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

[kaz]

109 Democrats in Congress voted yes, 147 voted no. And many of the 147 said the same things, they just didn't want to go to war yet.

Yes, dummy, we all know that some Democrats voted for the war.......but, they didn't know that Bush was lying. Many Americans supported the war because we didn't know what damn liars Bush/Cheney would turn out to be. They should be in jail, responsible for the death of every soldier they sent to that unnecessary war.

You're supposed to sip the kool-aid, honey, not swim in it

 

[RKMBrown]

Bush was also ridiculed immediately for his gaffe. It was even on Fox the next day. It was a gaffe... the link with atta was "alleged" not confirmed.

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link
NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center">October

IOW you were not listening to Bush and Cheney.. you've been listening to guys like Olberman.. that's why you are confused.

The links you provided were from 4 and 3 years later respectively following the Bush administration's initial claim that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.

3 to 4 years later is your idea "immediate??"

It was a gaffe... the link with atta was "alleged" not confirmed.

Bullshit ... Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed," before lying and denying ever said that.

Not to mention, the Bush administration repeated that several times during the course of almost 2 years before finally conceding it wasn't true. Lies are maintained for years, gaffes are not.

You can't even read dates? try again.

Your first link .... Dated 11.12.2005

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link

Your second link ... Dated 10.7.2004

NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center

........ and while you claim the story wasn't confirmed, I quoted Cheney claiming it was pretty well confirmed.

Hey, and if ya want a good laugh ... watch Cheney trying to deny he said that....... 39 seconds out of your life will reveal Cheney trying to do what you brain-dead cons are doing now -- rewrite history.........

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

A year after 9.11 and 9 months after the CIA debunked the Atta in Prague rumor...

September 8, 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Tim Russert on NBC News’ Meet the Press [link to source]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center...

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point.​

That is a bald-faced lie. Atta did not "apparently travel to Prague." Not being in Prague means he did not meet there with senior Iraqi officials. The CIA did not say the story was credible, the CIA in fact informed the Bush administration 9 months earlier the story was not true. And Chaney was lying when he said the story was "unconfirmed at this point." The story was indeed confirmed .... confirmed by the CIA to be bullshit.

You are still not reading it correctly. The guy did travel to Prague on a number of occasions. That is the first statement. There are facts that back that up. Note he did not say that any of those known trips had anything to do with anything other than travel.

Now we go to the next statement where he says on at least one occasion,... we have reporting that places him with the Iraqui guy. This is widely known, that there was a report of it happening. Do you deny that there was a report of it happening? The report came from officials of an ally. Are you saying we should state that reports from our allies are not "credible?" Are you saying we should call our allies liars, call out our allies as full of "bullshit?" He then follows with it's unconfirmed, as it remains... unconfirmed. Unconfirmed means it is not confirmed.

But gratz on learning how to read dates and dropping your story about my links being just about something in 2004. I guess you could say your reports were unconfirmed. Or would you say complete bullshit?

Again, I find it amazing that even after it was WIDELY KNOWN that it was UNCONFIRMED ... that you continued to believe that SADDAM WAS BEHIND 911.

 

[Faun]

The links you provided were from 4 and 3 years later respectively following the Bush administration's initial claim that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.

3 to 4 years later is your idea "immediate??"

Bullshit ... Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed," before lying and denying ever said that.

Not to mention, the Bush administration repeated that several times during the course of almost 2 years before finally conceding it wasn't true. Lies are maintained for years, gaffes are not.

You can't even read dates? try again.

Your first link .... Dated 11.12.2005

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link

Your second link ... Dated 10.7.2004

NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center

........ and while you claim the story wasn't confirmed, I quoted Cheney claiming it was pretty well confirmed.

Hey, and if ya want a good laugh ... watch Cheney trying to deny he said that....... 39 seconds out of your life will reveal Cheney trying to do what you brain-dead cons are doing now -- rewrite history.........

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

A year after 9.11 and 9 months after the CIA debunked the Atta in Prague rumor...

September 8, 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Tim Russert on NBC News’ Meet the Press [link to source]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center...

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point.​

That is a bald-faced lie. Atta did not "apparently travel to Prague." Not being in Prague means he did not meet there with senior Iraqi officials. The CIA did not say the story was credible, the CIA in fact informed the Bush administration 9 months earlier the story was not true. And Chaney was lying when he said the story was "unconfirmed at this point." The story was indeed confirmed .... confirmed by the CIA to be bullshit.

You are still not reading it correctly. The guy did travel to Prague on a number of occasions. That is the first statement. There are facts that back that up. Note he did not say that any of those known trips had anything to do with anything other than travel.

Now we go to the next statement where he says on at least one occasion,... we have reporting that places him with the Iraqui guy. This is widely known, that there was a report of it happening. Do you deny that there was a report of it happening? The report came from officials of an ally. Are you saying we should state that reports from our allies are not "credible?" Are you saying we should call our allies liars, call out our allies as full of "bullshit?" He then follows with it's unconfirmed, as it remains... unconfirmed. Unconfirmed means it is not confirmed.

But gratz on learning how to read dates and dropping your story about my links being just about something in 2004. I guess you could say your reports were unconfirmed. Or would you say complete bullshit?

Again, I find it amazing that even after it was WIDELY KNOWN that it was UNCONFIRMED ... that you continued to believe that SADDAM WAS BEHIND 911.

Can you take Cheney's dick out of your mouth long enough to realize when Cheney said that the report was "credible," that was a lie? The claim that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague was not credible in September, 2002. The CIA determined that claim was false in December, 2001 and notified the Bush administration of their findings.

When Cheney said it was "unconfirmed, " that was a lie. It was confirmed -- confirmed to be false. It was a different person with a similar name who may have met with an Iraqi official in Prague and the CIA was able to determine through phone records that the hijacker Atta was inside the U.S. during the time of that purported meeting.

You may now resume your "job."

 

[Faun]

So what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war? What about voting for them for President and Vice President like you keep doing? Is that the solution?

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Gotcha, Trixie,

W is an evil genius. He was in the Oval Office less than 9 months when 9/11 happened. The Democrats 8 years before that. Democrats including John Fing Kerry were all over the Senate Intelligence committee which you apparently don't know what they do and the broad access to intelligence they have. He proceeded to con the Democrats, UN, French, Russians and Germans into thinking Hussein had WMDs, which he had repeatedly used before.

Of course it's my partisanship that makes me hold both sides accountable for what they did and your rigid adherence to a life following strict logic and impartiality that makes you realize Republicans are demonic aliens from another galaxy and Democrats pure as the driven snow full of love for their fellow man and incapable of lying even to save their own lives.

One question, what's your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid? I'm guessing cherry. Am I right?

Stop kazzing. You were already shown that France, Germany, Russia and China did not believe Hussein had WMD

 

[Faun]

It's better then in your opinion to have kept Bush, the actually perpetrator of the crime, in power.

That makes no sense.

So you vote for Himmler to replace Hitler? That makes no sense

Too funny coming from you... remind me again why you voted for that clown, Romney?

Why did you vote for the Marxist Obama?

Bwahahaha.....another one that believes Obama was born in Kenya and the world is flat.....bwahaha.

No, Obama lied about being born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. He is the original birther, patient zero of the birther movement

Stop kazzing. You cannot prove Obama said he was born in Kenya.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can't even read dates? try again.

Your first link .... Dated 11.12.2005

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link

Your second link ... Dated 10.7.2004

NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center

........ and while you claim the story wasn't confirmed, I quoted Cheney claiming it was pretty well confirmed.

Hey, and if ya want a good laugh ... watch Cheney trying to deny he said that....... 39 seconds out of your life will reveal Cheney trying to do what you brain-dead cons are doing now -- rewrite history.........

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

A year after 9.11 and 9 months after the CIA debunked the Atta in Prague rumor...

September 8, 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Tim Russert on NBC News’ Meet the Press [link to source]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center...

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point.​

That is a bald-faced lie. Atta did not "apparently travel to Prague." Not being in Prague means he did not meet there with senior Iraqi officials. The CIA did not say the story was credible, the CIA in fact informed the Bush administration 9 months earlier the story was not true. And Chaney was lying when he said the story was "unconfirmed at this point." The story was indeed confirmed .... confirmed by the CIA to be bullshit.

You are still not reading it correctly. The guy did travel to Prague on a number of occasions. That is the first statement. There are facts that back that up. Note he did not say that any of those known trips had anything to do with anything other than travel.

Now we go to the next statement where he says on at least one occasion,... we have reporting that places him with the Iraqui guy. This is widely known, that there was a report of it happening. Do you deny that there was a report of it happening? The report came from officials of an ally. Are you saying we should state that reports from our allies are not "credible?" Are you saying we should call our allies liars, call out our allies as full of "bullshit?" He then follows with it's unconfirmed, as it remains... unconfirmed. Unconfirmed means it is not confirmed.

But gratz on learning how to read dates and dropping your story about my links being just about something in 2004. I guess you could say your reports were unconfirmed. Or would you say complete bullshit?

Again, I find it amazing that even after it was WIDELY KNOWN that it was UNCONFIRMED ... that you continued to believe that SADDAM WAS BEHIND 911.

Can you take Cheney's dick out of your mouth long enough to realize when Cheney said that the report was "credible," that was a lie? The claim that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague was not credible in September, 2002. The CIA determined that claim was false in December, 2001 and notified the Bush administration of their findings.

When Cheney said it was "unconfirmed, " that was a lie. It was confirmed -- confirmed to be false. It was a different person with a similar name who may have met with an Iraqi official in Prague and the CIA was able to determine through phone records that the hijacker Atta was inside the U.S. during the time of that purported meeting.

You may now resume your "job."

What is with your fascination with Cheney's dick and my mouth? Are you jacking off or something? Or just recognizing that you've lost the argument?

You're trying to redefine words to take on different meanings out of context. For example, you're trying to define unconfirmed as meaning confirmed. You're full of shit.

 

[kaz]

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

Bush admitted he didn't have any WMD's.

You are such a liar, he did not

 

[kaz]

As I said before, 21 times as many Democrats as Republicans voted against the Iraq war resolution

109 Democrats in Congress voted yes, 147 voted no. And many of the 147 said the same things, they just didn't want to go to war yet.

You want it to boil down to just the resolution vote itself because it's simple and you're a simpleton, but the Democrats went way beyond that.

Also, the Democratic leadership supported the war resolution, the majority of Senate Democrats voted for it and the House Democrats enable it to pass. Your view that Democrat farts smell like lilacs is beyond partisan hack, it's beyond intentional blindness, it's kool-aid

You are more retarded by the minute now.

You can't tell the difference between 147 and 6. Go back to school.

Non-sequitur. I am talking about the Democrats who voted for the war, stop being such an idiot

 

[kaz]

Yes, John Frenchie Kerry voted for it, but he said he was against it, exactly what you want in a President, I see your point. It's OK then

It's better then in your opinion to have kept Bush, the actually perpetrator of the crime, in power.

That makes no sense.

So you vote for Himmler to replace Hitler? That makes no sense

Too funny coming from you... remind me again why you voted for that clown, Romney?

Why did you vote for the Marxist Obama?

Because I thought he did a decent job jis first term give heaping pile of dung Bush left him. Whereas you voted for the Romney clown to get Obama out of office. You know, the same reason NYcarbineer gave in voting for Kerry, which you then compared to himmler/hitler. You're a hypocrite.

Yes, you are a Marxist and you liked the Marxist, exactly. Some of us oppose Marxism and turning this country into a Marxist country. So we have,

You voted for Marxism lapping it up and wanting more

I didn't want that

And that leads us to you, the admitted clown writing your clown posts about clown points

 

[kaz]

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

You really are ignorant. Even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs.....you need to get a more up-to-date source of information so you don't come out looking like such a fool.

Talk about being obtuse......geesh!


Bush admits Iraq had no WMDs - Yahoo Search Results

Exactly, you didn't listen to the whole quote, you just parsed one sentence out of it.

If you supported W for WMDs, there is no reason to have changed your mind about the invasion. He had the capacity, not stockpiles, but if that's what you were worried about, he was a threat.

I don't think we should have gone in for WMDs, I think that was not our job. So unlike liberal men, I have a penis. How do you logistically have sex with a liberal guy? I'm curious, I mean there's nothing down there, they take no responsibility for their own actions

 

[kaz]

People just won't fall for your hucksterism as you attempt to back peddle away from comments you make. If you are misunderstood as much as you claim, maybe you should be more careful about what you post. Plus, you are the one with the reputation for consistently taking peoples comments out of context and dishonestly distorting them to meet your needs. You aren't the victim, you are the perp.

He's trying to make hay over someone who opposed the war and yet voted for, I suppose, John Kerry.

He also claims he opposed the war.

I'll guarantee you though that he didn't vote for Obama.

Yes, John Frenchie Kerry voted for it, but he said he was against it, exactly what you want in a President, I see your point. It's OK then

It's better then in your opinion to have kept Bush, the actually perpetrator of the crime, in power.

That makes no sense.

So you vote for Himmler to replace Hitler? That makes no sense

Have you told us who you voted for in 2004, 2008, and 2012?

Many times:

Badarnak, Nader, Romney

 

[Faun]

Your first link .... Dated 11.12.2005

MSNBC Distorts Bush Cheney Words on Iraq-9 11 Link

Your second link ... Dated 10.7.2004

NBC Uses Clintonista to Claim Bush-Cheney Don t Shoot Straight --10 7 2004 Media Research Center

........ and while you claim the story wasn't confirmed, I quoted Cheney claiming it was pretty well confirmed.

Hey, and if ya want a good laugh ... watch Cheney trying to deny he said that....... 39 seconds out of your life will reveal Cheney trying to do what you brain-dead cons are doing now -- rewrite history.........

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

A year after 9.11 and 9 months after the CIA debunked the Atta in Prague rumor...

September 8, 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Tim Russert on NBC News’ Meet the Press [link to source]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center...

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point.​

That is a bald-faced lie. Atta did not "apparently travel to Prague." Not being in Prague means he did not meet there with senior Iraqi officials. The CIA did not say the story was credible, the CIA in fact informed the Bush administration 9 months earlier the story was not true. And Chaney was lying when he said the story was "unconfirmed at this point." The story was indeed confirmed .... confirmed by the CIA to be bullshit.

You are still not reading it correctly. The guy did travel to Prague on a number of occasions. That is the first statement. There are facts that back that up. Note he did not say that any of those known trips had anything to do with anything other than travel.

Now we go to the next statement where he says on at least one occasion,... we have reporting that places him with the Iraqui guy. This is widely known, that there was a report of it happening. Do you deny that there was a report of it happening? The report came from officials of an ally. Are you saying we should state that reports from our allies are not "credible?" Are you saying we should call our allies liars, call out our allies as full of "bullshit?" He then follows with it's unconfirmed, as it remains... unconfirmed. Unconfirmed means it is not confirmed.

But gratz on learning how to read dates and dropping your story about my links being just about something in 2004. I guess you could say your reports were unconfirmed. Or would you say complete bullshit?

Again, I find it amazing that even after it was WIDELY KNOWN that it was UNCONFIRMED ... that you continued to believe that SADDAM WAS BEHIND 911.

Can you take Cheney's dick out of your mouth long enough to realize when Cheney said that the report was "credible," that was a lie? The claim that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague was not credible in September, 2002. The CIA determined that claim was false in December, 2001 and notified the Bush administration of their findings.

When Cheney said it was "unconfirmed, " that was a lie. It was confirmed -- confirmed to be false. It was a different person with a similar name who may have met with an Iraqi official in Prague and the CIA was able to determine through phone records that the hijacker Atta was inside the U.S. during the time of that purported meeting.

You may now resume your "job."

What is with your fascination with Cheney's dick and my mouth? Are you jacking off or something? Or just recognizing that you've lost the argument?

Your trying to redefine words to take on different meanings out of context. For example, your trying to define unconfirmed as meaning confirmed. Your full of shit.

That doesn't fascinate me. I'm just trying to help you think more clearly because you're not making sense. I took nothing out of context. In December, 2001, the Bush administration was informed by the CIA that hijacker Atta did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague. It was confirmed there was no meeting.

Some 9 months later, Cheney, who apparently spurred the CIA investigation into the purported meeting, went on national television and claims the report was credible. It wasn't and the Bush administration knew it wasn't. He also claimed the report wasn't confirmed. It was confirmed to be false and the Bush administration knew that too.

 

[kaz]

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

The WMD made in the late 80's/early 90's were almost all found and/or destroyed by weapons inspectors. The U.N. estimated they had taken care of about 95% of them before being pulled out by Clinton in 1998; at which point, Clinton bombed the shit out of much of the remainder in Operation Desert Fox.

So then why did Democrats lie and say they were there and authorize W to invade when they knew they weren't there?

Also, do you know how wide of access to intelligence the Senate Intelligence Committee has?

 

[kaz]

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

You really are ignorant. Even Bush has admitted there were no WMDs.....you need to get a more up-to-date source of information so you don't come out looking like such a fool.

Talk about being obtuse......geesh!


Bush admits Iraq had no WMDs - Yahoo Search Results

You mean these weapons right here?:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
These weapons right here don't exist?

Those were old leftovers from before the first Gulf war. Not that anyone would want to play with them, but also not the WMD Bush told America he needed to invade Iraq to recover.

Bush said Hussein had active weapons programs ... he didn't.

Bush said Hussein was stockpiling WMD ... he wasn't.

Bush said (citing British intelligence) Hussein was close to being nuclear armed ... he wasn't.

Bush knew we were finding old WMD scattered around the country and he knew those weren't the WMD he was talking about which is why he later confessed the WMD we invaded Iraq over didn't exist.

Wow, Democrats really are sick, pathetic liars, you make a great case

 

[RKMBrown]

HEY DUMB ASS THE LINKS ARE TALKING ABOUT HISTORICAL RECORDS OF FACTS WITH DATES. YOUR BDS IS SO BAD YOU CAN'T EVEN READ CORRECTLY.

A year after 9.11 and 9 months after the CIA debunked the Atta in Prague rumor...

September 8, 2002
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks with Tim Russert on NBC News’ Meet the Press [link to source]

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center...

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point.​

That is a bald-faced lie. Atta did not "apparently travel to Prague." Not being in Prague means he did not meet there with senior Iraqi officials. The CIA did not say the story was credible, the CIA in fact informed the Bush administration 9 months earlier the story was not true. And Chaney was lying when he said the story was "unconfirmed at this point." The story was indeed confirmed .... confirmed by the CIA to be bullshit.

You are still not reading it correctly. The guy did travel to Prague on a number of occasions. That is the first statement. There are facts that back that up. Note he did not say that any of those known trips had anything to do with anything other than travel.

Now we go to the next statement where he says on at least one occasion,... we have reporting that places him with the Iraqui guy. This is widely known, that there was a report of it happening. Do you deny that there was a report of it happening? The report came from officials of an ally. Are you saying we should state that reports from our allies are not "credible?" Are you saying we should call our allies liars, call out our allies as full of "bullshit?" He then follows with it's unconfirmed, as it remains... unconfirmed. Unconfirmed means it is not confirmed.

But gratz on learning how to read dates and dropping your story about my links being just about something in 2004. I guess you could say your reports were unconfirmed. Or would you say complete bullshit?

Again, I find it amazing that even after it was WIDELY KNOWN that it was UNCONFIRMED ... that you continued to believe that SADDAM WAS BEHIND 911.

Can you take Cheney's dick out of your mouth long enough to realize when Cheney said that the report was "credible," that was a lie? The claim that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague was not credible in September, 2002. The CIA determined that claim was false in December, 2001 and notified the Bush administration of their findings.

When Cheney said it was "unconfirmed, " that was a lie. It was confirmed -- confirmed to be false. It was a different person with a similar name who may have met with an Iraqi official in Prague and the CIA was able to determine through phone records that the hijacker Atta was inside the U.S. during the time of that purported meeting.

You may now resume your "job."

What is with your fascination with Cheney's dick and my mouth? Are you jacking off or something? Or just recognizing that you've lost the argument?

Your trying to redefine words to take on different meanings out of context. For example, your trying to define unconfirmed as meaning confirmed. Your full of shit.

That doesn't fascinate me. I'm just trying to help you think more clearly because you're not making sense. I took nothing out of context. In December, 2001, the Bush administration was informed by the CIA that hijacker Atta did not meet with Iraqi officials in Prague. It was confirmed there was no meeting.

Some 9 months later, Cheney, who apparently spurred the CIA investigation into the purported meeting, went on national television and claims the report was credible. It wasn't and the Bush administration knew it wasn't. He also claimed the report wasn't confirmed. It was confirmed to be false and the Bush administration knew that too.

Your inability to understand the difference between unconfirmed credible reports and confirmed credible reports is dully noted.

 

[Esmeralda]

You can easily detect lies by Rs, but Ds never lie.

Obama lies every day, but in your 'mind' that is okay because he is a D.

Ds good Rs bad.....

 

[kaz]

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Gotcha, Trixie,

W is an evil genius. He was in the Oval Office less than 9 months when 9/11 happened. The Democrats 8 years before that. Democrats including John Fing Kerry were all over the Senate Intelligence committee which you apparently don't know what they do and the broad access to intelligence they have. He proceeded to con the Democrats, UN, French, Russians and Germans into thinking Hussein had WMDs, which he had repeatedly used before.

Of course it's my partisanship that makes me hold both sides accountable for what they did and your rigid adherence to a life following strict logic and impartiality that makes you realize Republicans are demonic aliens from another galaxy and Democrats pure as the driven snow full of love for their fellow man and incapable of lying even to save their own lives.

One question, what's your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid? I'm guessing cherry. Am I right?

Stop kazzing. You were already shown that France, Germany, Russia and China did not believe Hussein had WMD

That isn't what they said, none of them said Hussein does not have WMDs

 

[kaz]

So you vote for Himmler to replace Hitler? That makes no sense

Too funny coming from you... remind me again why you voted for that clown, Romney?

Why did you vote for the Marxist Obama?

Bwahahaha.....another one that believes Obama was born in Kenya and the world is flat.....bwahaha.

No, Obama lied about being born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. He is the original birther, patient zero of the birther movement

Stop kazzing. You cannot prove Obama said he was born in Kenya.

You didn't hear about that? He lied to his publisher who put it in his bio. Unfortunately they thought he was an idiot and wouldn't sell a book and gave it to their most incompetent researcher to verify the bio. Miriam something. The idiot she was she didn't verify it. They were right Obama was a nobody, but the Democratic party latched onto him for being a black sycophant who would follow instructions. He did and now we're in this jam where a lifetime mediocrity is trying to run an economy which he has zero skills, experience or education to do. Sucks, huh? There is no happy ending to this story. But at least it will soon be over

 

[Faun]

They're such idiots. The Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) who voted for the war were doing it because they believed GW's/Cheney's lies....like most Americans....you can't blame them for voting for the war, none of us wanted Saddam to be able to build a nuclear weapon......that doesn't put them in the same category as criminals Bush and Cheney, who knew better. Shows just how smart some conservatives are when they make that comparison.

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

Bush admitted he didn't have any WMD's.

You are such a liar, he did not

Stop kazzing...

"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush, 8.21.2006 ​

 

[kaz]

You're the idiot, nowhere did NYCarbineer show that I said that. Hint, I didn't. He's stupid. I said John Kerry voted for the war. As well as Joe Biden. And he's about to vote for another if she wins the nomination.

How stupid are you people?

John Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep), Hillary (possible Pres) voted for the war. You people can't process that information, and you call other people idiots? Classic

No, you're the idiot. You said "what should we do with the Democrats who voted for the war" and I was explaining to you why they did.....can't you even read? There wasn't one single Democrat that was in on Bush's and Cheney's coercion of the CIA to go along with their reasoning, if there is prove it.

It's bad enough that you blame the politicians that voted for the war when they weren't in on the lies, but to continue doing it after the truth has been exposed makes you the real idiot.


While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the “war on terrorism,” it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for “bureaucratic reasons”—i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Bush s big lie and the crisis of American imperialism - World Socialist Web Site

Let's see... we know Iraq had WMDs, we know this because we helped him make them, and he used them on Iran, and his own people (the Kurds). We know he continued making them, cause he admitted it bragged about it. We know he still had them cause the numbers did not add up for what was used and destroyed. We know he said he was gonna keep making them and even build nukes to bomb us and Israel, not unlike Iran claiming they are gonna do the same. We found these chemical weapons buried in the sand after the war. We have photos. The evidence of these WMDs has been widely distributed. Yet, here we are with democrats saying... he lied about WMDs Iraq didn't have any WMDs.

So why are the democrats this obtuse?

Bush admitted he didn't have any WMD's.

You are such a liar, he did not

Stop kazzing...

"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush, 8.21.2006 ​

Exactly, so if WMDs were your reason for supporting the war, nothing happened which should have changed that view. You know, except you being a partisan hack who doesn't care about anything else but your party winning over truth and your country. Ooooooohhhhhhhhh.......