Question for Iraq war supporters

[AllieBaba]

You can't make an argument against people who change the meanings of words to suit themselves.

 

[maineman]

He had no doubt, despite what he had. Not a lie.

Ah...but the speeches were made, by team Bush did not say "I have no doubt"...they said "THERE is no doubt". BIG difference, eh? The doubt was there. LIE

 

[maineman]

You can't make an argument against people who change the meanings of words to suit themselves.

Funny....I was thinking the exact same thing about YOUR dumb ass!

 

[maineman]

You can't make an argument against people who change the meanings of words to suit themselves.

Funny....I was thinking the exact same thing about YOUR dumb ass!

but PLEASE..what word have I changed the meaning of?

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think anybody, anywhere, has ever tried before to make the argument that the statement "there is no doubt" is in and of itself, a statement of fact, moron.

It's a statement of opinion.

If he had said, "We know where they are and we've seen them" when he DIDN'T know where they were, and knew that they HADN'T been seen, that would be a lie.

Get it yet?

The thing is, truth is so flexible to the left that they can't even describe it, let alone determine whether or not others are lying.

 

[Dr Grump]

hhhhmmmmmm...."there is no doubt" seems a pretty definitive statement to me..

 

[AllieBaba]

Finish the sentence.
"There is no doubt in my mind."

Then prove there was a doubt in his mind, and he made the statement.
It can't be done; hence the argument that he was telling a lie is a huge waste of time.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

yea, Mainman.. the TRUTH IS SO FLEXIBLE that no one has EVER lied!


What a crock of shit.


I've quoted the man's own words from a solid source. If you ignorant bastards want to get litigious this side of absolutely NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OR EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS ANY KIND OF IMMEDIATE THREAT then go ahead and paint stupid on your own forehead.



No matter how much you flounder like a fish on a hook, THIS is your 00 and 04 legacy which, consequently, is why you lost in 06 and will lose in 08.

 

[AllieBaba]

There ya go. Claim victory, despite the impressive (and obvious) inability of the left to prove what is, essentially, non-provable.

 

[Shogun]

So far, Im the only one to post evidence of my accusation. Id say that's a lot more EVIDENCE and PROOF than you nipping at my heals.


I say it again.. CLAIMING that I haven't proved my point, when Im the ONLY one to post evidence, wont make it so.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof. If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof. If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.

Simple alright, simply not true. Again, if Bush lied so did Clinton, Hillary and most of Clintons white house. All the Intel agencies in the world all were liars as well. Almost every Democratic leader in Congress at the time of the vote and before were all liars as well. Even the Un were liars.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not just proving the record, it's looking at the man himself over a period of time. He had no doubt - therefore he must have had irrefutable proof. If so, where are they? If not, he lied. Simple.

No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.

I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?

Hardly.

 

[Shogun]

No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.

I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?

Hardly.

HAHAHA!

I think you answered your own question.




When it comes time for WAR then, yes, a president probably needs more EVIDENCE than your standard christian faith.


Like I said.. IVE quoted the man. You silly bastards can wallow in your Suspended Disbelief as much as you want to. Trying to save political face won't land you the white house in 08.

 

[AllieBaba]

Whether or not he said it, it doesn't matter. It's the meaning of the comment, and whether or not being without a doubt about something is the same as saying "I have irrefutable proof".

It's not.

We're back to certain people having difficulty with the English language.

 

[Alpha1]

He KNEW there was not absolute certainty...there is no mistake there. Every analyst has said that ALL of the intell surrounding Iraqi WMD's came laden with caveats and qualifiers.... there was doubt...there was uncertainty.

If HE said it was what he believed with certainty, who the fuck are you to tell him he believed something else....ALL the intell was laden with caveats and qualifiers....so what....and how the hell did you get to read ALL the intell...ours and intell coming from all over the world concerning this subject....intell covering years and years.....
You're just full of shit..Bush hate...and your own ugly opinions....


If you make this stupid claim week after week, year after year for maybe 7 or 8 years, are you making a mistake, a liar or just extremely stupid....

Originally Posted by maineman View Post
he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... nor was he acquited. He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.

He MAY have lied under oath?....HE MAY HAVE ? HE FUCKIN ADMITTED HE LIED....

He was never brought to court on that charge?? READ the Articles of Impeachment, idiot.....

He was never acquitted of perjury?...THE FULL SENATE VOTED ON THE CHARGES.....

So i can't be a lie or a mistake, to repeat the nonsense for years, stupid is the only answer left.....

 

[Dr Grump]

No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.

I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?

Hardly.

Your argument is fallable. Your example demands faith not proof. WMDs are tangible, solid objects that can be seen to be - a god can't. Try again...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

HAHAHA!

I think you answered your own question.




When it comes time for WAR then, yes, a president probably needs more EVIDENCE than your standard christian faith.


Like I said.. IVE quoted the man. You silly bastards can wallow in your Suspended Disbelief as much as you want to. Trying to save political face won't land you the white house in 08.

And we have quoted all the democrats that said EXACTLY the same thing, making them all liars as well, RIGHT? Making all the intel agencies around the world liars also? Making the UN liars for running a program when they knew no weapons existed?

 

[Dr Grump]

Whether or not he said it, it doesn't matter. It's the meaning of the comment, and whether or not being without a doubt about something is the same as saying "I have irrefutable proof".

It's not.

We're back to certain people having difficulty with the English language.

It seems you are the one with the English language. Of course it's the same as irrefutable proof. If he doesn't have irrefutable proof, then he must have had some doubt. We have proven that he said he had NO doubt..go figure..

 

[Alpha1]

No, that doesn't wash. A person doesn't have to have irrefutable proof to be without doubt.

I have absolutely no doubt that God exists and looks over me. Am I liar because other people don't believe?

Hardly.

Simple....to the point...and explained plainly enough that even a moron like mm should be able to understand....