Liars Liars !

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Google: clinton, Iraq, 1998 = 3.74 million hits

Let's not forget about this little gem that the dems NEVER mention

The Iraq Liberation Act

Hmmmmm . . .

Well, no one ever said Saddam was in compliance which was the root of all Clinton's actions--UN compliance.  It was linking non compliance to de facto weapons programs that Bush stated flatly we knew without question were there and speciously linking them to 9/11.  Those are, again, false assertions that Bush made.

Heck, even Kofi Anan said Saddam should get compliant.  So what?  

But that is the problem with this specious and laughable defense:

Bush did not invade on non compliance, he invaded on what he said were terrorist related problems linked to known WMD.  No association with terrorists or WMD have been found.  Had he simply said "I want him dead and he aint compliant" we'd not have had as much support but no one could now call him a liar.

See how that works?

Everyone wanted Hussein gone, but Bush tried to get action on this by Congress on the compliance issue and when the vote failed--in a GOP controlled Legislature mind you--he sent in a new report ith a "new loook" at the same data  and said "read this and see if you like it better."  

Sure that is not fudging numbers to get your way?

Another problem is we see the standard OP for these guys is lie about anyone who says otherwise.  So, if you have a pack of known character assassins saying not to trust the other guy, why believe them?  If Bush has a credibility issue, why is that everyone else's fault?

Also, why enunciate a Bush doctrine if it wasn't meant to stand on its own but was really simply a rehash of Democratic doctrine?  Neocon doctrine states that all democratic doctrine was appeasement and invasion was imperative to protect American interests.  Which is it?  Can't have it both ways.

Pre-emptive war is new US doctrine, period.  If your first use of it proves to have been errant, blaming it on everyone else is poor behavior, it is immature and simply churlish petulance.


Sakai

[JBA]

Libya has given up its WMD programs

Syria is out of Lebanon

Palestine is getting its statehood

Taliban is ousted and Democracy has come to Afghanistan (Freed Women for first Time can attend school, work and vote)

Iraq will soon be a democracy,

North Korea will soon negotiate a plane to dismantle it’s Nukes (that Clinton gave it)

What dose this all mean………………….











NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR BUSH.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Rude
I have never blamed you for doubting Bush and his motives...legitimate effort as a American.

How on Gods green earth can you dismiss, not only Clinton, but the so many others, especially Albright.
 

Simple enough. The Clinton admin did not get us into a pre-emptive war.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by JBA
What dose this all mean………………….

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Krusher
The credibility of the Italian TV station that is producing the doc your hanging your hat on is pretty thin.
 

Not as thin as your credibility Krusher.

Monday Bush said anyone calling for withdrawal was aiding terrorism, Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.

I guess the GOP senate is a pack of traitors?  

Aren't you glad the GOP is finally getting out and calling its own senators liars?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Sakai

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Sakai
Not as thin as your credibility Krusher.

Monday Bush said anyone calling for withdrawal was aiding terrorism, Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.

I guess the GOP senate is a pack of traitors?  

Aren't you glad the GOP is finally getting out and calling its own senators liars?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

Sakai

Oh really?  a quick fact check shows you to have the credibility problem LOL



By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 15, 6:27 PM ET

The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.

The overall measure, adopted 98-0

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
Oh really?  a quick fact check shows you to have the credibility problem LOL



By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 15, 6:27 PM ET

The GOP-controlled Senate rejected a Democratic call Tuesday for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq but urged President Bush to outline his plan for "the successful completion of the mission" in a bill reflecting a growing bipartisan unease with his Iraq policies.

The overall measure, adopted 98-0

Yes K they rejected the dem plan then went into a meeting and changed the line about time tables then presented it as their own.
Credibility?

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
According to who ? the DNC, the NYT? or the 40 + current and former Presidents, Senators, Secretary of states, administration officials and  Intelligence agencies from around the world who all said the same thing.

It is time the Dems stop playing politics and come clean with their agenda to lie until it becomes the truth.

According to http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

US House of Reps
Committee on Government Reform
Special Investigations

Try to look at this admin without seeing a lib behind every tree. The libs/dems have no power in this gov. Anything wrong at this time cannot be attributed to libs/dems. You and your party are in absolute control. Can you not look at it with an open mind?

Those who are criticising dissent in this country are the real anti Americans...

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sakai
Hmmmmm . . .

Well, no one ever said Saddam was in compliance which was the root of all Clinton's actions--UN compliance.  It was linking non compliance to de facto weapons programs that Bush stated flatly we knew without question were there and speciously linking them to 9/11.  Those are, again, false assertions that Bush made.

Heck, even Kofi Anan said Saddam should get compliant.  So what?  

But that is the problem with this specious and laughable defense:

Bush did not invade on non compliance, he invaded on what he said were terrorist related problems linked to known WMD.  No association with terrorists or WMD have been found.  Had he simply said "I want him dead and he aint compliant" we'd not have had as much support but no one could now call him a liar.

See how that works?

Everyone wanted Hussein gone, but Bush tried to get action on this by Congress on the compliance issue and when the vote failed--in a GOP controlled Legislature mind you--he sent in a new report ith a "new loook" at the same data  and said "read this and see if you like it better."  

Sure that is not fudging numbers to get your way?

Another problem is we see the standard OP for these guys is lie about anyone who says otherwise.  So, if you have a pack of known character assassins saying not to trust the other guy, why believe them?  If Bush has a credibility issue, why is that everyone else's fault?

Also, why enunciate a Bush doctrine if it wasn't meant to stand on its own but was really simply a rehash of Democratic doctrine?  Neocon doctrine states that all democratic doctrine was appeasement and invasion was imperative to protect American interests.  Which is it?  Can't have it both ways.

Pre-emptive war is new US doctrine, period.  If your first use of it proves to have been errant, blaming it on everyone else is poor behavior, it is immature and simply churlish petulance.


Sakai

The simple problem is you cannot back up ANY of this on fact.

and then there's this http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

[Silat]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
The simple problem is you cannot back up ANY of this on fact.

and then there's this http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Guns hiya:)

 How does your link knock down what Sakai is saying? I must be missing something. One short speech doesnt mean much.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Silat
According to http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

US House of Reps
Committee on Government Reform
Special Investigations

Try to look at this admin without seeing a lib behind every tree. The libs/dems have no power in this gov. Anything wrong at this time cannot be attributed to libs/dems. You and your party are in absolute control. Can you not look at it with an open mind?

Those who are criticising dissent in this country are the real anti Americans...

I have already wasted my time reading this once and my pov stands.

It reads like very selective cherry picking.


Try and understand what the bottom line is for Henry Waxman and then re-read the pdf. If you really have that open mind you mentioned it will be very clear.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Krusher
I have already wasted my time reading this once and my pov stands.

It reads like very selective cherry picking.


Try and understand what the bottom line is for Henry Waxman and then re-read the pdf. If you really have that open mind you mentioned it will be very clear.

You prove my point. You cannot and will not read or digest anything that isnt written or said by a rep or right wing pundit.
Please prove the inaccuracy of anything in that OFFICIAL document.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Debonair
Low Spark is a great record

I wouldn't know. A NYTHING that has boys in high heels...rather sounds unattractive to me.

Knock yourself out. It's all you:lol

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Silat
You prove my point. You cannot and will not read or digest anything that isnt written or said by a rep or right wing pundit.
Please prove the inaccuracy of anything in that OFFICIAL document.

In your mind I am sure I do, but that works both ways.

You cannot tell me you read that report and honestly could not see the manipulation of statements that was clear from the opening pages.


You ask me to prove something that we both know is open to interpretation.  The Dems are call them "misleading" or "lies" not because they have any actual proof that they are either, but because they can do so without actually needing proof. The selective quotes , taken out of context and used subjectively are not going to convince any juror who doesn't have a pre conceived bias.

So prove to me without a doubt that the officials knew those statements were misleading or lies. Then tell me why they were not lies when used by the previous administration, current senators and 40 + others who have said the same things.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Silat
Yes K they rejected the dem plan then went into a meeting and changed the line about time tables then presented it as their own.
Credibility?

I seriously doubt that only one line was changed so I googled looking for evidence.  I couldn't find anything that came close to that statement.  

That being said it really has nothing to do with Sakai's blatantly misleading statement of fact.


Tuesday Senate Republicans called for a withdrawal.