Yes, it's hard to feign ignorance like yours. You can't even grasp the concept of truth in confession. Like when a criminal suspect denies he's guilty, his denials alone do not lend him credibility; but when that same person confesses to the crime, his confession is accepted as truthful.Wait, wait, wait... The entire official narrative of you wing-nuts is "Bush LIED us into war". But now, when you think it helps your argument, you suddenly believe what George W. Bush says and cite him as a trustful source?
Holy shit, you can't make this stuff up folks.....
So yes, it's perfectly reasonable to accept Bush was being truthful when he finally confessed that the WMD for which he went into Iraq, weren't there -- he was believable, even though he wasn't believable earlier.
And again, you attempt deflection to avoid answering a question, so I'll repeat it ... who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?
Wow - you have taken ignorance to a level seen before on USMB (and that is saying a LOT). You see, when someone "admits to being guilty" (as in your example), they are NOT seen as being truthful unless they can corroborate that admission with facts that only the criminal would know (the fact that you don't know that shows how stupid you really are - you hide in your little liberal web sites and don't know a damn thing beyond what they tell you).
So I'll repeat what's already been stated (only this time I'll sum it up in my own words since you're clearly too stupid to understand what Mr. Pfarrer stated in his book): who has more to hide - the highest politician in the land who needs to be re-elected and/or needs to maintain a certain level of "respectability" to increase his party's chances of re-election, or a former Navy Seal turned author who has no horse in the race?
Seriously - with each post you expose your ignorance. I highly recommend you stop before the entire world knows how dumb you are.
Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.
Here comes the funny part -- you've never seen me say that Bush lied us into the war.George W. Bush: "We have reason to believe that Saddam has WMD's"
Faun: "GWB has lied us into war - he's a blood-sucking vampire who deserves to rot in hell"
George W. Bush: "We have not found any WMD's"
Faun: "GWB is an HONEST man, and damn it, the world needs to listen to what he's saying and believe him because he's a good man who would never lie"
Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. Give an idiot liberal enough time, they will contradict 100% of what they've said. These people can't even remember their "official stance" on an issue from what post to the next. It's how you know they are the wrong side - they have to spin everything, and when you spin, you never know where you will end up
Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.
No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.
Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?
Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.
No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.
Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?
It is beyond your severely limited "liberal" "mind."
Discussing business COULD mean discussing onions.
But considering what Saddam actually wanted and what Niger exported primarily, it takes no secret decoder ring to figure out what was being discussed.
You may be an idiot (and you clearly are), but your effort to pretend that there is any mystery in what the topic of that discussion was is totally transparent.
Niger International trade, Information about International trade in Niger
They really do export onions, too. IPS ? Niger Onion Producers in Tears Over Market Glut | Inter Press Service
Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.
No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.
Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?
It is beyond your severely limited "liberal" "mind."
Discussing business COULD mean discussing onions.
But considering what Saddam actually wanted and what Niger exported primarily, it takes no secret decoder ring to figure out what was being discussed.
You may be an idiot (and you clearly are), but your effort to pretend that there is any mystery in what the topic of that discussion was is totally transparent.
Niger International trade, Information about International trade in Niger
They really do export onions, too. IPS ? Niger Onion Producers in Tears Over Market Glut | Inter Press Service
It's a pity all you can do is hurl invective, since as we both know, you are incapable of rising to the challenge ... Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?
By the way, just to be clear, you guessing what they discussed is NOT proof. It's your imagination working overtime to fill in the gaps the way you want them to be filled.
Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???
You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove
Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."
IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."
Faun: "Prove it."
IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"
Now you lie and claim something different.
And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.
You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.
Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???
You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove
Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."
IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."
Faun: "Prove it."
IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"
Now you lie and claim something different.
And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.
You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.
Holy shit. You are dense. Listen you pygmy. I already conceded (three times already unless I've lost count) that the documents are probable forgeries. NOTING that certain documents are forgeries does NOT establish, however, that the conclusion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake was itself disproved.
Now try to move on.
You have won the internets. The documents are forgeries (even if they aren't I'm gonna just say "fine, they were").
MOVING to the next part, I have repeatedly demanded of you that you support your major claim: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."
All of your ducking and evasion maneuvers don't conceal what you cannot accomplish. You cannot support that claim.
And you will not admit that you can't support it.
By contrast, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium.
Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???
You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove
Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."
IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."
Faun: "Prove it."
IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"
Now you lie and claim something different.
And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.
You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.
Holy shit. You are dense. Listen you pygmy. I already conceded (three times already unless I've lost count) that the documents are probable forgeries. NOTING that certain documents are forgeries does NOT establish, however, that the conclusion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake was itself disproved.
Now try to move on.
You have won the internets. The documents are forgeries (even if they aren't I'm gonna just say "fine, they were").
MOVING to the next part, I have repeatedly demanded of you that you support your major claim: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."
All of your ducking and evasion maneuvers don't conceal what you cannot accomplish. You cannot support that claim.
And you will not admit that you can't support it.
By contrast, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium.
Game, set, match.
"likelihood" (I highlighted) ≠ proof
As far as me not supporting my claim that "there was no effort to purchase yellowcake." First of all, that's a negative which can only be proved by the absense of proof to the contrary, which I did when I identified the two sources which could have provided proof that I am wrong. Documents showing a purchase of Uranium and a meeting between Iraqis and Niger to purchase Uranium. The former was proved to be a forged document of sale and the latter was proved that no one knows for sure what was discussed, other than the PM saying they didn't discuss selling Uranium to Iraq.
G'head, this is where you throw another tantrum and hurl more invective because you can't prove your claim: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."
My claim of victory over you is 100% accurate. And we all know it, too.
I knew full well that you'd never rise to that challenge I threw down for you.
You made a grand claim but have zero ability to back it up.
You are such a complete Fauny, you'd prefer to run away from it and hope nobody notes your Brave Sir Robin routine.
If you had any honesty or integrity, you'd just simply admit that you cannot support what you claimed.
My claim of victory over you is 100% accurate. And we all know it, too.
I knew full well that you'd never rise to that challenge I threw down for you.
You made a grand claim but have zero ability to back it up.
You are such a complete Fauny, you'd prefer to run away from it and hope nobody notes your Brave Sir Robin routine.
If you had any honesty or integrity, you'd just simply admit that you cannot support what you claimed.
And yet, my claim that Iraq did not make any effort to purchase yellowcake remains untarnished.
