Better late than never I guess.
If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.
In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.
This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
LA Times: Bush Never Lied About Iraq. Duh...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
And yet, the same moonbats still demand impeachment over "Bush lied."
I expect the usual onslaught of our own local moonbats to continue ignoring the truth, Bush Did Not Lie, and the whole thing was invented to help Kerry's opportunism in the run-up to the 2004 campaign season.
The only lies have been the Democrat Party's shameful power grab with no regard to the safety of the country or the people.
Nice try Victoria. Your post appears to be a news story but upon further investigation is merely an opinion piece by James Kirchick. If you are into believing all opinion pieces in the LA Times, that is your burden.
Thank you kloin for your alertness. Victoria even fooled Lew.
So, according to the LA times article it was just that he has poor intelligence. Isn't that the presidents job to know whats going on, and to get the facts straight? I don't buy it either, thats what always happens when powerful criminals get caught, they pass the buck down the ladder. Heres a great example of this character flaw: Bush gets caught in a lie and then tries to justify it in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=tSBgGXoNgrQ&
feature=related
The president told congress he would be making a second case to the UN prior to any military action, he did not. The president said the next attack from saddam hussein could come in the form of a mushroom cloud when Scott Ritter, the Chief Weapons inspector had informed the CIA and the White house that no nuclear weapons existed in Iraq and there was no nuclear weapons program. If I told you that your next door neighbor was going to shoot you with a shot gun after I had been told by the CIA and the UN that the shot gun did not exist, I would be lying, wouldnt I? I feel bad for our President, he was stuck in the middle of the war hawks and the American people. Please someone, bring up the Colon Powell speech at the UN? Those diagrams are drawings done on a computer, he admitted it when he was interviewed by Fox News.
Uh huh. This President doesn't lie. He always tells the truth. Whether it's about torture, or not spying on Americans without a warrant, or Valerie Plame, or that he will never ever ever fire Don Rumsfeld (he said that one while he was looking for a replacement in case Republicans lost the 2006 election), or so many others. In fact, spotting a Bush lie is about as hard as shooting a fish in a barrel. It's a cottage industry. http://www.bushlies.net/ http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/toptenlies.htm
Like I said, "I expect the usual onslaught of our own local moonbats to continue ignoring the truth"
Whereas Iago seems to believe that history begins this morning. Democrats didn't say similar or identical things to Bush! That happened too long ago so it doesn't count as fact! The truth is out there as long as it doesn't conflict with our beliefs! You're just proving Lew's point about moonbats, Iago.
Actually, jonny, the President isn't the CIA, FBI, or any of the other intelligence agencies that America uses. He's only as good as the information he has and that information is only as good as the agencies that offer it. The president can ask the CIA to go back and check a billion times but he himself has no ability to go out and personally verify intelligence information. By definition, it's a lie if he says something untrue knowing it to be untrue. "Mistake" and "lie" aren't synonyms, no matter how hard you and others want them to be.
So we and the rest of the world imagined Colin Powel's presentation to the UN (which is the second case Bush was referring to). OK, glad you cleared that up for us. And the fact that a diagram was done on a computer proves... that's right, NOTHING. In the 21st century, computers are useful for making drawing and diagrams. Amazing, isn't it?
As to Scott Ritter, one person telling the CIA that its information is wrong means nothing. If a random Cuban in the 1960s told the CIA and the White House that there were no missiles on Cuba and there never would be any missiles on Cuba, does this count as proof that the CIA is wrong, no matter how highly placed the person making the claim is? Um, no, it doesn't. Nice try, cnskate36.
A cottage industy among those who want to believe and are really good at decieving people who don't know the difference between a lie and a mistake. People like you, Camryn.
That doesn't fly Kieth. As cnskate36 pointed out the prez was told and sent memos and he persisted on telling lies anyway. But even so, the president of the united states of america should be much more aware of what is going on in the world. So now, at the end of Bushies term you republicans want to rally around to make excuses for him? That boats going to sink, you had better start swimming.
This is a new dawn. Stand back eveybody and watch the approval ratings break 30%
Stand back eveybody and watch the approval ratings break 30%
Better than standing back watching as suicide bombers hit our malls, schools and what have you.
The President Has Kept Us Safe
There's something of a difference between rallying around a president that is no bright shining example of leadership and exchanging broadsides with his enemies over absurd claims they make. Such as the "Bush lied" claptrap. Try as you folks might, you have yet to demonstrate that anything Bush said fits the definition of a lie. One memo you get says that Iraq has nukes, another memo you get says they don't. Is it your (absurd) contention that if you make the claim that one memo is correct over the other, it counts as a lie because you were told that Iraq doesn't have nukes? By that reasoning, wouldn't saying that Iraq doesn't have nukes be a lie too, since you were told that Iraq does have nukes? Unlike Clinton, whose "I did not have sex with that woman" was an outright lie (and Clinton knew, for a fact, that it was false), Bush saying that "Iraq has nuclear weapons" only fits the definition of a lie in the special dictionary that states "lie: any statement by certain public officials that later turns out to be false."
Get real, jonny... this argument is so old, so often proved to be nothing more than a fantasy, and so untrue in and of itself that it's tiresome. When you come up with an original argument (or actual evidence that Bush lied, knowing that what he was saying, for a fact, was untrue), go right ahead. Until then, please stop wasting all of our time.
kloin, iago, jonny, cnskate, camryn, Rightwingwacko and other Lunar Chiroptera, why not just post "PROOF" of his lies instead of opinions?
Seems you distrust "opinions" unless they agree with your misguided view.
Even those who don't like Bush, but still retian a slight semblance of honesty and credibility have admitted he did not lie.
'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
QUESTION: What do ya'll do with all the Democrat and left media claim's of WMD's, dangers of Saddam and ties to Bin Laden (those "lies" ya'll claim Bush made) spoken and broadcast prior to Bush winning the 2000 election?
Even the former darling of the Dems and women all over once said, when asked by Larry King about the absence of WMD's, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."
Hillary Clinton, April 23 2004 Larry King Show.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Saddam will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
1999 ABC News Report Video
Given that the claim is only Bush lied and he is soon out of office, and that many of the Democrats stating those same "lies" retain their offices or prominent standing still, isn't it the Democrats who shouldn't be trusted due to so many "lies?"
Truth seekers. Why waste your time here while the righties yet again attempt to defend the lame duck liar. This time with a column from the opinion page.
It’s too late for rehabilitation. We know it. They know it.
Instead read The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder by Vincent Bugliosi (the prosecutor of the Manson family) A best seller that is thoroughly researched. Great on the facts and the law. Forget impeachment and go for the crimes.
Somebody above asked for proof of lies. Hard Cheese I checked out The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and found much evidence. Bugliosi says:
In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.
On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.
According to the October 1, 2002 NIE, “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological warfare] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war.” The report concluded that Hussein was not planning to use any weapons of mass destruction; further, Hussein would only use weapons of mass destruction he was believed to have if he were first attacked, that is, he would only use them in self-defense.
Preparing its declassified version of the NIE for Congress, which became known as the White Paper, the Bush administration edited the classified NIE document in ways that significantly changed its inference and meaning, making the threat seem imminent and ominous.
In the original NIE report, members of the U.S. intelligence community vigorously disagreed with the CIA’s bloated and inaccurate conclusions. All such opposing commentary was eliminated from the declassified White Paper prepared for Congress and the American people.
So what do we do about the other 900 documented lies by the Bushco?
From the huffington Post...
http://tinyurl.com/5g9lz7
Lew, your comeback sucked. You got owned, admit it.
Ms. Taft sites a pure opinion piece by James Kirchick as if it were a pure news story. LA Times: Bush never lied. Duh.
This is as deliberately misleading as the Bush administration's Iraq propaganda campaign was. Pretending an opinion piece was a news story is dishonest and misleading. As was twisting, exaggerating, cherry-picking, and outright lying about intelligence.
If you want to examine pure facts about the lead up to the war, the Downing Street Memo is a good place to start.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
Pretty damning stuff, isn't it? The facts and intelligence were being "fixed" around the policy? Saddam's WMD capability was less than that of Libya? There was little discussion of the aftermath of war?
For those unfamiliar, the Downing Street Memo was not a newspaper editorial column. It is the summary of a meeting between Tony Blair, his upper level advisors, and the head of the British foreign intelligence service ("C") discussing C's recent visit with Mr. Bush. The British government has never denied the authenticity of the memo.
I totally agree with Ms. Taft. It still matters. It matters a lot. We were lied to and mislead into a war. Thousands are dead. It matters a lot.
There is only one remedy. Impeach. Convict. Remove from office, indict, convict, imprison. We can redeem our country's honor. Long live democracy, God bless America.
And still, all the Lunar Chiroptera ignore claims by the ones they look to for salvation before Bush was elected and depend on others opinions.
Post the actual documents along with transcripts of where he lied, not leftist cries of it, while ignoring their own pre-2001 claims.
As for me "being owned," get your Socialist Mecca in by Democrats and you will find out just who is really owned.
And for all of you who did not think the war was about oil, get a load of this:
BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
Lew asked for proof and got it with both barrels from Iago and
Jose Fuentes-Valenzuela. BTW Jose there is a second Manning Memo:
On January 31, 2003, Bush met in the Oval Office with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a memo summarizing the meeting discussion, Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that Bush and Blair expressed their doubts that any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq, and that there was tension between Bush and Blair over finding some justification for the war that would be acceptable to other nations. Bush was so worried about the failure of the UN inspectors to find hard evidence against Hussein that he talked about three possible ways, Manning wrote, to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. One way, Bush said, was to fly “U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, [falsely] painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions and that would justify war. Bush was calculating to create a war, not prevent one.
If Bush lied then so did everyone else during the Clinton administration and non of the libs are honest enough them selves to admit it. Clinton certainly lied in 1998 citing the WMDs as justification for lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq. Instead we are fed a new reality where Iraqi WMDs was an idea that was hatched on Jan 20th 2001 at noon.
We would not be having this discussion if the President was named Gore. Those posters who claim Lew is owned are they them selves are owned by this new false reality idea that was promoted successfully by the democracts.
Actually there was one man on this planet who was lying about WMDs and his name is not Bush. His name was Saddam Hussain.
You know you have won the argument when the fallback is "but Clinton,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"
Nobody died when Clinton Lied...
Ive been watching videos on you tube of bush (just type in Bush and lie)
and there are so many examples where he is caught red handed in lies. He doesn't care because he knows he can get away with it. So for all of you who say Bush didn't lie: Just because you want something to be a certain way it doesn't make it so. Get the facts, and GET OVER IT. I just hope President Obama actually calls for an investigation and puts Bush and Cheney into prison where they belong.
PS: Lying isn't the only law they broke.
Yeah... I wondered if one of you would bring up that book. I rate it right up there with "Favorite Son" and "I, Rigoberta Menchu"
which, by the by, were eagerly
accepted by leftists and later
proved to be utterly fraudulant.
I notice that the quotations
that Iago supplied were claims
like the ones that David Appell
likes to use... all that's missing
is evidence that they're true.
But let's just assume, for fun,
that they're true. None of the claims actually prove what you claim they do. After one NIE, Bush says something that's the opposite of that one NIE. What this claim fails to address is whether there was a subsequent one, whether the information being cited from that NIE was a minority opinion, and whether the NIE cited was graded at the same level of reliability as previous ones. Without that information, the claim about the NIE is irrelevant.
The second claim is similarly irrelevant since it doesn't related exactly what Tenat said and doesn't explain where in the NIE the information is found; there are minority and majority opinons presented in NIEs and you can credibly claim that Bush was given certain information in the NIE if that information is contained in the minority opinion; that it is contained in the minority opinion generally indicates lesser reliability. Once again, this claim is irrelevant.
The other claims quoted by Iago are similar in being irrelevant, not proving anything, or being unsupported claims. Really clever Iago... someone who still can't spell my name tries to prove something without citation.
I can't help but recall the furor over the DSM... and how it disappeared after even the media realized that it meant nothing. Clever, Jose... you fail.
A respectable use of inference, Kloin, but you act as if the fact that contracts awarded after many years after the military victory was won in Iraq proves that the reason that Iraq was invaded was to get at the oil. Logic doesn't follow, sorry.
Well, Rightwingwacko... I find it interesting that you quoted none of the memo in support, just claimed that it said something. Try again, this time with quotation and citation.
OK, jonny. Do any of you YET have any proof of lies or the breaking of laws? No? Then cut out the fantasy life... the real world is getting tired of it and I'll get a real kick out of the media burying the failure of this vaunted investigation on page A13 so only the conservatives know about it. Investigate away, jonny... who knows, maybe after you run through as many investigations as Democrats have done of the oil companies, you'll actually find a smidgeon of evidence that the leftist fantasty is true (unlike the results of investigating the oil companies).
What "proof" wacky?
I see not a single link to copies of actual memos or transcripts of Bush speaking contrary to them.
Hate to tell you, but Huffington Post is no more actual "proof" than is DailyKOS or Democratic Undergound, just opinions of leftists.
The "infamous Downing Street Memo" is even more laughable. Did you miss where it was a retyped copy, the original destroyed and unavailable? Think Dan Rather!!!
Another small matter the retyper failed to take into consideration, it has been official US Policy to remove Saddam Hussein from power since the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998.
Bush had no need to trump up or invent anything at all, it was all handed to him by his predecessor, B. J. Clinton.
Ya'll just keep baying at the moon. It hasn't gotten you anywhere at all.
Lew and kmoo you can keep trying but there are just too many holes in the Bush dike and you don't have enough fingers.
Holes? Are you kidding? These are major breaches. This inundation of Bush lies is a 500 year flood.
I think the better analogy is that you're trying to breach a concrete dam with a plastic spoon. You can claim progress until the end of days but you haven't actually accomplished anything. Remember that to demonstrate a lie, you have to prove that Bush said something false knowing, for a fact, that it was false. Not recieved a memo that it might be false. Not heard a CIA report that something was a possibility. Actually knew for a fact.
I think y'all are getting a brief glimpse of why it's normally hard to prove perjury... proving that someone knew something isn't all that easy. With Clinton it was fairly easy... when you claim that you don't know someone that you provably had sex with many times, it's a sure bet that you're lying.
Lew -
I'm not a leftist.
I am a member of the Clark County GOP, and was a county delegate during the primaries, attending the caucus, and county convention.
Just because I disagree with the current administration doesn't mean I'm a leftist. Thats the problem with this left vs. right mentality. Nobody is allowed to make up their own minds. It's all about "party loyalty" for you guys.
This is why Ron Paul will NOT get a speaking role at the RNC. Because he refuses to support McCain.
Michael Delavar is another good example. The Washington state GOP wouldn't endorse him, because he refuses to support McCain. (The real reason is to keep Ron Paul republicans OUT of their party).
The constitution should come before party loyalty. What kind of system do we have where you are forced to abandon your own principle for party loyalty? (In Ron Paul's case, they expect him to throw 20 years of consistent voting records out the window to support a liberal RINO).
The GOP has shot itself in the foot, disenfranchising 1.2 million American voters who want smaller government, sound money, and a sensible foreign policy.
All to push this neocon agenda.
Lew, you started this comment thread not by giving your opinion of the topic at hand, but to ostracize those who might disagree. This too is par for the course for the old school republicans. I hope you can do better than that in the future.
Best regards,
Terry S.
I too am a Republican who became disenchanted with Bush after I voted for him the first time. However, mere disagreement means that I have become a leftist in Lew’s world. I declare if Bush said 2+2=9 Lew would spend two or three paragraphs defending the statement. We Republicans need to shape up and soon.
Did anyone catch the Scott McClellan congressional testimony today? He is the writer of yet another book for the neocons to condemn.
McClellan was told to lie to the press, and thereby the American people, about Rove and Libby's involvement in the leak. He was told to do so by the president and vice-president. This was not done in the name of national security. This was done to prevent the American people, and Congress, and Fitzgerald, from knowing that White House staff deliberately leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to score political points and damage the reputation of a war critic who of course turned out to be correct. Libby was the only one who suffered legal consequences, and his sentence was commuted by the very man who instructed McClellan to lie to the American people. A lot of skullduggery has been committed within the walls of the White House during its history, but this episode must be one of the most shameful. All of these people are a disgrace.
Yada, Yada, Yada, I am not impressed with claims of being a Republican or a Paulistinian disillusioned with the GOP by Bush.
Hate to tell you, but I too am disillusioned with the GOP, but over McCain and giving a nutcase like ROn Paul any air time at all.
Todash, I too was a delegate to the convention as well as PCO, so what?
Delavar will not receive my support or vote. We are not going to allow the GOP to be infilitarted and taken over by Libertarians masquerading as Republicans. We are aware of you all and your efforts will fail!
Lew -
I think you should lay of that bottle of Dewers so early in the afternoon.
Victoria needs to rethink just why she allowed you to be a contributer. You have done nothing but name call. But, I guess forum trolls need a home too.
I would like to see Victoria comment on this, and see if she supports your childish name calling. If so, she will lose a large base of listeners.
Lew, you are a classic example of the old grandpa who stuck in his ways. We wont fail. More and more people are learning that they are losing their freedoms and individual liberty. 2 things that are becoming increasingly popular among young people, because we were taught to question authority, not submitting to it.
And remember. No Dewers until AT LEAST 4:00 PM.
Kindest regards,
Terry S.
I'll give you this, Todash... when you're in good form, you can diss pretty artfully. Now, I'd be interested to see the source for your 1.2 million... mostly because I'm astonished that it's not vastly higher. Surely, the Republicans left behind more than 1.2 million voters who want a more sound and honest government when they veered towards McCain.
So who are these "neocons" anyway? What do they believe and what is their agenda?
I hate to tell y'all this but Lew is mocking people who are alleging that Bush lied. He's not bashing people who say that Bush said things that were false or turned out to be false because neither of those categories are the same thing as Bush lying. So no, rightwingwacko... Lew wouldn't defend Bush saying 2+2=9 and it's a rather stupid thing to claim.
He says he was told to lie. How do we know that, along with what he was told to say, he was given proof that what he was saying was untrue? Based on his word alone? Very clever reasoning... so clever that I advise you stop thinking while you're ahead. It may interest you to know that Libby suffered some secondary legal consequences (Fitzgerald never alleged that Libby had leaked the name nor that the "leak" was actually a criminal offense) but the real leaker was part of the Bush Administration. Whoops, guess that sorta hurts your pet theory, don't it?
Kind of presumptous of you kmoo to tell us what Lew is thinking.
BTW Libby was convicted of:
1. One count of obstruction of justice;
2. Two counts of perjury (LYING)
3. One count of making false statements to federal investigators(LYING)
How do we know this? The jury said so.
This isn't called presumption, Iago. This is called stating the obvious for people who have a tenuous grasp of the words they read. Like you, coiincidentally.
Clever, Iago. Too bad that the investigation was trying to find out who leaked the name of a noncovert employee of the CIA and all Fitzgerald could manage was to charge one person with two perjury counts (the inadvertant result of being asked the same questions dozens of times over a long period of time), one obstruction of justice (which could mean pretty much anything), and one count of making false statements to the FBI (which could mean anything from saying he was in a given place on Thursday when he was there on Wednesday). There was never an attempt to nab any other person in the Bush Administration. This is what is called a failure, much like convincting a janitor of running a red light when you were going after the CEO for fraud. If you need any more proof that your pet theories about the Bush Administration are absurd than the fact that a federal investigation couldn't convict anybody but someone's assistant of a parking ticket, then you're hopeless.
By the by, your restating the obvious doesn't even dent my statement that Libby wasn't accused of having anything to do with the "leak" and that his convinctions were entirely "process crimes" which were crimes that the prosecutor picked up during the course of the investigation that didn't involve the target of the investigation. Did he get Cheney? Nope. Bush?
No. Rumsfeldt? Uh-uh. Rove? Negatory. A single person of importance in the entire Bush administration? That's a no, Iago. Once again, if a failed federal investigation can't convinct anyone more significant than an assistant trying to find out who did something that the prosecutor leading the investigation didn't call a crime doesn't convince you, no amount of being smacked upside the head by the real world will.
I note that you still aren't capable of correctly spelling my name.
kmoo: “This is called stating the obvious”
OBVIOUS: The subject of Victori’a posting is Bush (not) lying.
OBVIOUS: The title of the posting was made to appear as a LA Times news release when in fact it was a piece from its opinion page. Some may say this is dishonest, deceitful, even a _ _ _.
OBVIOUS: That Bush and his administration repeatedly lie to the detriment of the American people.
OBVIOUS: The convicted liar Libby was part of the Bush culture of corruption.
OBVIOUS: Scott McLellan was told to lie on behalf of the administration.
OBVIOUS: 70+ per cent of the American people do not trust Bush.
OBVIOUS: kmoo does not know what he is talking about.
Try again on spelling my name. I know you can do this, Iago.
OBVIOUS: If an opinion piece is in the LA Times, then the LA Times is what you reference.
OBVIOUS: The Bush Administration still hasn't lied.
OBVIOUS: The "culture of corruption" is an act of make-believe by Democrats.
OBVIOUS: He, who you call a liar, is the one who claims he was told to lie.
OBVIOUS: 70+% of the American people are bombarded with untruths about Bush... like the fantasy that Bush lied.
OBVIOUS: Iago and the real world are not on speaking terms.
kmoo, Keith Moore, or whatever your handle,
Your dog won't hunt. And that horse you are riding is dead. No use continuing to beat him. Although it is not animal cruely, it does make you look silly.
Has anything here altered my viewpoint, on weather or not Bush Lied?
An editorial that claims he did not.
Posts refuting that.
Any information that should or could change my own view?
Nah.
Beating a dead horse is always more productive than trying to ride one in the first place. Sorry that you can't come up with anything that shows that Bush lied. You really do have my sympathy.
I'd almost be interested to find out what your own view is, Eileen, but I'm currently enjoying the pointless dumb argument with the usual suspects too much to desire an intelligent argument with you. Maybe later.
Keith -
From this morning's front page article on Politico, "Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes?" (Short answer is NEVER IN LIFE, but i love the picture of a nervous McCain standing next to Paul)...
"Even excluding his support in caucus states, Paul received a few more than a million votes in the Republican primary, finished second in five states including Pennsylvania and Oregon and continued to draw votes well after he’d effectively withdrawn from the race."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11246.html
Like I said before, Todash... my disbelief isn't centered around doubt that Ron Paul could command that many votes but, rather, that he isn't commanding many more given McCain's lack of conservative bona fides.
Oh, by the way... thought it was mildly funny that RedState.com banned all Ron Paul comments.
RedState.com banned all Ron Paul comments. Hmmm
GOOD FOR THEM
Keith:
On the topic of redstate.com banning RP supporters comments, I cant speak to that.
I have never even been to redstate.com until this morning, and cannot speak on behalf of one group.
I can however speak to a blog site (that's really all they are) censoring the user submitted comments left on said site.
That would be like Victoria banning all Pro-global warming comments, or banning all pro illegal comments.
It's pointless. Amounts to one guy, running an opinion blog, and not liking what some people say. They have that power, big deal.
But all the Human Events BS slathered all over the page should have given you a warning flag that said "Caution: NeoCon Agenda Ahead".
Would you kindly define "neocon" for me? I'm still searching for a good definition.
Keith -
For more on the neocon agenda, please refer to the following.
Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition
http://tinyurl.com/2aleau
Ron Paul publicly names neoconservatives
http://tinyurl.com/5am5zc
The Neocon Zionist Threat to America Blog (Local)
http://tinyurl.com/4lxt64
Oh goody. I've been looking for a long time to find some evidence that neoconservative is a meaningless term. Thanks for the help, Todash.
Keith -
Thanks for wasting my time. It wont be wasted on you again.
Keep your powder dry, this world going to hell in a handcart.
You weren't wasting your time unless your intent was to prove to me that "neoconservative" is a very accurate term with an objective definition.
Actually, I think it's more like a taco basket... mmm, tacos...
Post a Comment