hey democrats ! is Americas capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

 

[Grumblenuts]

the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

JFCOAC! Okay, wacko, go ahead now. You know you're the one making the affirmative claims here. Prove that one. Quote Jay Rockefeller or any Democratic committee member stating "everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time." Not holding my breath..

'Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.'

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

 

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

The decision to go to war was just like deciding whether you wanted tuna or chicken salad for lunch; it was a choice.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

The decision to go to war was just like deciding whether you wanted tuna or chicken salad for lunch; it was a choice.

Does not change anything I said.

The claim is that Bush lied, and that the reasons to invade Iraq were a lie.

In order to make that case, you have to prove they knew Saddam didn't have WMDs. Rockefeller and the Democrats, did a congressional investigation of Bush's claims, and the information we had, and concluded none of them were lies.

End of discussion. Nothing you changes those facts.

 

[Andylusion]

the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

JFCOAC! Okay, wacko, go ahead now. You know you're the one making the affirmative claims here. Prove that one. Quote Jay Rockefeller or any Democratic committee member stating "everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time." Not holding my breath..

'Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.'

I have the Rockefeller report on my computer. You can read the findings yourself. They are public information. Yes I can put up, because I have the report. And yes they did say everything Bush said was backed by the intelligence information available at that time.

I just proved it. Go read the Rockefeller report.

Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U. S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information Together with Additional and Minority Views

Assesses ¿whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Gov¿t. officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence info.¿ The Committee reviewed 5 major policy speeches by Admin. officials...

books.google.com

Senate Report on whether public statements regarding Iraq by US officials were substantiated by intelligence information.

Page 71.
1. Iraq support for terrorist groups.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

2. Iraq provided safe haven for Al-Qaeda terrorist members.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

3. Iraq had contacts with al-Qaeda.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

Page 102.
4. Iraq's nuclear activities.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

Page 140.
5. Statements by Vice President, and President, that Iraq had WMDs.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

Page 141.
6. Iraq's WMD faculties were not attachable from the air.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

Page 144.
7. Iraq's attempts to use UAVs.
Substantiated by intelligence information at that time.

So now I have conclusively proven my case.

Your turn. Put up, or SHUT IT.

 

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

 

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

The decision to go to war was just like deciding whether you wanted tuna or chicken salad for lunch; it was a choice.

Does not change anything I said.

The claim is that Bush lied, and that the reasons to invade Iraq were a lie.

In order to make that case, you have to prove they knew Saddam didn't have WMDs. Rockefeller and the Democrats, did a congressional investigation of Bush's claims, and the information we had, and concluded none of them were lies.

End of discussion. Nothing you changes those facts.

Wow, someone has their panties in a twist.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

20 years and we are still there. Saddam has been gone for years and there were no weapons. You can pretend that is what it was about if you wish.

Doesn't matter, unless you are too stupid to understand the definition of a lie.

At that time in 2003, the information we had at that time, backed what Bush said. The reasons we went to war, were not lies.

Nothing you say changes that. So either prove that Bush knew then that Saddam didn't have WMDs, or you are lying and wrong.

Still waiting for that proof.

The decision to go to war was just like deciding whether you wanted tuna or chicken salad for lunch; it was a choice.

Does not change anything I said.

The claim is that Bush lied, and that the reasons to invade Iraq were a lie.

In order to make that case, you have to prove they knew Saddam didn't have WMDs. Rockefeller and the Democrats, did a congressional investigation of Bush's claims, and the information we had, and concluded none of them were lies.

End of discussion. Nothing you changes those facts.

Wow, someone has their panties in a twist.

Just stating the facts. If stating facts is "someone's panties in a twist", when I wish we had more twisted panties on this forum.

 

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

 

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

Again... I posted directly from the Senate Congressional investigation into the claims made by the administration about all aspects of their programs including nuclear.

The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

This is not up for debate, it is fact. FACT: statements about Iraq's nuclear program were generally substantiated by the intelligence information we had at that time.

If you want to say otherwise, by all means alert that government to your brilliant new data that apparently no one in the last 18 years knows about, and prove they all lied, and round up all the democrats who lied in a congressional investigation, and have them all sent to prison.

OTHERWISE.... you are wrong. Period. End of story. Either prove it... or stuff it sister.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Quote Jay Rockefeller or any Democratic committee member stating "everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time."

Still not holding my breath..

the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

No, that was never their conclusion. You know it. Everyone fucking knows it. Stop kidding yourself. The Dems were horribly complicit, of course. It's a warmongering duopoly. But they still have to at least pretend to be on opposite sides. They would never simply conclude that the opposing party's leader did everything by the book. That's nuts enough, but I'm sorry to also inform you that many, many people, myself included, knew the WMDS were bullshit long before the shooting started. It had been reported by good journalists despite the MIC's attempts to stifle it. Bush simply had no excuse. None of them did. The dog and pony show was just to scare enough of the masses into submission. And of course it worked. Always does.. for a while..

 

[Andylusion]

Quote Jay Rockefeller or any Democratic committee member stating "everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time."

Still not holding my breath..

the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

No, that was never their conclusion. You know it. Everyone fucking knows it. Stop kidding yourself. The Dems were horribly complicit, of course. It's a warmongering duopoly. But they still have to at least pretend to be on opposite sides. They would never simply conclude that the opposing party's leader did everything by the book. That's nuts enough, but I'm sorry to also inform you that many, many people, myself included, knew the WMDS were bullshit long before the shooting started. It had been reported by good journalists despite the MIC's attempts to stifle it. Bush simply had no excuse. None of them did. The dog and pony show was just scare enough the masses into submission. And of course it worked. Always does.. for a while..

I just posted directly from the report that I linked to. So you are just a worthless bit of human trash, that like the child you are, is just sitting around with your hands in your ears, crying 'la la la can't hear truth'.

Get off the forum if you are too stupid to read the truth for yourself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Be a sore loser.. Like I give a shit..

 

[candycorn]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

Again... I posted directly from the Senate Congressional investigation into the claims made by the administration about all aspects of their programs including nuclear.

The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

This is not up for debate, it is fact. FACT: statements about Iraq's nuclear program were generally substantiated by the intelligence information we had at that time.

If you want to say otherwise, by all means alert that government to your brilliant new data that apparently no one in the last 18 years knows about, and prove they all lied, and round up all the democrats who lied in a congressional investigation, and have them all sent to prison.

OTHERWISE.... you are wrong. Period. End of story. Either prove it... or stuff it sister.

You also left off part of the report:

"Statements ... regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. … "

They were nowhere near building a nuke missile much less testing it (as NK has done) much less having any guidance involved that would be necessary to hit the US.

 

[Andylusion]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

I'm continually amazed that you think you have something to say about what's "best for the country" when the country in question isn't yours.

As a country we seem to think we should be able to tell other countries what is best for them even up to making lies to invade them.

We don't make up lies to invade them.

I don't think we tell other countries what to do. We might give them advice on what we think is best for them, but that's no different than any of them.

You do realize the other countries give Americans advice on how our government should work, and what we should.... CONSTANTLY...? All the time. Go read some of the articles on the BBC. They are constantly saying we should have gun control, we should have this, we should have government funded health care so no one can find a dentist like them.

All the time, they comment on what they think we should do.

Why is it when we comment, that's bad, and but when they comment, you don't complain?

Comment is one thing. Violence like we constantly undertake is another.

So... give me an example? With the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had violated the ceasefire agreement for over a decade, and the Rockefeller investigation proved conclusively that Bush did not lie about anything.

So where would you like to point to, in the last.... 50 years... where we just randomly without cause attacked and killed people.

Bush Lied. Saddam had no weapons. Obama lied to invade Syria also.

No, but you lied. Again, Rockefeller did a congressional investigations of every single statement made by Bush leading into the war with Iraq. Every single statement was accurate to the information we had at the time.

Bush (and the rest) knew Saddam had no weapons even "at the time".

What Saddam did, or did not have, is irrelevant. Completely and totally irrelevant.

In order to claim Bush lied, you have to prove he had information that Saddam did not have any of the things Bush said.

We looked at the information, and everything Bush said was accurate to the information he had at that time.

You are the liar between, between you now, and Bush then. You are the liar.

Inspection after inspection after inspection showed there were no weapons.

Despite there being no weapons and Saddam gone for years we are still there which shows it wasn't about either.

Then prove it.

Put your money where your mouth is, and prove conclusively that Bush knew Saddam didn't have weapons prior to the invasion.

And with that in mind, the Democrats ran a congressional investigation, that concluded that everything Bush said, was backed by the information he had at the time.

By all means, round up all the Democrats and throw all of them in prison for lying in a congressional investigation.

Or.... you are full of crap, and need to shut up, because you are lying trash.
Put up, or shut up. Prove it, or can your crap.

Clinton said the same thing about WMDs and Iraq having them.

Making the decision to invade was a war of choice.

That's *MY* point. Everyone believed Saddam had WMDs, including the Democrats and the Clintons.

So nothing else you say matters. In order for you to claim that Bush lied, and that we went to war on lies, you have to prove that they knew at that time, that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Can you prove that? No you can not. And if you could, you would have to convict half the democrats in government, because they did a congressional investigation that proved Bush's statements for why we were going to war, were backed by the intelligence information we had at that time.

So either put up, or shut up.

Wow, I don't recall making the claim that Bush lied about the WMDs.

I think that one can make the case that he overstated the threat that Saddam would use the WMDs--what was it Condi Rice said; "We don't want a mushroom cloud to be the smoking gun" or something like that? He also downplayed the UN inspectors finding nothing.

This discussion was based on the claim that Bush lied. The original complaint was that the US randomly make up lies to attack countries, and they cited Iraq as being an example.

That is what I'm arguing about. If you are not making that claim, then you are not part of what I was responding to.

Randomly? Nope. It was orchestrated and repeated overstatement of the threat the supposed WMDs proposed to the US.

So as I posted numerous times, directly from the official Senate investigation into the statements made by the administration for reasons we were going to war with Iraq, were in fact supported by the intelligence information we had at the time.

It was not overstated. It was not lies. It was exactly what the intelligence data suggested.

If you want to blame anyone, you should blame the Clinton administration for cutting and putting bad regulations in place over the CIA, which made collecting accurate data difficult or impossible.

But, there was no "orchestrated and repeated overstatement". It was exactly what the intelligence we had at that time, said.

Sorry, you are wrong. Facts over opinion.

Really?

“We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” wasn't overstated? You're dreaming. Iraq had no nuke program:

"By 1991 Iraq had a robust covert program that included a complete nuclear weapon design and roughly 36.3 kilograms of weapons-useable HEU in the form of research reactor fuel. [8] Following Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) undertook intrusive inspections and concluded by 1997 that Iraqi WMD weapons programs had been incapacitated. [9] IAEA inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Inspectors returned for a follow-up visit in November 2002, but were evacuated in March 2003 preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. [10] In its comprehensive September 30, 2004 report following the U.S-led invasion, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussein had ended Iraq's nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War in 1991, and had not directed a coordinated effort to restart the program thereafter. [11] "

Could they have married their chemical and biological weapons with their ballistic missiles? Maybe...perhaps. Nuke? No way.

Now you're going to argue that the "mushroom cloud" hysteria could have been about chem and bio. Really?

Again... I posted directly from the Senate Congressional investigation into the claims made by the administration about all aspects of their programs including nuclear.

The conclusion of the investigation in the governments statements about Iraqs WMD programs including nuclear programs, headed by the Democrats... Page 132, first section, Conclusion 1: statements "...were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates"

This is not up for debate, it is fact. FACT: statements about Iraq's nuclear program were generally substantiated by the intelligence information we had at that time.

If you want to say otherwise, by all means alert that government to your brilliant new data that apparently no one in the last 18 years knows about, and prove they all lied, and round up all the democrats who lied in a congressional investigation, and have them all sent to prison.

OTHERWISE.... you are wrong. Period. End of story. Either prove it... or stuff it sister.

You also left off part of the report:

"Statements ... regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. … "

They were nowhere near building a nuke missile much less testing it (as NK has done) much less having any guidance involved that would be necessary to hit the US.

There is always disagreements within the community. Always. There are always conflicting views about everything. Just like on this forum, there is hardly any topic anywhere on the forum, or the nation, or the world, that there are not conflicting views on.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates".

Again... end of story. Period. Game over. You lost. You lost this argument. At least you had the guts to post the fact you lost, by quoting the fact you lost.

You lose this. You can keep arguing, but that just makes you a liar. If you want to be a liar, and keep lying, that's fine.

But remember this, I know your name, and every single post I see where you claim Trump is a liar, I'll remind you of this here now.

If you continue to lie about this topic, when you posted the truth yourself... I'm going to remind you of this in every post I find of yours.

Because now you have posted the fact you are wrong, and you are going to keep lying about it... aren't you? We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet I'm not. Left-wingers never admit the truth, even when they themselves post it.