Why did Bush...............

[SpidermanTuba]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

 

[CSM]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

I just have to ask: How do you know they didn't have access to the same intelligence on Iraq? Why are you so disengenuous?

I have been reading your posts for the past few days...you are a troll and nothing more. You contribute nothing. I am putting you on ignore but before I go I am going to neg rep you just because I can.

 

[Nienna]

I was wondering the same thing as CSM. What evidence do you have to prove that Congress did not have the same intelligence?

This was something that caught me during the Bush/Kerry "debates." Bush kept bumbling his words, repeating the same line, "You had the same information I had." What did that mean?

Mr. Kerry never really addressed this assertion. For such a smooth-talker as John Kerry, he could have poured out some honeyed words, showing Mr. Bush to be a fool. In fact, in that debate, he DID make Bush look foolish. But, still, when it came down to substance, he never addressed the fumbled assertion that Bush aimed at him.

 

[KarlMarx]

I just have to ask: How do you know they didn't have access to the same intelligence on Iraq? Why are you so disengenuous?

I have been reading your posts for the past few days...you are a troll and nothing more. You contribute nothing. I am putting you on ignore but before I go I am going to neg rep you just because I can.

I thought I'd ressurect this post about another poster who was banned a while back... it seems appropriate

G84 exhibits the symptoms of someone crying for attention. When she feels ignored, she will make inflammatory remarks, not because she necessarily believes them, but to get a reaction from the adults. This is typical of children who have been overly indulged. Since she can't formulate an intelligent train of reasoning to back up her claims, she expresses her frustration at being unable to do so by further indulging her desire for attention. She makes inflammatory remarks, hoping for a reaction, when she doesn't get what she wants, she makes increasingly inflammatory remarks until she gets the attention that she craves.

Since she is incapable of engaging in an adult conversation, any attempt to do so being futile, any challenge to her to support her facts will be met with stonewalling or just ignored.

...

A third possibility, is that G84 is bored. Again, she makes statements that are inflammatory in order to entertain herself by watching our reaction. This desire to control others may be symptomatic of a person who is simply dissatisfied with her life, her job or some other aspect of her existence over which she has little, or no, control or lacks the willingness to take responsibility for. So instead, she entertains herself or makes herself feel powerful by manipulating others through the repeated use of inflammatory remarks on public discussion forums such as USMB.

 

[CSM]

I thought I'd ressurect this post about another poster who was banned a while back... it seems appropriate

I can only take so much trolling...perhaps others are more tolerant but I have better things to do with my time. Educating the willfully ignorant is the modern day equivalent of tilting at windmills.

 

[dilloduck]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

Perhaps he was just trying to piss you off. You should feel honored. :cof:

 

[KarlMarx]

I can only take so much trolling...perhaps others are more tolerant but I have better things to do with my time. Educating the willfully ignorant is the modern day equivalent of tilting at windmills.

Great minds think alike... he's been on my "ignore" list for quite some time....

 

[insein]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

This is pretty Simple. They did have the same access to the intelligence that he did. Congress always has had the same access to inteligence that the president does when it comes to deciding whether or not to goto war. No Trickery. No lies. Just the facts maam.

 

[Zhukov]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

Actually, I remember reading an article about the less reliable intelligence (not independently verified) that the White House did not, in fact, pass along to the Congress. This intelligence drew a picture of a much more dangerous Iraq that presented a much more real and immeadiate threat. This intelligence was even more damning against Saddam. The White House retained it because, as I mentioned above, it could not be independently verified.

Is this the intelligence to which you refer?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I can only take so much trolling...perhaps others are more tolerant but I have better things to do with my time. Educating the willfully ignorant is the modern day equivalent of tilting at windmills.

The internet lends itself for willfully ignorant, agenda driven people to post ignorant, illogical stuff, and then think they are winning the debate, along with strawmen.

Tubby is good at that. He draws conclusions erroneously, that even my 10 year old can understand how its false reasoning.

PM is not as intelligent as he thinks he is and doesnt bother really, really READING opposing posts.

Unlike when you have a live audience, which I often do, in social settings, you dont get any immediate feedback. In public when people present such idiotic comments as is left here by some lefties, you can hear people giggle when they are exposed.

This forum does have the rep function, I had never experienced that before. Although not as effective as the "giggling" of live audiences, it is a major improvement over forums that have nothing like that at all.

The other basic probelm is if you do ignore them, they, and some trollers may think you have conceded. It is an unfortunate situation at times, and their tenatiousness in posting can create that.

What we can do is "gang" up on them, if one of us gets tired of responding, another can take over. I have done that at times.

Ron K Conservative ala carte

 

[Abbey Normal]

I can only take so much trolling...perhaps others are more tolerant but I have better things to do with my time. Educating the willfully ignorant is the modern day equivalent of tilting at windmills.

Me too, CSM. Me too.

 

[Gunny]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

The only "tricking of Americans" is this untrue accusation perpetuated by the left. Congresspersons/Congressional Commitees have access to any and all classified information the President does on a need to know basis.

What they do not have access to is a report compliled FOR the President. If he chooses to make Congress do their own homework, that's up to him. Bush is hardly setting a precedent in that regard.

 

[Merlin]

Why did Bush say that Congess had the same access to intelligence on Iraq as he did - when he knows that it isn't true? Why did he lie? Was he trying to trick Americans? He should know better!

If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES -- then read this.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal
here.. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Boy! Talk about two tongued

 

[KarlMarx]

Save your collective breath everyone.... ST is not interested in a debate....

He seems to be what is all too common on university campuses these days, his professors taught him well.

In 1604, Galileo pointed his telescope at the planet Jupiter and discovered four moons orbiting that planet (which he named Io, Ganymede, Europa and Callisto). However, this finding was in direct conflict with the teachings of Church on the subject of cosmology. To make a long story short, Galileo was put on trial and forced to discredit his own discovery.

Why do I mention this? To draw a parallel to the closed mindedness of the intellectual elite of Galileo's day and ours. In both cases, they had abandoned the pursuit of truth in favor of dogma. ST seems to aspire to be one of those fellows.

Continuing on a similar note, National Review recently did a review of the book, "The Closing of the American Mind" and labelled it one of the top ten books of the past half century..


<center><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671657151/103-5694646-7383069?v=glance&n=283155" target="new"><img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0671657151.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg"/></a></center>