Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

[Iceweasel]

Yeah, OK. Lies are just fine with you as long as it is YOUR guys telling them.

I'm not buying GOP lies or your spin on their lies and I'm not buying into Democrats' lies or anyone else's spin on THEM.

How did you get that from what I said?

Because that's exactly what you said.

You defend and make excuses for Republican lies.
Kinda makes your complaints about Democrat lies sound like hyper-partisan rants.

You either demand honesty out of your government or you don't.
I do.
You don't.

You don't know what words mean. I do.

 

[KNB]

He couldn't have justified it.

Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

 

[Uncensored2008]

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

Firing on U.S. Aircraft, for one thing.

Are you really this dumb? I mean, do you piss yourself and play with your own feces in real life?

 

[mudwhistle]

If the administration doesn't know how many paid for coverage, how are they gonna know who's covered?.

BTW, the administration had quietly declared the ACA a hardship, which is why the mandatory date for already cancelled policy holders has been pushed back till after the 2016 elections.

What happened to all this talk about how it benefits us?

Why did Obama shut down the government, if not for Obamacare?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596

http://sonoranorte.wordpress.com/20...ual-mandate-extension-buried-in-hhs-bulletin/

 

[Iceweasel]

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

Jeebus dude. As mentioned, shooting at coalition airplanes. Also violations of UN resolutions, about 16 over the years. He had a long track record of doing what he wanted and redirecting 'oil for food' money to build his military and palaces, while people were starving. WMD was a big part of it as no one, not even the Russkies trusted him. And he did have them at some point since he gassed the Kurds in the north. Syria probably got what he had when the shit hit the fan.

 

[KNB]

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

Firing on U.S. Aircraft, for one thing.

Are you really this dumb? I mean, do you piss yourself and play with your own feces in real life?

Council on Foreign Relations, 2003:
IRAQ: Justifying the War - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[Iceweasel]

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

Firing on U.S. Aircraft, for one thing.

Are you really this dumb? I mean, do you piss yourself and play with your own feces in real life?

Council on Foreign Relations, 2003:
IRAQ: Justifying the War - Council on Foreign Relations

"Experts do agree that Saddam had long flouted multiple U.N. resolutions, ignoring their requirements to, among other responsibilities, abide by the demands of U.N. weapons inspectors, return property seized when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, account for missing Kuwaitis, sign international WMD conventions, and pay reparations. "From an international legal standpoint, he did not verifiably comply" with the resolutions, Katzman says."

 

[Mojo2]

Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

Oh, that's right. Your teachers didn't teach you anything that veered from the typical public school Liberal lies, myths, fairy tales and Liberal spin.

Alright. Not your fault. Here is one of the Middle School World History classes you missed.

• Saddam was left free to violate the terms of the cease-fire agreement which kept him in power after the 1991 Gulf War–violations which included kicking out United Nations weapons inspectors and firing on American aircraft patrolling no-fly zones.

• Saddam stood in defiance of 17 subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions insisting that he come into compliance with the terms of the 1991 agreement or face serious consequences–thus making a mockery of the Security Council and the entire U.N.

• Saddam was providing training facilities across Iraq for Muslim terrorists of every stripe, including thousands of radical Islamists, and he had opened up his territory as a safe haven for al Qaeda operatives chased from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban.

• Saddam was doling out cash rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who murdered Israeli civilians (and occasionally American citizens) in attacks throughout the state of Israel.

• Saddam sought to recruit suicide bombers to attack American interests and Israeli civilians (as revealed by newly translated documents captured during the first stages of the invasion of Iraq).

• Saddam kept open the door to forging an operational relationship with al Qaeda–as indicated in a sealed 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden by the Clinton Justice Department, which reads in part: “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

• Saddam continued to fleece the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program out of billions of dollars–money which was supposed to be used to provide humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, but which Saddam used instead to buy influence among European politicians and American and European businessmen in an effort to undermine U.N. sanctions…while hundreds of Iraqi children, under the age of five, died every month for lack of food and medicine that the Oil-for-Food program was supposed to supply.

That last number, the body count of Iraqi children, should settle the argument by itself, and utterly put to rest the idea that the pre-invasion status quo in Iraq was acceptable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217556/containment-context-mark-goldblatt

 

[Mojo2]

And, if your bottom line assumption is true, i.e. that he was bound and determined to invade no matter what, he would have had to find a different pretext.

The pretext changed all the time. First it was 9/11, then support for al-Qaeda, then WMD, then when all of that was shot down as rubbish, the Bush administration fell back to, "Look. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy."

I'm glad to have this opportunity to straighten some of you out on this matter which seems to have totally befuddled Liberal minds across the internet and still does.

There were any number of reasons for the invasion. But the Administration thought everyone in America should ALREADY have been clear on the need and the rightness of it. (Apparently, they misunderestimated the Liberal population in America.)

So, with a shelf full of good reasons to choose from, they (whoever was deciding what talking points would be provided the Liberal media) pulled the one they thought would be sufficient to answer the questions of why the invasion was staged and would stop the whining across America.

But when the whining INCREASED they started pulling reason after reason from the shelf trying to find the right one to quiet you guys down. One after another, the reasons came flying off the shelf. But that only led to you brainiacs and subversives screaming and yelling even more than you had before.

The truth is that ALL of the reasons you've heard had some validity, some more than others, depending on who was issuing the reason and who was disputing it.

But they all were true to some extent or another.

Except for the 9/11 rationale.

That was probably supplied by the Media itself.

Reiterating the distinction between contacts and actual collaboration on the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney said some news media had blurred that distinction and reported the administration was directly tying the attacks to Saddam.

"The press is, with all due respect there are exceptions, often times lazy, often simply reports what someone else in the press says without doing their homework," Cheney said.
Natural or man-made impression?

Critics say Bush administration officials at times created the impression that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks in order to justify his ouster.

“It’s not surprising people make that connection,” Cheney said at one point as polls showed most Americans believed Iraq was involved. Bush also argued that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found, and that he ruled his country with an iron fist and tortured political opponents.

Video:

The president on Thursday said that "this administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaida."

"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; for example, Iraqi intelligence agents met with (Osama) bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida, in the Sudan."

To support the administration's view, Cheney's office is providing reporters with a list of officials and lawmakers who have made similar claims over the years.

The list includes outgoing CIA Director George Tenet, who was appointed by President Clinton, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat and former first lady, who was quoted by Cheney's office as saying on Oct. 10, 2002: Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.”

Cheney blames media for blurring Saddam, 9/11 - US news - Security | NBC News

So, what you all did was confuse the Administration's attempts to placate you silly little liberals with a narrative ALL of you would like. But when there was no one rationale that satisfied ALL of you it THEN became Saddam was a bad guy.

Which was ALSO true.

But you were too smaht to believe that and what you retained from the whole thing was that Bush lied.

You guys would be comical if it didn't involve our nation's future.

You guys really need a supervisor just to interpret news events for you.

Or else start listening to Rush every day.

Just listen to SMART, RELIABLE SOURCES every day and you will stop being on the ass end of all these thrashings you get every day here.

 

[Mojo2]

But, I'd say the act of PREVENTING Israel from starting WWIII or going up in a Mushroom Cloud, (not to mention all the OTHER benefits of invading) is a pretty damn good bit of statesmanship and leadership, don't you?

What mushroom cloud? There weren't any WMD. Israel has nukes, Iraq and Iran don't.

This is the BIGGEST Liberal mind fucker of all.

I will never rest until I figure out what in your common backgrounds or hard wiring makes you all so unable to understand the idea of a bluff and taking action based on a belief of a threat.

MODS: THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION TO HELP REACH THE EMOTIONAL CENTER WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE AND LIBERALS AND MANY WOMEN MENTALLY PROCESS INFORMATION. IF THEY REASONED LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE THEY WOULD ALREADY GRASP THIS CONCEPT. I AM NOT GOING TO MOVE INTO KNB's NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM NOT GOING TO BUY LIONS NOR LION RECORDINGS FOR ANY REASON. I POSE NO PHYSICAL THREAT TO KNB.

Okay, Know Nothing Bastard, let's say I want to keep you from breaking in to my house while I am away or asleep. So, I buy a recording of wild lions and play the recordings loudly enough to hear from the street.

But another neighbor says that my lions are a great danger to his family. And that neighbor wants to break down my door and shoot my lions.

But the lions aren't real.

But he doesn't know that because I am bluffing about the existence of lions.

THERE ARE NO LIONS.

But everyone either THINKS they are real or else they can't know for sure if I have real lions or not.

And if I really DO have real lions in my house they really would be a threat to everyone in the neighborhood.

You call the animal wardens on me. They look around but i conceal the evidence to prevent them from knowing the truth.

Do I have lions or not.

They leave and nothing is settled.

So, before the neighbor with the guns comes to break down my door you call the police and alert them to my outstanding traffic warrants.

So they come and arrest me.

No lions are ever found.

The threat to the neighbor's family was non-existent.

But you only knew the truth AFTER I was arrested.

That is the same as what happened in Iraq.

The BLUFF had to be taken seriously or the man's family could have been eaten.

IF the lions had been real.

You had to stay out of my house because you thought I MIGHT have lions.

Get it?

Don't make me try to find another analogy to try to reach you.

It might not be so pretty and fun.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

Firing on U.S. Aircraft, for one thing.

Are you really this dumb? I mean, do you piss yourself and play with your own feces in real life?

Council on Foreign Relations, 2003:
IRAQ: Justifying the War - Council on Foreign Relations

{American and British aircraft continuously maintained the integrity of the NFZ, receiving anti-aircraft fire from Iraqi forces almost daily.}

Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, after you smear it in your hair, do the attendants try and clean you up?

 

[KNB]

I know that I'm correct when Teabaggers go full retard. You rambled something about "lions"? To be honest, I didn't read it because lions don't matter. I tried to read it but there was a caption where you were quoting Dick Cheney on matters of truth and ethics, so I knew that everything else that you wrote was fantastic bullshit, too.

There weren't any WMD in Iraq, and even if there were, the Reagan/Bush administration helped Saddam Hussein when he was using them, so the US doesn't have any say AT ALL in Iraqi disarmament whenever it suits Western corporate interests.

You say "look at real, informed sources". There is not a more informed source in all of cyberspace than the National Security Archives. I can't convince you of that. You just have to learn it for yourself.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well.
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

Between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, and the commencement of military action in January 1991, then President George H.W. Bush raised the specter of the Iraqi pursuit of nuclear weapons as one justification for taking decisive action against Iraq. In the then-classified National Security Directive 54, signed on January 15, 1991, authorizing the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait, he identified Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against allied forces as an action that would lead the U.S. to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

What counts as an "informed source" in your mind? GlennBeck.com? Squirrelzippers.com? Of course the Heritage Foundation, right? What about Foreign Policy magazine? Is that left-wing lamestream lieberal Jewish Hollywood totalitarian Obama Marxist media?
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

 

[mudwhistle]

I know that I'm correct when Teabaggers go full retard. You rambled something about "lions"? To be honest, I didn't read it because lions don't matter. I tried to read it but there was a caption where you were quoting Dick Cheney on matters of truth and ethics, so I knew that everything else that you wrote was fantastic bullshit, too.

There weren't any WMD in Iraq, and even if there were, the Reagan/Bush administration helped Saddam Hussein when he was using them, so the US doesn't have any say AT ALL in Iraqi disarmament whenever it suits Western corporate interests.

You say "look at real, informed sources". There is not a more informed source in all of cyberspace than the National Security Archives. I can't convince you of that. You just have to learn it for yourself.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well.
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

Between Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, and the commencement of military action in January 1991, then President George H.W. Bush raised the specter of the Iraqi pursuit of nuclear weapons as one justification for taking decisive action against Iraq. In the then-classified National Security Directive 54, signed on January 15, 1991, authorizing the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait, he identified Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against allied forces as an action that would lead the U.S. to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

What counts as an "informed source" in your mind? GlennBeck.com? Squirrelzippers.com? Of course the Heritage Foundation, right? What about Foreign Policy magazine? Is that left-wing lamestream lieberal Jewish Hollywood totalitarian Obama Marxist media?
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

Guess you've never understood metaphors.

Saddam wanted everyone to think he had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. In fact all he had was the makings of what he needed to produce Sarin gas. He had the binary delivery systems needed. All he needed was an end to UN sanctions and he was off and running. American inspectors were not allowed to verify inspection findings, so we had to trust the anti-American UN not to lie to us. From my experiences with the UN, trusting them was not an option.

Any evidence of WMDs was removed by the time our invasion forces entered Baghdad, thanks to help from Putin. This is why Turkey wouldn't allow 4th Armored Division to enter Iraq from the North. They were held up till Russian Spetnats forces were finished removing any remaining binary agents. They did leave behind hundreds of tons of yellow-cake uranium. They couldn't carry it all. Saddam was assured that we wouldn't go thru with the invasion. He messed up by trusting the Russians. Course because the mainstream won't tell you this it didn't happen.

 

[Iceweasel]

I know that I'm correct when Teabaggers...

Why do liberals get so offended and call people homophobes when they support things like traditional marriage definitions and then turn around and use homosexual references for the worse insults they can think of?

 

[candycorn]

Couldn't have justified what? The invasion? He couldn't justify it in the first place because there weren't any WMD in Iraq or ties between Hussein and bin Laden.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

How did Iraq break the conditions of the cease-fire if there weren't any WMD in Iraq to disarm?

They should have tried harder.

​

 

[hangover]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

Your premise is, evil triumphs over good, which only proves who is really lying. Your efforts to deceive are futile.

Who's deceiving who?

You're deceiving yourself.

Honestly, you really believe that? Nice guys always finish first?

"The first shall be last, and the last shall be first."-Jesus
You brag on your hatred and vanity, and think you're winning. BWAH HA HA HA HA! You are deceived.

 

[Truthmatters]

how can they deny Bush LIED and had the intell Doctered?


the same way they Ignored his CLEAR war crimes of abu garib and falughia

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

And when repubs win they have the best lies on their side....

 

[Mojo2]

how can they deny Bush LIED and had the intell Doctered?


the same way they Ignored his CLEAR war crimes of abu garib and falughia

The jailers at Abu Ghraib were NOT acting on Presidential orders.

And Fallujah was just a dirty, dangerous job of dislodging armed committed Islamists in house to house CQB.

Any war crimes (were there ANY???) that may have been committed were AGAINST unprincipled Islamist fighters and none that may have occurred (were there ANY???) were done upon the orders of the President.

GWB knew that would not help our war effort.

Even your cute little pooch knows that!

 

[Mojo2]

Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

And when repubs win they have the best lies on their side....

You can't state any lies that don't require some mental gymnastics to believe.

Or which don't involve strange isolated circumstances.

Liberals lie as a matter of course.

Republican lies are out of character and are lapses in judgment.

But let's look closely at the kinds and nature of LIBERAL LIES.

The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives

John Hawkins | Mar 31, 2009

Liberals spend much of their time trying to hide what they believe from the public while conservatives are perpetually frustrated by the fact that the American people don't seem to understand what we really believe. Both problems spring from a single source: liberals lie incessantly. That's not to say that there aren't conservative liars or truthful liberals; there are, but for liberals, lying is the rule, not the exception.


There are two reasons why liberals lie much more than conservatives. First off, this is a center-right country and liberal beliefs are much more unpopular than conservative ones. If liberals told the truth about what they believe and want to do, the Democratic Party would practically be wiped out in much of the country.

Additionally, conservatives tend to think liberals are merely stupid or emotional, while liberals tend to view conservatives as evil -- and liberals use that belief to justify lying about conservatives. After all, if you lie about someone who's evil to keep them from doing bad things, couldn't that be considered virtuous? You may disagree with that, but liberal politicians, bloggers, and journalists live by that rule. Any lie told about a conservative, even one that liberals know isn't true, will be uncritically repeated ad nauseum by the Left until the point it becomes politically disadvantageous to do so.

So, in order to help fight the lies of the Left, here's a guide to the most prevalent techniques that liberals use to mislead people about conservatives. If you're listening to liberals talk about conservatives, you're virtually guaranteed to hear at least one of these techniques used.

The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives - John Hawkins - Page full

Visit the article to read,
"The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie About Conservatives."