Why the anger

[Avatar4321]

It impossible to discuss these two presidents rationally. Bush lied. Expanded presidential powers to an unprecedented extent, led the country into an unneccessary war by lying to us an set himself up as a divine king answering to no one.

His administration was cynical secretive and corrupt.

Obama has made some mistakes. He came in with such promise and he hasn't been radical enough.

At least he's cleaning-UP the mess BUSHCO left, in Afghanistan!!!

​

Last time i checked, it's worse than it has been in years.

 

[Yukon.]

If scumbags didn't invoke the name of Christ, no one would.

....is that why you do ?

 

[Avatar4321]

Human nature never fails to amaze me. Intellectually inferior cavemen continue to try and impress others using foul, vile, and profane language. The real masters go one step further by name-calling.

I will continue to pray for your warped, twisted, and perverse souls in hope that God will forgive you. I have forgiven you but He is not as forgiving.

Are you suddenly not human?

Odd thing to say when you get as raunchy and vile as anyone el se.

 

[maineman]

The claim that President Bush "lied" is often made, but it has never (not once, ever) been substantiated. And I am curious: with links and valid support, could anybody offer any kind of evidence that President Bush "lied?" And, putting aside the trite claim that he allegedly "lied us into war(s)," pray tell. What exactly did he supposedly "lie" about?

The very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering is laden with degrees of uncertainty. There are very few intelligence reports that are released without caveats and qualifiers. The NIE's issued regarding Iraq and there possible WMD holdings and/or capabilities ALL contained a variety of those caveats and qualifiers that described the less than certain qualities of the raw intelligence used to create the estimate. Some of the information was extremely dated. Some of it was single sourced. Some of it was based upon satellite photo interpretation. Some of it came from sources who clearly had ulterior motives... etc., etc.

SO... when President Bush and his team all used various forms of the statement, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when discussing Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's, those were LIES. Now...if they had said, "There is LITTLE doubt" or "I have no doubt", those statements would not have clearly been lies. But to make the statement that doubt did not exist about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's.... those statements were all lies, because degrees of doubt and uncertainty DID exist.

To tell the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and then to repeatedly imply that there was an ongoing buddy-buddy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and the further implication that Saddam could give one of his CERTAIN WMD's to Osama THAT VERY MOMENT was part of the ploy that Team Bush used to create the urgency to invade NOW. And that ploy was, as shown above, based upon a LIE.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Liability]

Human nature never fails to amaze me. Intellectually inferior cavemen continue to try and impress others using foul, vile, and profane language. The real masters go one step further by name-calling.

I will continue to pray for your warped, twisted, and perverse souls in hope that God will forgive you. I have forgiven you but He is not as forgiving.

Were you defrocked due to pedophilia, Puke? If so, were you caught? Did you get arrested? Prosecuted? Convicted? A plea deal, perhaps?

You and God might "forgive" you for your depravity, you foul scumbag, but most of us realize that filth like you can never be cured, so "forgiveness" will never be in the cards. You need to stay away from children.

 

[maineman]

The claim that President Bush "lied" is often made, but it has never (not once, ever) been substantiated. And I am curious: with links and valid support, could anybody offer any kind of evidence that President Bush "lied?" And, putting aside the trite claim that he allegedly "lied us into war(s)," pray tell. What exactly did he supposedly "lie" about?

The very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering is laden with degrees of uncertainty. There are very few intelligence reports that are released without caveats and qualifiers. The NIE's issued regarding Iraq and there possible WMD holdings and/or capabilities ALL contained a variety of those caveats and qualifiers that described the less than certain qualities of the raw intelligence used to create the estimate. Some of the information was extremely dated. Some of it was single sourced. Some of it was based upon satellite photo interpretation. Some of it came from sources who clearly had ulterior motives... etc., etc.

SO... when President Bush and his team all used various forms of the statement, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when discussing Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's, those were LIES. Now...if they had said, "There is LITTLE doubt" or "I have no doubt", those statements would not have clearly been lies. But to make the statement that doubt did not exist about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's.... those statements were all lies, because degrees of doubt and uncertainty DID exist.

To tell the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and then to repeatedly imply that there was an ongoing buddy-buddy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and the further implication that Saddam could give one of his CERTAIN WMD's to Osama THAT VERY MOMENT was part of the ploy that Team Bush used to create the urgency to invade NOW. And that ploy was, as shown above, based upon a LIE.

I hope that answers your question.

well good. it looks like it did.

 

[Liability]

The claim that President Bush "lied" is often made, but it has never (not once, ever) been substantiated. And I am curious: with links and valid support, could anybody offer any kind of evidence that President Bush "lied?" And, putting aside the trite claim that he allegedly "lied us into war(s)," pray tell. What exactly did he supposedly "lie" about?

The very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering is laden with degrees of uncertainty. There are very few intelligence reports that are released without caveats and qualifiers. The NIE's issued regarding Iraq and there possible WMD holdings and/or capabilities ALL contained a variety of those caveats and qualifiers that described the less than certain qualities of the raw intelligence used to create the estimate. Some of the information was extremely dated. Some of it was single sourced. Some of it was based upon satellite photo interpretation. Some of it came from sources who clearly had ulterior motives... etc., etc.

SO... when President Bush and his team all used various forms of the statement, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when discussing Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's, those were LIES. Now...if they had said, "There is LITTLE doubt" or "I have no doubt", those statements would not have clearly been lies. But to make the statement that doubt did not exist about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's.... those statements were all lies, because degrees of doubt and uncertainty DID exist.

To tell the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and then to repeatedly imply that there was an ongoing buddy-buddy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and the further implication that Saddam could give one of his CERTAIN WMD's to Osama THAT VERY MOMENT was part of the ploy that Team Bush used to create the urgency to invade NOW. And that ploy was, as shown above, based upon a LIE.

I hope that answers your question.

At the risk of over-simplifying your contention, you seem to be making the argument that because President Bush stated our belief that Saddam "had" weapons of mass destruction in a more categorical way than our "intelligence" actually justified, that makes him a liar.

Well, while your contention does have some merit to it (imho), in terms of logic and the clarity of your syllogism, I would have to disagree with you all the same. It would be a more valid argument (imho) if so many others, including his predecessor and a whole array of liberal Democrats had not reached essentially the same conclusion based on the same evidence. In other words, when enough folks come to the same conclusion, it is unreasonable to suggest that any one person expressing that conclusion is engaged in "lying."

One can be mistaken without being a "liar."

One can express one's self with a degree of imprecision without being a "liar," either.

And before suggesting that a person is a liar, the question of motive rears its ugly little head. Specifically, before arguing that President Bush deliberately "lied" to "get us into war," one should (to be fair) examine the logic of the proposition that President Bush was a man of such a character as would make him view the lives of our fighting men and women in such a cavalier manner. I frankly do not see how anybody can make that claim about President Bush.

They say things like he was "stupid," but lots of people who were in a spot of having discussions with him came to very different conclusions.

They say he was a dry drunk. Well, he surely did have some substance abuse problems in his past, but nobody has ever shown that he took the problem into his years as President.

"They" say lots of stupid stuff, but, generally, "they" come up empty when called upon to back those things up.

Oh and Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism and that includes al qaeda.

 

[CurveLight]

The claim that President Bush "lied" is often made, but it has never (not once, ever) been substantiated. And I am curious: with links and valid support, could anybody offer any kind of evidence that President Bush "lied?" And, putting aside the trite claim that he allegedly "lied us into war(s)," pray tell. What exactly did he supposedly "lie" about?

The very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering is laden with degrees of uncertainty. There are very few intelligence reports that are released without caveats and qualifiers. The NIE's issued regarding Iraq and there possible WMD holdings and/or capabilities ALL contained a variety of those caveats and qualifiers that described the less than certain qualities of the raw intelligence used to create the estimate. Some of the information was extremely dated. Some of it was single sourced. Some of it was based upon satellite photo interpretation. Some of it came from sources who clearly had ulterior motives... etc., etc.

SO... when President Bush and his team all used various forms of the statement, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when discussing Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's, those were LIES. Now...if they had said, "There is LITTLE doubt" or "I have no doubt", those statements would not have clearly been lies. But to make the statement that doubt did not exist about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's.... those statements were all lies, because degrees of doubt and uncertainty DID exist.

To tell the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and then to repeatedly imply that there was an ongoing buddy-buddy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and the further implication that Saddam could give one of his CERTAIN WMD's to Osama THAT VERY MOMENT was part of the ploy that Team Bush used to create the urgency to invade NOW. And that ploy was, as shown above, based upon a LIE.

I hope that answers your question.

At the risk of over-simplifying your contention, you seem to be making the argument that because President Bush stated our belief that Saddam "had" weapons of mass destruction in a more categorical way than our "intelligence" actually justified, that makes him a liar.

Well, while your contention does have some merit to it (imho), in terms of logic and the clarity of your syllogism, I would have to disagree with you all the same. It would be a more valid argument (imho) if so many others, including his predecessor and a whole array of liberal Democrats had not reached essentially the same conclusion based on the same evidence. In other words, when enough folks come to the same conclusion, it is unreasonable to suggest that any one person expressing that conclusion is engaged in "lying."

One can be mistaken without being a "liar."

One can express one's self with a degree of imprecision without being a "liar," either.

And before suggesting that a person is a liar, the question of motive rears its ugly little head. Specifically, before arguing that President Bush deliberately "lied" to "get us into war," one should (to be fair) examine the logic of the proposition that President Bush was a man of such a character as would make him view the lives of our fighting men and women in such a cavalier manner. I frankly do not see how anybody can make that claim about President Bush.

They say things like he was "stupid," but lots of people who were in a spot of having discussions with him came to very different conclusions.

They say he was a dry drunk. Well, he surely did have some substance abuse problems in his past, but nobody has ever shown that he took the problem into his years as President.

"They" say lots of stupid stuff, but, generally, "they" come up empty when called upon to back those things up.







Furthermore,

Holy shit you are ******* stoopid. The bush admin controlled much of the info provided to legislators at that time and what they did not do is share all available info and that is what made it dishonest. You can stay hyper-focused on the word "liar" but no amount of dancing can tap away the irrefutable fact the bush admin presented very closely picked info to sell the iraq agenda which made it dishonest.

 

[Rinata]

Who the heck cares whether Ford had a son named Jack or if it was just his nickname? It's completely irrelevant and yet you guys are letting yourselves become angry and bitter towards one another. For what? To prove a point? Because your pride won't let you drop it? Because your pride won't let you forgive one another for some irrelevant fact? Because rather than being mature and compassionate you decide to attack the other people there personally for some irrelevant piece of information.

You guys are pretending you're so very different and better than one another. In reality, you are all exactly the same.

I am going to defend myself when people tell lies about me. I am sick of the lying viciousness of Republicans, conservatives, teabag faces, or whatever these people call themselves.

And I beg to differ. They are about as different from me as different can get.

I'm quite different from you because when I make an error and it has been pointed out I simply admit I was wrong. When you're proven wrong you whine like a little **** and close your eyes so tight you kick yourself in the back of your head.

Don't talk to me like that, you worthless piece of shit. Maybe you call your mother that name, but I'm not going to take it. And again, I'll admit when I'm wrong. I was not wrong. In addition to being a worthless human being, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.

 

[Rinata]

You called someone stupid for saying gerald didn't have a son named Jack but when it's explained that is true because his real name is john you try to dance off your **** up. What is the worst that can happen for admitting a mistake? Why are you so wrapped up in your fantasy of infallibility?

Why is your needle stuck on Jack Ford?? When you said that Gerald and Betty had no son named Jack, you were wrong. Plain and simple.

I have no problem with saying I'm wrong about anything, but I wasn't. Also, I think you need to ask yourself these two questions, dear, not someone else.

Oh boy you are ******* stoopid. I'm not the one who claimed they didn't have a son named jack. Someone else made that claim and you called him "stupid" based on you linking a story that used his nickname and not his given name. What the hell is wrong with sickos like you who absolutely refuse to address simple facts?

Is this all you have to do all day?? Get a job, ass hole. There must be something you can do, dumb as you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Curve Light is now lying, because CL is congenitally, like daveman or bigrebnc1775 or Fits, unable to admit the error. This is not about learning for these fools: it is about power and deminishing the opposition.

 

[Rinata]

Proving how utterly stupid you are, Retarda.

If you had a brain and if that brain had a measurable IQ, even a retard such as you would be able to see that President Obama is a ******* idiot. He is a poseur. He is in WAY over his head and the few decisions he makes tend to be almost universally wrong. (He has made a few correct calls, though, to be objective in this regard, so it is fair to say that he is smarter than you -- which isn't saying much of course.)

Why don't you take a running jump into the middle of Lake Stupid and stay there. Take the other ignorant bagheads from this site with you.

Wow, Retarda, that was lame even by your pathetic "standards."

And that new phrase you are presently over-employing, "baghead," absolutely dull stuff. From you, of course, nothing else is expected.

Look, Retarda, you are a rancid lowlife troll and dumber than a box of rocks. So cram your always worthless advice up your retarded liberoidal ass and enjoy your cramps, you nasty disgusting vile little beyotch.

And as you spend your useless days watching your tragically stupid hero, President Obama, ******* everything up, just be thankful that you retards are fully represented these days in the Executive Branch.

I really pissed you off that time, didn't I???

 

[JakeStarkey]

The simple fact is that the two dodos are arguing they did not deny something that was in fact in their own links. Absolute incompetence and general all around prickery on their part.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability also evidences a rancid diseased prickery on this Board. What a loser!

 

[Rinata]

I've never seen so many worthless, ignorant people in one place!!!

 

[CurveLight]

The claim that President Bush "lied" is often made, but it has never (not once, ever) been substantiated. And I am curious: with links and valid support, could anybody offer any kind of evidence that President Bush "lied?" And, putting aside the trite claim that he allegedly "lied us into war(s)," pray tell. What exactly did he supposedly "lie" about?

The very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering is laden with degrees of uncertainty. There are very few intelligence reports that are released without caveats and qualifiers. The NIE's issued regarding Iraq and there possible WMD holdings and/or capabilities ALL contained a variety of those caveats and qualifiers that described the less than certain qualities of the raw intelligence used to create the estimate. Some of the information was extremely dated. Some of it was single sourced. Some of it was based upon satellite photo interpretation. Some of it came from sources who clearly had ulterior motives... etc., etc.

SO... when President Bush and his team all used various forms of the statement, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when discussing Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's, those were LIES. Now...if they had said, "There is LITTLE doubt" or "I have no doubt", those statements would not have clearly been lies. But to make the statement that doubt did not exist about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's.... those statements were all lies, because degrees of doubt and uncertainty DID exist.

To tell the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and then to repeatedly imply that there was an ongoing buddy-buddy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and the further implication that Saddam could give one of his CERTAIN WMD's to Osama THAT VERY MOMENT was part of the ploy that Team Bush used to create the urgency to invade NOW. And that ploy was, as shown above, based upon a LIE.

I hope that answers your question.

At the risk of over-simplifying your contention, you seem to be making the argument that because President Bush stated our belief that Saddam "had" weapons of mass destruction in a more categorical way than our "intelligence" actually justified, that makes him a liar.

Well, while your contention does have some merit to it (imho), in terms of logic and the clarity of your syllogism, I would have to disagree with you all the same. It would be a more valid argument (imho) if so many others, including his predecessor and a whole array of liberal Democrats had not reached essentially the same conclusion based on the same evidence. In other words, when enough folks come to the same conclusion, it is unreasonable to suggest that any one person expressing that conclusion is engaged in "lying."

One can be mistaken without being a "liar."

One can express one's self with a degree of imprecision without being a "liar," either.

And before suggesting that a person is a liar, the question of motive rears its ugly little head. Specifically, before arguing that President Bush deliberately "lied" to "get us into war," one should (to be fair) examine the logic of the proposition that President Bush was a man of such a character as would make him view the lives of our fighting men and women in such a cavalier manner. I frankly do not see how anybody can make that claim about President Bush.

They say things like he was "stupid," but lots of people who were in a spot of having discussions with him came to very different conclusions.

They say he was a dry drunk. Well, he surely did have some substance abuse problems in his past, but nobody has ever shown that he took the problem into his years as President.

"They" say lots of stupid stuff, but, generally, "they" come up empty when called upon to back those things up.

Oh and Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism and that includes al qaeda.

Even years after the Pentagon released a very lengthy investigation concluding there was no relationship between saddam/alkida dumbfucks like you keep repeating the same damn lies.

You're also probably too stoopid to know the term "Al qaeda in Iraq" is strictly a bush born propaganda term and that the group it referenced were Iraqis and not actual members of alkida. This is why you should stick to pure ad hom posts you ******* Snitch ***** because when you do try to debate you reveal hilarious depths of ignorance.

 

[Jarhead]

I am going to defend myself when people tell lies about me. I am sick of the lying viciousness of Republicans, conservatives, teabag faces, or whatever these people call themselves.

And I beg to differ. They are about as different from me as different can get.

I'm quite different from you because when I make an error and it has been pointed out I simply admit I was wrong. When you're proven wrong you whine like a little <snip> and close your eyes so tight you kick yourself in the back of your head.

Don't talk to me like that, you worthless piece of shit. Maybe you call your mother that name, but I'm not going to take it. And again, I'll admit when I'm wrong. I was not wrong. In addition to being a worthless human being, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.

Back off curvelight. I agree with more of what you say than what Rinata says, but I have a greater amount of respect for Rinata than I do for you.

 

[CurveLight]

I've never seen so many worthless, ignorant people in one place!!!

The only way to top it is if you stand in the center of a room full of mirrors you dishonest fuckturd.

 

[Jarhead]

I've never seen so many worthless, ignorant people in one place!!!

Then you have never been to my family's place for Thanksgiving.

 

[CurveLight]

Why is your needle stuck on Jack Ford?? When you said that Gerald and Betty had no son named Jack, you were wrong. Plain and simple.

I have no problem with saying I'm wrong about anything, but I wasn't. Also, I think you need to ask yourself these two questions, dear, not someone else.

Oh boy you are ******* stoopid. I'm not the one who claimed they didn't have a son named jack. Someone else made that claim and you called him "stupid" based on you linking a story that used his nickname and not his given name. What the hell is wrong with sickos like you who absolutely refuse to address simple facts?

Is this all you have to do all day?? Get a job, ass hole. There must be something you can do, dumb as you are.

I have my own business you dumb ****.