reporting incorrect information that they were given from our allies. It's all in the link I provided. Again, being incorrect, based on false information is not the same as lying. When people said and thought the world was flat, they were not lying they were incorrect. When the ones that knew the world was round said it was flat to keep from being hung, those were lies. See how that works?

Again ....... they knew it never happened for almost 2 years. How can they drop a bomb like that on the American people, let it simmer for almost 2 years .... and they're just, "wrong?"

Again ... bullshit.

 

[Camp]

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.

Context matters... When he's saying they would not let them in, he's talking from the context of the reports of Iraq playing shell games with the stuff, with Iraq not being able to account for the stuff, etc...

Here's the timeline:

The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."


The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Holyfuckingshit!

That's the same stuff from the link you posted earlier. There was nothing on that site indicating Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in -- meaning there's nothing in anything you copied & pasted from it.

Bush said Hussein "wouldn't let them [inspectors] in."

That's a lie.

You're inability to prove otherwise affirms as much.

RK keeps posting stuff that proves himself wrong. He must not read that stuff.

 

[Faun]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

 

[GreenBean]

I'm guessing you missed the link I provided.

There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.

You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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."

 

[Faun]

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.

Context matters... When he's saying they would not let them in, he's talking from the context of the reports of Iraq playing shell games with the stuff, with Iraq not being able to account for the stuff, etc...

Here's the timeline:

The U.N. Moves Back In ::: Nov. 27, 2002
UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections begin again in Iraq, almost four years after the departure of inspectors prior to Operation Desert Fox.

Recycled Material ::: Dec. 7, 2002
Iraq delivers a 12,000-page WMD report to the U.N. in response to Resolution 1441. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says the information provided by Iraq is largely recycled material.

No 'Smoking Guns' ::: Jan. 9, 2003
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix and the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei report their findings to the U.N. Security Council. Blix says inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq. ElBaradei reports that aluminum tubes suspected by the U.S. to be components for uranium enrichment are more likely to be parts for rockets, as the Iraqis claim. John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., says:
"There is still no evidence that Iraq has fundamentally changed its approach from one of deceit to a genuine attempt to be forthcoming in meeting the council's demand that it disarm."

Sixteen Words ::: Jan. 28, 2003
In his State of the Union address, President Bush continues to view Iraq is a WMD threat. He makes a statement that implies Iraq is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Bush says:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
It comes to light later that the president based his statement on discredited intelligence.

Powell's U.N. Appearance ::: Feb. 5, 2003
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell goes in person to the U.N. to make the case against Iraq. Citing evidence obtained by American intelligence, he tells the U.N. that Iraq has failed "to come clean and disarm." Powell adds:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."


The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Holyfuckingshit!

That's the same stuff from the link you posted earlier. There was nothing on that site indicating Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in -- meaning there's nothing in anything you copied & pasted from it.

Bush said Hussein "wouldn't let them [inspectors] in."

That's a lie.

You're inability to prove otherwise affirms as much.

RK keeps posting stuff that proves him wrong. He must not read that stuff.

Because he's got nothing. He knows it. Just about everyone here reading this knows it. Because of this, his choices are severely limited. Either he admits the Bush administration lied or he posts bullshit hoping nobody will notice it's bullshit.

It's been noticed.

 

[Redfish]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

for the final time. stating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

 

[Faun]

There is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites.

You can stop bluffing any time now. Your pathetic hand has been exposed. You've got nothing.

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.

 

[GreenBean]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

Czech counterintelligence service claimed that Mohamed Atta al-Sayed, a September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmad Samir al-Ani, the consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, in a cafe in Prague.......The source for the claim came from a contact the Czech intelligence had within the Iraqi embassy , described in The Boston Globe as "a single informant from Prague's Arab community who saw Atta's picture in the news after the 11 September attacks, and who later told his handlers that he had seen him meeting with Ani. Some officials have called the source unreliable

A 9 11 legacy confusion over a name Czechs find error in tracking Atta - The Boston Globe

 

[Faun]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

for the final time. stating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

The Bush administration was notified the story was not true. They waited almost two years to inform the public.

Pass your kneepads to the next rightard in line. Maybe they will have better luck than you.

 

[Redfish]

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

for the final time. stating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

The Bush administration was notified the story was not true. They waited almost two years to inform the public.

Pass your kneepads to the next rightard in line. Maybe they will have better luck than you.

I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but you are really really stupid. A visit to your local mental hospital may be your next step.

 

[Faun]

President Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMDs – thus goes the article of faith among liberals, endlessly repeated..... Except that it is a libel, as even the New York Times indirectly acknowledges today.

C.J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt write:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Note that despite the firestorm of slander the Bush administration endured over its “lies” on WMD, the president never acted to declassify the information on the CIA buyback program, and as a result today it is an article of faith on the left that he lied us into war.

Blog NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after all

They don't care ... their handlers say Bush lied and they will repeat it till they are told to say differently.

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

Czech counterintelligence service claimed that Mohamed Atta al-Sayed, a September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmad Samir al-Ani, the consul at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague, in a cafe in Prague.......The source for the claim came from a contact the Czech intelligence had within the Iraqi embassy , described in The Boston Globe as "a single informant from Prague's Arab community who saw Atta's picture in the news after the 11 September attacks, and who later told his handlers that he had seen him meeting with Ani. Some officials have called the source unreliable

A 9 11 legacy confusion over a name Czechs find error in tracking Atta - The Boston Globe

And therefore, the CIA investigated the matter and sent this memo to the White House:

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 [---]​

 

[Faun]

Yet the Bush administration falsely claimed a 9.11 hijacker met with Iraqi officials in Prague and waited almost two years before correcting the record with the public.

When is Obama gonna come clean?

When did the claim of a 9.11 hijacker meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague become about Obama??

Lose the desperation and explain how even if the Bush administration was wrong when they first made that fallacious claim, at what point does it become a lie if they don't correct the record? One year? 2? 3? 10? Never??

They let the public believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. As a result, some 70% of those polled believed that. Only after the war in Iraq began did they finally admit the truth.

I'm almost amazed how you can't see that is a lie.

for the final time. stating something that you believe to be true is not lying.

The Bush administration was notified the story was not true. They waited almost two years to inform the public.

Pass your kneepads to the next rightard in line. Maybe they will have better luck than you.

I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but you are really really stupid. A visit to your local mental hospital may be your next step.

 

[GreenBean]

Wait what did you just move those goal posts? lol Chill dude I'll give you that I agree with every statement in that NPR link that I provided. Note the absence of the word LIE.

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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

 

[Faun]

I moved no goal posts. Why would I have to when you're incapable of kicking the ball through?

First you said "so now let's see your evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Let's call this goal post location number 1.

Then you said "there is nothing in your link even suggesting that once the inspectors went back into Iraq in November, 2002, they were denied access to any sites." This is goal post location number 2. Note the red text highlighted to show the location of the goal post being, figuratively, moved.

I assume that you moved the goal post because the link I provided, actually did talk about "evidence of occasions where that the inspectors were not allowed to do their job." Yes?

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.