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

[NYcarbineer]

Your non-sequitur is noted and dismissed. Now watch as I point out how failed to address anything in my post, no less, refute anything.

Meanwhile, your lie that every country thought Hussein was building WMD is thoroughly dismantled. Which of course, is why you tried to deflect with that lame non-sequitur.

So when we blame Republicans who got us into the war, blaming Democrats who got us into the war too would be a non-sequitur. Classic.

LOL, that always cracks me up when you liberals try to repeat my pointing out your logical fallacies to you, and you try to do it back and just show you don't know what the fallacies mean

Your reply to my post had nothing to do with what I posted.

That is called a "non-sequitur."

Educate yourself.

It has everything to do with what you said. I say both parties are guilty, you say no, when they did the same thing, it was all the Republicans fault. You considered applying the same standard to both parties to be a non-sequitur, that's ridiculous

21 times as many Democrats as Republicans voted against the Iraq War.

That is hardly an equal distribution of guilt.

Truism. I said both parties are guilty, you are arguing Democrats are pure as the driven snow. I never said both sides are "equally" guilty, I said both are guilty. And the Democrat leadership supported it, the Senate Democrat majority voted for it, and the House provided the margin of victory. Democrats are guilty.

Furthermore, this isn't even a standard for you, you keep voting for Democrats who voted for the war, and you are planning to do it again in this coming election. You know what you are? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrite." You know what the word is?

I never voted for Hillary Clinton. And she was my Senator.

 

[Faun]

More praise due then for the majority of Democrats who voted against the war.

The prominent dems were for it. Including both clintons. Why haven't you called them scumbags and liars? They came to the same erroneous conclusions as Bush using exactly the same intel.

43% of Congressional Democrats voted for it.

97% of Congressional Republicans voted for it.

100% of executive administration Republicans were in favor of it.

Republicans: but, but, but a bunch of Democrats voted for it too!

Again, so what? It passed. Hillary voted for it, voted to fund it, and voted to continue it. She supported Bush 100% on Iraq, as did Bubba Clinton.

So what exactly are you saying here? that the clintons were too stupid to see the truth that other dems and some republicans saw?

"Some Republicans??" 97% voted for it. As far as funding it while troops were in battle, it would have been treasonous to not fund the troops. That's the dumbest red-herring I've heard.

As far as what they voted for ... they voted to authorize Bush to use military force if necessary. At the time of the vote, it might have been necessary because Hussein wouldn't let the weapons inspectors into Iraq. That all changed after the inspectors went back in, had full and unfettered access, and found virtually nothing.

the inspectors never had full and unfettered access until Saddam was executed. Please stop lying, it makes you look really stupid.

Agsin, your post proves you're a fucking moron. Before Hussein was executed, the inspectors had full and unfettered access, despite your lies to the contrary...

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.

This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences. ." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003

CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003​

 

[Faun]

Only morons thought that... are you a moron?

You're a fucking retard. There is no other explanation for how you can call 70% of Americans, "morons," for believing the president and his administration. Even funnier -- a plurality of that poll who you call morons, were righties.

Yes or no... did you or did you not think Iraq was behind 9.11? Easy question Faun. You can do it... YES [ ] or NO [ ]. Place your x.

I assure you, being a moron has nothing to do with being on the left or right of the political aisle. There are plenty of morons to go around.

Of course I believed the Bush administration. At that time, who could imagine they were lying?

What's moronic is calling 70% of the country morons for believing them.

ROFL what a moron. This guy believed that Iraq was behind 9.11. ROFL I'll bet he believes in the tooth fairy too.

OMG, you're right. He's a complete dip shit. No one who paid attention at the time thought that Iraq was behind 9/11, un freaking believable. Well Faun, this explains a lot of your posts. You actually thought that? Iraq was behind 9/11? What is wrong with you? Seriously?

You may want to start by educating yourself on these terms. Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Afghanistan. I opposed attacking Iraq. I supported attacking Afghanistan. I opposed nation building in Afghanistan, but I thought we should blow the holy hell out of Al Qaeda and The Taliban. You know why, Faun? They were behind 9/11. Wow, why don't you just put in your sig, "I am a gullible sheep?"

Only morons thought that... are you a moron?

You're a fucking retard. There is no other explanation for how you can call 70% of Americans, "morons," for believing the president and his administration. Even funnier -- a plurality of that poll who you call morons, were righties.

Yes or no... did you or did you not think Iraq was behind 9.11? Easy question Faun. You can do it... YES [ ] or NO [ ]. Place your x.

I assure you, being a moron has nothing to do with being on the left or right of the political aisle. There are plenty of morons to go around.

Of course I believed the Bush administration. At that time, who could imagine they were lying?

What's moronic is calling 70% of the country morons for believing them.

ROFL what a moron. This guy believed that Iraq was behind 9.11. ROFL I'll bet he believes in the tooth fairy too.

OMG, you're right. He's a complete dip shit. No one who paid attention at the time thought that Iraq was behind 9/11, un freaking believable. Well Faun, this explains a lot of your posts. You actually thought that? Iraq was behind 9/11? What is wrong with you? Seriously?

You may want to start by educating yourself on these terms. Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Afghanistan. I opposed attacking Iraq. I supported attacking Afghanistan. I opposed nation building in Afghanistan, but I thought we should blow the holy hell out of Al Qaeda and The Taliban. You know why, Faun? They were behind 9/11. Wow, why don't you just put in your sig, "I am a gullible sheep?"

"Behind?" No. Somehow connected to, yes. You may not be able to comprehend the distinction though. Regardless, some 70% (rightwing plurality) believed Iraq was connected to 9.11. You have to be a special kind of stupid to call 70% of Americans, "morons," for believing the Bush administration.

 

[kaz]

Wow, great point. Democrats are fucking LIARS. You must hate them to have gotten us into that war arm in arm with W

Your non-sequitur is noted and dismissed. Now watch as I point out how failed to address anything in my post, no less, refute anything.

Meanwhile, your lie that every country thought Hussein was building WMD is thoroughly dismantled. Which of course, is why you tried to deflect with that lame non-sequitur.

So when we blame Republicans who got us into the war, blaming Democrats who got us into the war too would be a non-sequitur. Classic.

LOL, that always cracks me up when you liberals try to repeat my pointing out your logical fallacies to you, and you try to do it back and just show you don't know what the fallacies mean

Your reply to my post had nothing to do with what I posted.

That is called a "non-sequitur."

Educate yourself.

It has everything to do with what you said. I say both parties are guilty, you say no, when they did the same thing, it was all the Republicans fault. You considered applying the same standard to both parties to be a non-sequitur, that's ridiculous

You're reply had nothing to do with my post. You even just said, you think my post was about blaming Republicans ... it wasn't. It was about you lying and you're not a Republican.

You're too fucking retarded to know what I was talking about so it is feasible you're just too stupid to know your post was a non-sequitur.

You're babbling. You keep saying the Republicans are guilty. I pointed out the Democrats are guilty too, they did the same thing. You keep calling that a non-sequitur. It's not, Sparky.

You also don't know the difference between the proper use of your and you're. I only spell check those who want to be the internet spelling and grammar police. Before you pull people over and ticket them for that, you may want to learn the English language yourself

 

[Redfish]

So when we blame Republicans who got us into the war, blaming Democrats who got us into the war too would be a non-sequitur. Classic.

LOL, that always cracks me up when you liberals try to repeat my pointing out your logical fallacies to you, and you try to do it back and just show you don't know what the fallacies mean

Your reply to my post had nothing to do with what I posted.

That is called a "non-sequitur."

Educate yourself.

It has everything to do with what you said. I say both parties are guilty, you say no, when they did the same thing, it was all the Republicans fault. You considered applying the same standard to both parties to be a non-sequitur, that's ridiculous

21 times as many Democrats as Republicans voted against the Iraq War.

That is hardly an equal distribution of guilt.

Truism. I said both parties are guilty, you are arguing Democrats are pure as the driven snow. I never said both sides are "equally" guilty, I said both are guilty. And the Democrat leadership supported it, the Senate Democrat majority voted for it, and the House provided the margin of victory. Democrats are guilty.

Furthermore, this isn't even a standard for you, you keep voting for Democrats who voted for the war, and you are planning to do it again in this coming election. You know what you are? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrite." You know what the word is?

I never voted for Hillary Clinton. And she was my Senator.

But you would vote for her for president? WTF?

 

[kaz]

Rewriting history again. The leadership, majority of senate and big minority in the house voted for it. You hold them accountable zero for that. In fact, you've voted for one of them for President, one for Vice President and you plan to vote next year for another for President

The Democrats in the House voted against it. That is an inarguable fact.

No, "the democrats" in the House didn't, some of them didn't

You said the Democrats got us into the war. No, they didn't. The Democrats in the House voted down the resolution,

which means it was dead as far as the Democrats were concerned.

Truism, you said the Democrats are not responsible, you put no limit on that statement

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

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?

 

[kaz]

The Democrats in the House voted against it. That is an inarguable fact.

No, "the democrats" in the House didn't, some of them didn't

You said the Democrats got us into the war. No, they didn't. The Democrats in the House voted down the resolution,

which means it was dead as far as the Democrats were concerned.

Truism, you said the Democrats are not responsible, you put no limit on that statement

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

That may be true, but so what? the majority in both houses voted for it, including your probable candidate for president in 16.

When will you begin demonizing hillary for supporting the iraq fiasco?

He already voted for Kerry and Biden

 

[kaz]

No, "the democrats" in the House didn't, some of them didn't

You said the Democrats got us into the war. No, they didn't. The Democrats in the House voted down the resolution,

which means it was dead as far as the Democrats were concerned.

Truism, you said the Democrats are not responsible, you put no limit on that statement

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

That may be true, but so what? the majority in both houses voted for it, including your probable candidate for president in 16.

When will you begin demonizing hillary for supporting the iraq fiasco?

She lost the nomination to anti war Obama and may loose the nomination over it this time again. She doesn't need to be demonized, only disagreed with. That is the difference between radical extremist and normal people. Normal people can disagree and do not have to be brainwashed with demonizing.

So finally an answer.

Republicans who voted for the war should be demonized

Democrats who voted for the war should be disagreed with, not demonized

You're a flaming hypocrite, but honest at some level I suppose

 

[Redfish]

The prominent dems were for it. Including both clintons. Why haven't you called them scumbags and liars? They came to the same erroneous conclusions as Bush using exactly the same intel.

43% of Congressional Democrats voted for it.

97% of Congressional Republicans voted for it.

100% of executive administration Republicans were in favor of it.

Republicans: but, but, but a bunch of Democrats voted for it too!

Again, so what? It passed. Hillary voted for it, voted to fund it, and voted to continue it. She supported Bush 100% on Iraq, as did Bubba Clinton.

So what exactly are you saying here? that the clintons were too stupid to see the truth that other dems and some republicans saw?

"Some Republicans??" 97% voted for it. As far as funding it while troops were in battle, it would have been treasonous to not fund the troops. That's the dumbest red-herring I've heard.

As far as what they voted for ... they voted to authorize Bush to use military force if necessary. At the time of the vote, it might have been necessary because Hussein wouldn't let the weapons inspectors into Iraq. That all changed after the inspectors went back in, had full and unfettered access, and found virtually nothing.

the inspectors never had full and unfettered access until Saddam was executed. Please stop lying, it makes you look really stupid.

Agsin, your post proves you're a fucking moron. Before Hussein was executed, the inspectors had full and unfettered access, despite your lies to the contrary...

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure.

This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences. ." ~ UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, 2.14.2003

CNN.com - Transcript of weapons inspector s U.N. presentation - Feb. 17 2003​

Blix was hoodwinked by the Iraqis. We found sites that he never even knew about where there was evidence of WMDs.

But you will continue to believe the dem/lib bush-hate talking points, we know what you are. Your posts are virtually worthless because you are nothing but a parrot incapable of individual thinking.

 

[kaz]

Sadden was obsessed with WMD's during the Clinton Administration. He hired that Canadian gun builder to build the world's largest cannon, Gerald somebody or other, but the guy was murdered before he finished the job. He also gassed the Kurds more than once.

However, as time went on and the effects of the sanctions took hold, Hussein seems to have stopped trying, especially after his gun builder died. Maybe people were reluctant to risk their lives to help him. Maybe he couldn't get materials. Who knows?

But Bush did know that Saddam posed no threat but he wanted Iraq's oil. That's what the war was all about. And Bush ignored all of the Intel which didn't support the belief that Iraq wasn't building WMDs. As a result, CIA personnel who didn't bring Bush what he wanted, weren't invited to briefings. Pretty soon the CIA was falling all over themselves to bring Bush what he wanted.

Yes Mrs. Mao, Democrats are pure as the driven snow, Republicans are war mongerers who want to invade countries that have oil. BTW, what's even dumber is W invaded for their oil, then didn't take it. But why let facts get in the way of a little communist honey protecting her man?

 

[kaz]

[

OMG, you're right. He's a complete dip shit. No one who paid attention at the time thought that Iraq was behind 9/11, un freaking believable. Well Faun, this explains a lot of your posts. You actually thought that? Iraq was behind 9/11? What is wrong with you? Seriously?

You may want to start by educating yourself on these terms. Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Afghanistan. I opposed attacking Iraq. I supported attacking Afghanistan. I opposed nation building in Afghanistan, but I thought we should blow the holy hell out of Al Qaeda and The Taliban. You know why, Faun? They were behind 9/11. Wow, why don't you just put in your sig, "I am a gullible sheep?"

lol, you're so uninformed.

From Sep 2003:


Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

USATODAY.com - Poll 70 believe Saddam 9-11 link

What about you? Did you think Iraq was behind 9/11?

 

[Faun]

Hell, Iraq wasn't about WMD, or oil, for that matter...

Righties are such idiots... they'll say anything, no matter how stupid. Meanwhile, directly from the mouth of the one man on the planet with the ability to start the war ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush, 2006​

Despite your wild claim the war wasn't about WMD ... WMD were the main reason for the war.

 

[kaz]

So when we blame Republicans who got us into the war, blaming Democrats who got us into the war too would be a non-sequitur. Classic.

LOL, that always cracks me up when you liberals try to repeat my pointing out your logical fallacies to you, and you try to do it back and just show you don't know what the fallacies mean

Your reply to my post had nothing to do with what I posted.

That is called a "non-sequitur."

Educate yourself.

It has everything to do with what you said. I say both parties are guilty, you say no, when they did the same thing, it was all the Republicans fault. You considered applying the same standard to both parties to be a non-sequitur, that's ridiculous

21 times as many Democrats as Republicans voted against the Iraq War.

That is hardly an equal distribution of guilt.

Truism. I said both parties are guilty, you are arguing Democrats are pure as the driven snow. I never said both sides are "equally" guilty, I said both are guilty. And the Democrat leadership supported it, the Senate Democrat majority voted for it, and the House provided the margin of victory. Democrats are guilty.

Furthermore, this isn't even a standard for you, you keep voting for Democrats who voted for the war, and you are planning to do it again in this coming election. You know what you are? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrite." You know what the word is?

I never voted for Hillary Clinton. And she was my Senator.

I never said you did vote for Hillary Clinton. I said you voted for Kerry (Pres), Biden (Veep) and you are going to vote for her if she wins the nomination.

Living in NY there wasn't a chance in hell she would lose, it made no difference

 

[Camp]

You said the Democrats got us into the war. No, they didn't. The Democrats in the House voted down the resolution,

which means it was dead as far as the Democrats were concerned.

Truism, you said the Democrats are not responsible, you put no limit on that statement

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

That may be true, but so what? the majority in both houses voted for it, including your probable candidate for president in 16.

When will you begin demonizing hillary for supporting the iraq fiasco?

She lost the nomination to anti war Obama and may loose the nomination over it this time again. She doesn't need to be demonized, only disagreed with. That is the difference between radical extremist and normal people. Normal people can disagree and do not have to be brainwashed with demonizing.

So finally an answer.

Republicans who voted for the war should be demonized

Democrats who voted for the war should be disagreed with, not demonized

You're a flaming hypocrite, but honest at some level I suppose

That is not what I said you. I responded to a specific poster about a specific situation with a specific person. You are distorting my response and lying to support your agenda. It is dishonest. My comment infers that neither Republicans nor Democrats need to be demonized and that demonizing is a method used by radical extremist for propaganda purposes. The shoe appears to fit you.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was not 'bad intelligence'; it was lack of intelligence.
Even lack of common sense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Democrats in the House voted against it. That is an inarguable fact.

No, "the democrats" in the House didn't, some of them didn't

You said the Democrats got us into the war. No, they didn't. The Democrats in the House voted down the resolution,

which means it was dead as far as the Democrats were concerned.

Truism, you said the Democrats are not responsible, you put no limit on that statement

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

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.

 

[Camp]

Even as the Bush administrations own members and friends distance themselves from Bush and lamely attempt to revise history, there are still those who maintain heads in the sand and hold on to the old lies and misinformation used to scam America into it's longest war in history and a decade of misemployment of blood and treasure.

 

[Mertex]

No, "the democrats" in the House didn't, some of them didn't

You said the Democrats got us into the war. No, they didn't. The Democrats in the House voted down the resolution,

which means it was dead as far as the Democrats were concerned.

Truism, you said the Democrats are not responsible, you put no limit on that statement

The 147 Democrats who voted against it are not responsible for the disaster.

Nor are the 7 Republicans.

lol

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.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

When lawmakers write amendments to the Constitution allowing them to lie, blaming politicians for lying is kinda silly.

 

[kaz]

Obama didn't vote for the war moron.

John Fing Kerry did, moron