Republicans I ask....is Rumsfeld a liar....?

[Nattydread]

story.news.yahoo.com/news...eld_iraq_3

It says 70% somehow believes that there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Count me among the 30% who HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR MONTHS......9/11....IRAQ ....TWO VERY DIFFERENT ISSUES!

But why do ya'll harbour this belief? Could it be the bush propaganda machine is working better than even he imagined?


________
California medical marijuana (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[NYIndependence]

Why is it that Gore's slim majority in the popular vote is so valued by the left, while the opinions of America is only valued when you find it to be politically agreeable?
________
Honda CRF series specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CRF_series)

[Nattydread]

Don't question how we got here. Rather look at what myself and several others have been drubbing in your head for months now!


IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!

NO AMERICAN GI IN IRAQ TODAY IS PROTECTING A SINGLE AMERICAN!

OK..I'll give you the argument that you save Iraqis from Saddam despite the obvious questions..

The slaughter that Saddam did was in the 80's even Powell admit that in his recent visit to Iraq. Why now?
Why is there no one from the bush regime bng held accountable for mis-leading america?
Now that we mindlessly wonder into this mess ..how are we going to get out and when?
________
Maine Dispensaries (http://maine.dispensaries.org/)

[WantaghDem]

You're not good with facts, or honesty, but you sure can push those buttons!

Well over half a million people is slim to you? Funny....the same people who say that, claim that Bush's Florida "margin" of 300 or so was HUGE.

Please don't start in with your "i just took a stats class, and with 105,405,100 votes cast, 500,000 means...." nonsense. Gore won the popular vote....period. Only a conservative would qualify it in any way.

Of all presidential elections in US history, only 11 men were elected with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Bush....Gore got more, which is all that counts - AND his margin was bigger than several elections.


________
Ferrari 328 specifications (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_328)

[NYIndependence]

Quote:Of all presidential elections in US history, only 11 men were elected with a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Bush
So about 25% of all the presidents in our history have been elected with smaller percentages that Bush.
Quote:Gore got more, which is all that counts
Quote:Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector
So, where do you teach history?
________
Zephyr engine (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Zephyr_engine)

[WantaghDem]

It's funny...the students who try to snipe at you, and try to find supposed flaws in your teaching, are the ones who always end up getting the worst grades in the class...because they spend so much time worrying about you, they don't do a damn bit of work themselves.

"So about 25% of all the presidents in our history have been elected with smaller percentages that Bush."

No, THIRTY THREE Presidents in US history have recved LARGER percentages of the popular vote than Bush....and this is a moot point, since we are discussing NOT the election at large, but the SPECIFIC POINT of the popular vote...which Bush DID NOT WIN (see below).

"Gore got more, which is all that counts"
(citation from the Constitution that had to be copied and pasted, not recited)

This would be relevant, if we were talking about this subject. We weren't. We were talking about the POPULAR VOTE; specifically about the MARGIN between Gore (the winner) and Bush (the loser). YOU claimed that it was slim. It was not, nther in real terms or in relation to other presidential elections. And what matters in terms of the popular vote is NOT the margin, but the one who recves the plurality of the vote.

See the subject line for the answer to your last "question."

Wrong on all counts....consistency ought to be admired, even if, finally, it is in vain.
________
California Medical Marijuana (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[NYIndependence]

Quote:So about 25% of all the presidents in our history have been elected with smaller percentages that Bush."

No, THIRTY THREE Presidents in US history have recved LARGER percentages of the popular vote than Bush.
I'll take a break from giving you history lessons. Now I will teach you a math lesson. In American history there have been 43 Presidents and according to you, 11 of which won with percentages below Bush. That means 25% of all Presidents were below Bush. Those are not opinions that you can disagree with, those are facts. (I know what you're thinking, "He must be a conservative if he uses mathematical logic to defend the president.")

And by the way, anyone who thinks this
Quote:Gore got more, which is all that counts
represents anything besides ignorance of the electoral college, you need a lobotomy.
Quote:Wrong on all counts....consistency ought to be admired, even if, finally, it is in vain.
If anything is to be admired in this thread, it is that you finally gave up on the childish practice of adding up strikes to insult those who you disagree with politically. Perhaps you may have matured, or (most likely) you will return to your usual vicious intolerance.

Now stop stalking me
________
Kawasaki AR80 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_AR80)

[WantaghDem]

Zero. For completely ignoring the instructions and for making up your own questions and then answering them (incorrectly, by the way!).

No extra credit offered.


________
Herbal Vaporizers (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

[Yonivore]

Hey WantaghDEm:

Give me a verbatim quote from Secretary Rumsfeld that supports your claim that he lied.

George W. Bush took the oath of office on inauguration day, not Al Gore. I'd say that makes him the winner. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Wet_kitty (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Wet_kitty/)

[Billybob]

Yonivor, what's with the quotes?

The quote from George Bush is REALLY stupid, and always has been.

"I will make no distinction between those who HAVE commited acts of terrorism, and those who we can attack for political, economical, and Imperialistic reasons"

-Revised quote by ME!
________
Subaru tecnica international (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Subaru_Tecnica_International)

[Yonivore]

Well, it helps, if you're going to accuse someone of lying, to be able to say what the lie was. Or, is that all irrelevant with Demoncrats? You say they lied and because your a Demoncrat that makes it so? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Yonivore]

Well nattydread? You started this thread with your question. Care to share if it was answered? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
AVANDIA LAWYERS (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[Billybob]

There are almost too many lies to count at this point. I know this sounds like a cop-out, but it's really true. Here are a few:

1) Iraq had and was willing/able to use weapons of mass destruction. I think we all agree now that there was NO threat to the United States from Iraq. You may disagree, but that would be based solely on faith. There is NO evidence that Iraq was currently, or would ever be a threat to the United States.

2) "Mobile Weapons Labs" - This was touted by almost the entire Bush administration. It turns out these "Labs", which were nothing more than RVs, were for refining hydrogen for weather balloons.

3) Aluminum tubes, uh, for NUKES! This was the most ridiculous lie, as it was debunked by the UN and CIA BEFORE the president spoke about it as a threat. The tubes were for nothing more than conventional missiles. Not all that different from the missiles the US sold Iraq in the 80s.

4) There's much more to the lies than the IRaq debacle, although that's the most pressing, seng as we killed thousands of civilians, and are provoking a Vietnam-like gueriila war. Some of the other lies include Bush lying about his connections with Enron (Ken Lay was a close family friend and biggest campaign contributor for Bush, when he wasn't defrauded the entire state of California). Cheney lied about bng tied to Halliburton still. He has almost half a million shares of stock in that company, and recves his pension. So he DOES profit from that company recving a VERY lucrative government contract without having to compete for it. Rumsfeld has lied on several occasions, about the Iraq threat, the state of our armed forces (moral is VERY VERY low), Afghanistan, etc. Afghanistan, by the way, is very important to know about these days, because it was the last place America tried to rid of "terror". We destroyed thr entire infrastructure, placed cruel warlords in positions of power, and we didn't even get the Taliban out!

There's much much more, from Bush's crooked election, to his lies about his family's connections to the defense and oil industries, to his past alcoholism.

So, is that enough?
________
FORD C-MAX HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_C-Max)

[azellyn]

This thread is a great example.

The original issue is whether the Bush propoganda machine created teh overwhelming misperception that Saddam and 9/11 were linked.

Thanks to NYRepublican, who never addressed this issue--let me guess, because....he couldn't?--the thread is now an issue about an election three years ago.

Boy I tell you. You have to keep an eye on these folks. Repugs have become the best snake oil salesmen around.




________
VAPIR OXYGEN (http://oxygenvaporizer.com)

[Yonivore]

Quote:Billybob:

"There are almost too many lies to count at this point. I know this sounds like a cop-out,..."
You're right, it is. You didn't produce one single verbatim quote that can be demonstrated as a lie. Not one...even though "there are almost too many to count." Do you know what a lie is?
Quote:Billybob:

"...but it's really true."
See, I could characterize that statement as a lie. But, I won't. Why, because you obviously believe it to be true. I can't fault you there even if I think your reasoning is irrational.
Quote:Billybob:

"Here are a few:"
Oh boy! I can hardly contain my excitement.
Quote:Billybob:

"1) Iraq had and was willing/able to use weapons of mass destruction."
That's not false. They had and they did (proving willingness & ability) use weapons of mass destruction on at l 10 occassions between 1983 and 1990.
Quote:Billybob:

"I think we all agree now that there was NO threat to the United States from Iraq."
No, I don't think so. See above quotes from Demoncratic leaders dating from 1998 to 2003. I would say it's a more accurate statement that we all agreed (and most still do by the way) Iraq was a threat to the United States.
Quote:Billybob:

"You may disagree, but that would be based solely on faith. There is NO evidence that Iraq was currently, or would ever be a threat to the United States."
Well, since that a whole entirely different argument that if the Administration lied on matters of Iraq's involvement in September 11 and global terrorist, you're right - I do disagree. But, again, that's not what's bng discussed here.
Quote:Billybob:

"2) 'Mobile Weapons Labs' - This was touted by almost the entire Bush administration. It turns out these 'Labs', which were nothing more than RVs, were for refining hydrogen for weather balloons."
Again, based on the best information of the time, Hussn's defiance & stupidity (he could have brought the vehicles out for inspection when the U.S. claimed he had them), and Hussn's past record, I believe this was a reasonable conclusion. At worst, a mistake but, again, not the principle reason we went to war.
Quote:Billybob:

"3) Aluminum tubes, uh, for NUKES! This was the most ridiculous lie, as it was debunked by the UN and CIA BEFORE the president spoke about it as a threat. The tubes were for nothing more than conventional missiles. Not all that different from the missiles the US sold Iraq in the 80s."
No one discounted the fact that the tubes COULD be used in nuclear weapons development. Sorry, I don't buy that they lied. In fact, there are some who still believe that's what the tubes were destined for if not for the fact thr existence was revealed.

How clever of Saddam to have an "alibi" a "backup" plan, lest his ploy be discovered.

I mean, this is just as reasonable as asserting the Administration lied.
Quote:Billybob:

"4) There's much more to the lies than the IRaq debacle, although that's the most pressing, seng as we killed thousands of civilians, and are provoking a Vietnam-like gueriila war. Some of the other lies include Bush lying about his connections with Enron (Ken Lay was a close family friend and biggest campaign contributor for Bush, when he wasn't defrauded the entire state of California). Cheney lied about bng tied to Halliburton still. He has almost half a million shares of stock in that company, and recves his pension. So he DOES profit from that company recving a VERY lucrative government contract without having to compete for it. Rumsfeld has lied on several occasions, about the Iraq threat, the state of our armed forces (moral is VERY VERY low), Afghanistan, etc. Afghanistan, by the way, is very important to know about these days, because it was the last place America tried to rid of "terror". We destroyed thr entire infrastructure, placed cruel warlords in positions of power, and we didn't even get the Taliban out!"
I'm sorry, I couldn't find where you were making an accusation, just looked like a partisan Demoncratic rant.
Quote:Billybob:

"There's much much more, from Bush's crooked election, to his lies about his family's connections to the defense and oil industries, to his past alcoholism."
I see.
Quote:Billybob:

"So, is that enough?"
No, I'm afraid you weren't very persuasive. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
How To Use Magic Flight Launch Box (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/)

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry azellyn, it appears it was a Demoncrat that brought up the election.

I agree, that's a whole other thread.

I've pretty much stayed on topic. Care to respond? ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Sick From Wellbutrin (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Billybob]

All the examples I gave were assertions the Bush administration made that not only turned out to be false, but were known to be false BEFORE the claims were made to the American people.

I really don't understand how you think you can give a line by line debunking of my post without acknowledging that everything I pointed out is true!

And by the way, those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam used happened WHILE America was buddy/buddy with Iraq (they weren't "against us" at the time, so they were "with us"). The UN tried to take action at this atrocity, but the US blocked any UN action, and prevented IRaq from bng placed on the terrorist nations list. That famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam happened WHILE the gassing was taking place. So really, don't say he's used weapons of mass destruction without acknowledging the complexity of that situation.
________
Best Penny Stocks (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[Nattydread]

What can you say about someone who goes around quoting bush as if he were some great historical figure.

She/He is right of the far right..and obviously blinded by emotional loyalty.

When people are driven by emotion..rationale takes a back seat. Debate is meaningless. There is nothing you or I will say that could penetrate that dense cloud right now.

It would be easier to teach Stevie Wonder to drive than show her/he any facts!

Thats why you see no rebuttal from me to her drievel!
________
RubieROSE (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/RubieROSE/)

[Yonivore]

Quote:Billybob:

"All the examples I gave were assertions the Bush administration made that not only turned out to be false, but were known to be false BEFORE the claims were made to the American people."
Okay Billybob, of the "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," AND the "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Party.

(By the way, the first statement "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," isn't a lie but a legalistic parsing of the language to evade telling the truth - - one of the best ever excecuted, I admit. The second, "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," well, now that's a lie.)

Your example were mere Demoncratic characterizations of 4 incidents that occurred in the time leading up to the war with iraq. None of them listed the actual lies you assert were told.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion you just don't get the nature of this argument. There's a difference between lying and drawing erroneous conclusions...nther of which, I would argue, the Bush administration did. But, I grant you, it is arguable that the latter is a debatable issue. However, unless you produce a quote from a high ranking administration source that the U.S. government's position was that Iraq had PROVEN ties to al Qaeda and that Iraq WAS involved in the September 11 attacks, I think this thread is exhausted.

All that other stuff is for other arguments. Which, by the way, I'd love to engage you in.
Quote:Billybob:

"I really don't understand how you think you can give a line by line debunking of my post without acknowledging that everything I pointed out is true!"
Well, because none of your points contained any evidence of lying by the Administration. And, point by point, I demonstrated where, instead of bng a lie, it could have reasonably been a deduced conclusion. Oh, and by the way, conclusions that some of us hold were accurate...even if there is no conclusive evidence, yet discovered, to support that conclusion. Again, difference between belief and knowledge. And, since these weren't the reasons we went to war with Iraq, I'm not going to get heartburn over whether or not the conclusion are ever borne out.
Quote:Billybob:

"And by the way, those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam used happened WHILE America was buddy/buddy with Iraq (they weren't 'against us' at the time, so they were 'with us'). The UN tried to take action at this atrocity, but the US blocked any UN action, and prevented IRaq from bng placed on the terrorist nations list. That famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam happened WHILE the gassing was taking place. So really, don't say he's used weapons of mass destruction without acknowledging the complexity of that situation."
Assuming any of that is accurate, what does it have to do with the question of the Bush administration lying? Fact is, Saddam Hussn HAS, on at l 10 occassions, used weapons of mass destruction. Period. That's not a lie.

Come up with some lies Billybob. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Avandia Sickness (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[Billybob]

I don't understand why or how you think you can simply call people idiots and expect that to be an argument.

Can you NAME the "at l ten occasions" that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction?

And you seem to be basing your rationale on the definition of a "lie". What does it mean when the CIA and FBI debunk the theory of "mobile weapons labs", but the President and Vice President use that debunked evidece to support an invasion?

What you don't understand is how skillfully this administration has used the media to manipulate public opinion. Donald Rumsfeld has said on several occasions that it's a pentagon policy to spread misinformation to confuse "the enemy". That seems to ring true when you listen to the Bush administration speak. The president says one thing, and Rumsfeld says another.

But this is all beside the point, because I think I can guess what Yonivor's rebuttal will be. But my question is this, Yonivor, WHAT are you defending? What is it you like about the Bush administration. Certainly, the country is in much worse shape now than it was 5 years ago, don't you think? Why do you continue to demonize Clinton, who WAS the victim of a right wing conspiracy? He was a lousy president, just like most of them, but he's nowhere near as corrupt as Bushco.

Hey how about this, why don't you read buzzflash.com for a solid day. And I mean actually read it, don't do that thing people do where they've already decided not to listen. Just try that on for size for a while, it's a VERY informative website.

PS- I am NOT a democrat. Only someone who's been brainwashed into thinking there are only two sides to any argument would assume that.
________
Lincoln lincoln picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_Lincoln)

[Billybob]

Editorial: Truth / Too little of it on Iraq


Published September 17, 2003 ED17

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmster nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable. The list:

? Cheney repeated the mantra that the nation ignored the terrorism threat before Sept. 11. In fact, President Bill Clinton and his counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, took the threat very seriously, especially after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. By December, Clarke had prepared plans for a military operation to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, go after terrorist financing and work with police officials around the world to take down the terrorist network.

Because Clinton was to leave office in a few weeks, he decided against handing Bush a war in progress as he worked to put a new administration together.

Instead, Clarke briefed national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and others. He emphasized that time was short and action was urgent. The Bush administration sat on the report for months and months. The first high-level discussion took place on Sept. 4, 2001, just a week before the attacks. The actions taken by the Bush administration following Sept. 11 closely parallel actions recommended in Clarke's nine-month-old plan. Who ignored the threat?

? Cheney said that "we don't know" if there is a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He's right only in the sense that "we don't know" if the sun will come up tomorrow. But all the evidence available says it will -- and that Iraq was not involved in Sept. 11.

Cheney offered stuff, but it wasn't evidence. He said that one of those involved in planning the attack, an Iraqi-American, had returned to Iraq after the attack and had been protected, perhaps even supported, by Saddam Hussn. That proves exactly nothing about Iraq's links to the attack itself.

Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer -- but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel "quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports" of such a meeting.

Moreover, the United States now has in custody the agent accused of meeting with Atta. Even though he must know how much he would benefit by simply saying, "Yes, I met Atta in Prague," there has been no announcement by the administration trumpeting that vindication of its belief in an Iraq-Sept. 11 link.

? In trying to make that link, Cheney baldly asserted that Iraq is the "geographic base" for those who struck the United States on Sept. 11. No, that would be Afghanistan.

? On weapons of mass destruction, Cheney made a number of statements that were misleading or simply false. For example, he said the United States knew Iraq had "500 tons of uranium." Well, yes, and so did the U.N. inspectors. What Cheney didn't say is that the uranium was low-grade waste from nuclear energy plants, and could not have been useful for weapons without sophisticated processing that Iraq was incapable of performing.

Cheney also said, "To suggest that there is no evidence that [Saddam] had aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons, I don't think is valid." It's probably not valid; Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. But Cheney is changing the subject: The argument before the war wasn't Saddam's aspirations; it was Saddam's active program to build nuclear weapons.

Cheney also said "a gentleman" has come forward "with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you need to build such a system." That would be scientist Mahdi Obdi, who had buried the centrifuge pieces in his back yard -- in 1991. Obdi insisted that Iraq hadn't restarted its nuclear weapons program after the end of the first Gulf War. The centrifuge pieces might have signaled a potential future threat, but they actually disprove Cheney's prewar assertion that Iraq had, indeed, "reconstituted" its nuclear-weapons program.

Cheney also said he put great store in the ongoing search for Saddam's WMD program: "We've got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David Kay, who used to run UNSCOM [the U.N. inspection effort]." In fact, Kay did not run UNSCOM; for one year he was the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency's team in Iraq.

But it's funny Cheney should mention Kay. Last summer, the leader of the 1,400-person team searching for WMD expressed great confidence that they would find what they were looking for. He said he wouldn't publicize discoveries piecemeal but would submit a comprehensive report in mid-September. Apparently he has submitted the report to George Tenet at the CIA. The question now is whether it will ever be made public; several reports in the press have suggested that Kay has come up way short. In five months, 1,400 experts haven't found the WMD locations that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said before the war were well-known to the United States.

Cheney also said that an investigation by the British had "revalidated the British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa -- what was in the State of the Union speech." The British investigation did nothing of the kind. A parliamentary investigative committee said the documents on the uranium are bng rnvestigated, but that, based on the existence of those documents, the Blair government made a "reasonable" assertion and had not tried to deliberately mislead the British people.

To explore every phony statement in the vice president's "Meet the Press" interview would take far more space than is available. This merely points out some of the most egregious examples. Opponents of the war are fond of saying that "Bush lied and our soldiers died." In fact, they'd have reason to assert that "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lied and our soldiers died." It's past time the principals behind this mismanaged war were called to account for thr deliberate misstatements.

For information supporting the points made in this editorial, go to www.startribune.com/2cents.

[i]
________
Vaporgenie (http://vaporizers.net/vapor-genie)

[Yonivore]

Quote:nattyhead:

"What can you say about someone who goes around quoting bush as if he were some great historical figure.

She/He is right of the far right..and obviously blinded by emotional loyalty.

When people are driven by emotion..rationale takes a back seat. Debate is meaningless. There is nothing you or I will say that could penetrate that dense cloud right now.

It would be easier to teach Stevie Wonder to drive than show her/he any facts!

Thats why you see no rebuttal from me to her drievel!"
Wow! You really told me. The pinnacle of your debating career I bet.

By the way, I'm a Libertarian that has serious issues over President Bush's domestic agenda. So, I'm not a Bush lackey. I just think he is prosecuting the war on terrorism properly.

And let me qualify that further by saying, in the current "two party" system, I would much rather have a Conservative executive than a Liberal one. I still think we should all be Libertarians though. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. BushEdited by: Yonivore at: 9/19/03 1:18 pm

________
Marijuana Cultivators Business Listing (http://www.dispensaries.org/)

[Yonivore]

Well, you win...I'm convinced.

NO, wait! That's a lie!!!

You still haven't produced a lie. You've produced a lot of characterizations of what the administration has said (without actually quoting the administration) to bolster the argument that the administration lied.

For example...from the "good" article:

Quote:"? In trying to make that link, Cheney baldly asserted that Iraq is the "geographic base" for those who struck the United States on Sept. 11. No, that would be Afghanistan."
What Vice President Cheney actually said was this:
Quote:"On Sunday, for example, Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the 'the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11.'"
He also stated, in the same context, when asked "whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was behind the attacks.":
Quote:""No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection."
This was followed by an appearance of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice on Nightline, the Tuesday hence:
Quote:"White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in 'a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged.'"
Which was followed by this quote from Dr. Rice when asked about the same poll as Vice President Cheney:
Quote:"Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, 'We have never claimed that Saddam Hussn had ther direction or control of 9-11.'"
Finally, referring to the recent statements by the administration:
Quote:President Bush:

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussn was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida."

AND

"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussn had al-Qaida ties."
Okay, now are they still lying or could there be a genuine belief that, even though there is no evidence of a connection, this administration believes in an al Qaeda/Hussn tie even if Saddam Hussn was never involved in the September 11 attacks.

And, as far as bng the "geographic base of the terrorists," it is my "reasoned" conclusion that Iraq's clear ties to terrorism, combined with thr geographic location in the Arab world DID make it the geographic base for terrorist activities. Also, I believe liberation and stabilization of Iraq will put quite a dent in terrorist's abilities to organize in the region.

Again, where were the lies?

Your previous "vast right wing conspiracy" post just makes people hear black helicopters...no substance at all.




?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
NastyMan live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/NastyMan)

[Yonivore]

Quote:"I don't understand why or how you think you can simply call people idiots and expect that to be an argument."[/b]
I don't recall calling anyone an idiot but, if I did, I would apologize.
Quote:"Can you NAME the "at l ten occasions" that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction?"[/b]
No, I can't without some research and I'm not inclined to do that in order to satisfy a position that has little to do with the argument. I based my comment on previous information I got from a reliable source. I suspect, and it could probably be verified, the number of times Saddam Hussn used chemical weapons are all related to the times he used them against the Kurds and the times he used them in the Iran/Iraq war.

In other words, the "10" figure could refer to him using them multiple times in relationship to the two most "infamous" incidents of his using them. I don't know of him using them in any other context. ?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.? - - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

?We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.? - - President George W. Bush
________
Live sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)