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

[Faun]

Was it not "pretty well confirmed?" What does pretty well confirmed mean, to you? Sounds wishy washy to me.. sounds like it was "reported" and they are looking for absolute proof. Pretty well, to me, means confirmed to some degree.

Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

... next excuse ...

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

 

[Redfish]

Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...

This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.

If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.

continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.

Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?

Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFL

You can't proove a negative.

Saddam needed to be taken out. We could have done it covertly with no loss of american lives and very little money.

 

[Faun]

Just pointing out the irony of democrats claiming bush lied about what the democrats claimed again and again... clearly begging the republicans to agree with the democrats to take Saddam out. Then as the decision to take him out is made... the democrats FLIP and call it Vietnam all over again. Why? votes...

This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.

If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.

continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.

Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?

Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFL

You can't proove a negative.

Well there was an Al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq ... Hussein had him killed. That must be what the wacky right thinks of as comfort and aid.

 

[Tuatara]

This last video hurts the conservative side of the argument. Did you actually watch it?

He said we disregarded Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Provided a list of examples of Saddam's "BRUTAL TERRORISM." Was Gore, D, lying?

Yes, He was talking about the 80's when Saddam's brutal terrorism was supported and even encouraged by the US.

Look dude, Iraq was a mistake, Viet Nam was a mistake, Afghanistan was a mistake. Those mistakes cost thousands of american lives and billions of dollars.

Instead or trying to rewrite the history of why we made those mistakes, we should try to learn from them so we don't repeat them,

All the partisan bullshit and finger pointing accomplishes nothing

Have you been reading my posts. I have given heavy criticism to the Clintons and Obama. I have even stated that Clinton should be tried. There is no partisan finger pointing from me. No one can learn from their mistakes if they can't see them.

 

[Tuatara]

This is Bush's war no matter what anyone else said about Hussein. Bush had Iraq on his radar from even before he was president and it was Bush who was pounding the war drums throughout 2002. Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq in 2002. It was all the Bush administration pushing for war. In case you don't recall, Bush started taking shots at Hussein earlier in the year, seemingly with the hopes Hussein would engage. He didn't. Then Bush said he would take action if Hussein would let inspectors back in, again, seemingly hoping for an excuse to attack. Hussein let them in. Then, against the wishes of the U.N., he told the inspectors to get out because he was sending troops in. Lastly, as Commander-in-Chief, he had sole discretion on invading or not.

If not for Bush pressing for war, there would have been no war. Iraq is Bush's war.

continuing to repeat something does not magically make it fact. The Iraq fiasco belongs to all of them.

Remind us--------what office is Bush running for in 2016?

Bush made the statement that Saddam gave aid and protection to al Qaeda. That is a fact that can not be disputed by a normal person who lives in reality. You seem to be disputing it. You seem to be claiming despite the statement being made in front of the world, recorded and transcribed and available all over the net, it is untrue and not a fact because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Where is your proof that Saddam did not give any aid or protection whatsoever to any person, in any country that had any ties whatsoever with anyone that aided anyone in al Qaeda? Hell, we provided aid and protection to al Qaeda.. and still do. Hell we armed mexican cartels... ROFL

You can't proove a negative.

Saddam needed to be taken out. We could have done it covertly with no loss of american lives and very little money.

I agree with that. Also at a different time.

 

[hangover]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

 

[Redfish]

Not only was it was not "pretty well confirmed," the notion was actually rejected ...

Dated 12.1.2001 ... Declassified white House memo on Mohammed Atta in Prague

SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAVEL TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC OF TERRORIST MOHAMED ((ATTA)) REVEALED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON 31 MAY 2000 AT [---] AIRPORT WAS NOT THE ATTA WHO ATTACKED THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001. [---] IT WAS A PAKISTANI NATIONAL [---]​

... next excuse ...

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

Damn, man we get it, you blame Bush. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not change anyone's mind about what happened and why.

You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Redfish]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

McCain lost his mind in a vietnamese prison camp. Graham is McCain's boy. Neither of them represent a significant % of conservatives or the GOP.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this fucking stupid

 

[hangover]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

McCain lost his mind in a vietnamese prison camp. Graham is McCain's boy. Neither of them represent a significant % of conservatives or the GOP.

Don't let the military contractors know that....the GOP will lose their sponsors.

 

[Camp]

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

Damn, man we get it, you blame Bush. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not change anyone's mind about what happened and why.

You are making a fool of yourself.

It is only recently that even Bush's strongest supporters have been willing to admit he made mistakes. They still however argue that he did not lie and that his mistakes were made because he had bad intelligence, just like everyone else. Unless it is established that he in fact lied and did not base his decision on bad intelligence, but rather supported his lies with purposely used manipulated misleading intelligence, there is no way for us to learn from our mistake of trusting him and future Presidents, even and especially after a tragedy of the proportion of 9/11. We know now that a President will use such an incident for nefarious reasons.

 

[hangover]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this fucking stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

 

[there4eyeM]

Trials for war criminals.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this fucking stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

He ran and his entire foreign policy is a joke. You're just another leftard parroting the same tired and redundant BS.

 

[hangover]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this fucking stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

He ran and his entire foreign policy is a joke. You're just another leftard parroting the same tired and redundant BS.

If you had a brain, you'd take it out and play with it.

 

[Faun]

Excuse? For what? you not understanding what the term "pretty well" means? ROLLS EYES...

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

Damn, man we get it, you blame Bush. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not change anyone's mind about what happened and why.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Like I said ... even Bush blames Bush ...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

Guess that makes him a fool too, huh?

 

[there4eyeM]

A criminal, anyway.

 

[Redfish]

BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., BOOOOOOSH.., did it !

LOL They have to post this garbage as Iraq burns due to Obungle's fuck ups

It's con morons like McCain, Lindsey Graham and you that want to do it all over again. What's another $10 trillion added to the national debt?

How much has Obungles added to it moron? You can't possibly be this fucking stupid

Obviously you can...FYI.Obama got out of Iraq....and Afghanistan.

yep, he got out all right, and ensured that the americans who died there died for nothing. The bastard should be in jail.

 

[Redfish]

A criminal, anyway.

what specifically was the criminal act?

 

[Redfish]

Rejecting a claim is not, "pretty well confirmed," by any stretch of the imagination.

Conflicting reports? memo? Who knew about that "memo" did Cheney read it? Did he skim it? Did he forget? Again, lie and mistake are two different things. Was Cheney making his statement in view of that memo? in spite of that memo? What was the view of that memo, who reported it was some other pakistani? What investigation? Who wrote the memo? Dick? One of his advisors? Did Dick ask for the memo to be quashed? Did Bush? So what if that one guy did not go to one place? Does that mean Saddam was not the evil terrorist that the democrats claimed he was for the prior decade, because one guy did not go to one place for one meeting?

Either way it does not add up to giving aid and protection. Even if there had been a meeting, there has never been any explanation as to what the meeting would have been about. A meeting to establish that the two parties would not interfere or co-mingle with each other makes more sense than anything else. So even if the faulty proven wrong claim you are attempting to make were true, it means nothing in relationship to this discussion.

There was no meeting. In early December, 2001, the Bush administration was notified by the CIA that there was no meeting. Sometime around September, 2003, the Bush administration finally announced there was no meeting.

For almost 2 years, they let the American people believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9.11. By the time they finally admitted the truth, that there was no connection, some 70% of the public believed there was a connection. And the reason so many people believed there was is because the Bush administration claimed there was a connection.

Damn, man we get it, you blame Bush. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you. Repeating the same bullshit over and over will not change anyone's mind about what happened and why.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Like I said ... even Bush blames Bush ...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

Guess that makes him a fool too, huh?

Well he could have taken the obama approach and blamed his predecessor.