Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:10 am
the center for public integrity has done research into the speeches of top Bush administration officials in the 2 years following the 9/11 attack and found 935 false misleading statments that led us to war in Iraq.

we were talking about impeaching Clinton because he lied to us ONCE.

Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,711 • Replies: 135
No top replies

 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 09:14 am
@hatukazi,
hatukazi;51205 wrote:
the center for public integrity has done research into the speeches of top Bush administration officials in the 2 years following the 9/11 attack and found 935 false misleading statments that led us to war in Iraq.

we were talking about impeaching Clinton because he lied to us ONCE.

Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity





Come on now. Every Intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat.

The only debate was how to go about solving it... The UN wanted more cockblocked inspections, and the US wanted to blow **** up.


You can NOT impeach a president for making an informed decision regardless if the information was wrong.


What clinton did, was not from intelligence but from DIRECT information.... HE knew 100% that he nailed that intern. and yet he Looked us all in the eye and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."


Clinton LIE WORSE than Bush Acting on bad information.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 10:34 am
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51293 wrote:
Come on now. Every Intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat.

The only debate was how to go about solving it... The UN wanted more cockblocked inspections, and the US wanted to blow **** up.


You can NOT impeach a president for making an informed decision regardless if the information was wrong.


What clinton did, was not from intelligence but from DIRECT information.... HE knew 100% that he nailed that intern. and yet he Looked us all in the eye and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."


Clinton LIE WORSE than Bush Acting on bad information.


"Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat" what a load of crap ! an immediate threat to whom ? who was he planning to attack ?
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 10:40 am
@hatukazi,
hatukazi;51205 wrote:
the center for public integrity has done research into the speeches of top Bush administration officials in the 2 years following the 9/11 attack and found 935 false misleading statments that led us to war in Iraq.

we were talking about impeaching Clinton because he lied to us ONCE.

Iraq: The War Card - The Center for Public Integrity


yeh whats worse,lying about a blowjob,or taking your country to war with dodgy unproven evidence,leading to the deaths of 100s of thousands !
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:06 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51293 wrote:
Come on now. Every Intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat.

The only debate was how to go about solving it... The UN wanted more cockblocked inspections, and the US wanted to blow **** up.


You can NOT impeach a president for making an informed decision regardless if the information was wrong.


What clinton did, was not from intelligence but from DIRECT information.... HE knew 100% that he nailed that intern. and yet he Looked us all in the eye and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."


Clinton LIE WORSE than Bush Acting on bad information.


how is that any different than intentional lies from bush or purposeful misleading statements?
hatukazi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:14 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51293 wrote:
Come on now. Every Intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat.

The only debate was how to go about solving it... The UN wanted more cockblocked inspections, and the US wanted to blow **** up.


You can NOT impeach a president for making an informed decision regardless if the information was wrong.


What clinton did, was not from intelligence but from DIRECT information.... HE knew 100% that he nailed that intern. and yet he Looked us all in the eye and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."


Clinton LIE WORSE than Bush Acting on bad information.


the timeline shows that Bush Adm. DID know ther was no reason to go into Iraq, but since that did not mesh with their agenda of dischord in the ME, they chose to lie and distort public opinion in support of the "war" that THEY needed.

and how exactly is clintons lie any worse OR different than Bush Adm. lies? They ALL looked the nation in the eyes and lied to us, the only difference I can think of is that it's extremely hard to kill someone via bowjob, yet bushies lies killed thousands,and spent BILLIONS that we as a nation simply cannot spare for a small groups personal gains or egoes.
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:41 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51293 wrote:
Come on now. Every Intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat.


and that's the point nobody who's anti bush want's to hear

the truth was everybody was wrong, but if you ask someone on the far left you would think the only person who ever said Iraq had WMD was Bush alone, possibly Cheney too. It's called spin, and that's why nobody on the Senate floor has seriously considered impeaching Bush, because there's nothing to the alligation. It does however work on influencing the uninformed.
0 Replies
 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:50 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;51297 wrote:
"Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat" what a load of crap ! an immediate threat to whom ? who was he planning to attack ?


Coalition of the willing went in with us... Not to mention the UN agreed that Saddam was an immediate threat, they just did NOT agree on the action needed.
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:51 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;51298 wrote:
yeh whats worse,lying about a blowjob,or taking your country to war with dodgy unproven evidence,leading to the deaths of 100s of thousands !




LMAO... You are not seriously blaming bush for the Deaths of 100's of thousands.
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:52 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;51311 wrote:
how is that any different than intentional lies from bush or purposeful misleading statements?



Please show me where Bush intentionally lied. And I bet I could provide at least 2 other countrier with independent intelligence agreeing with his statements.
0 Replies
 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:56 pm
@hatukazi,
hatukazi;51313 wrote:
the timeline shows that Bush Adm. DID know ther was no reason to go into Iraq, but since that did not mesh with their agenda of dischord in the ME, they chose to lie and distort public opinion in support of the "war" that THEY needed.

and how exactly is clintons lie any worse OR different than Bush Adm. lies? They ALL looked the nation in the eyes and lied to us, the only difference I can think of is that it's extremely hard to kill someone via bowjob, yet bushies lies killed thousands,and spent BILLIONS that we as a nation simply cannot spare for a small groups personal gains or egoes.



The time line does not show Bush had evidence contrary to the belief that Saddam had WMD's. Even though such a claim on your part definitely helps with your propagandistic ideas.

I already explained how Clinton was worse than Bush.


I will take the time to retype it.


Clinton knew he had nailed that intern. And point blank said, I did not nail that intern.

Bush... Took multiple sources of Intelligence all saying the same thing, and repeated it. It turned out to be wrong... MISINFORMED is not LYING.

If you need further clarification than that, I suggest you press CTRL ALT Delete, and forget you have a computer.
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:58 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;51297 wrote:
"Every country in the world thought he was an immediate threat" what a load of crap ! an immediate threat to whom ? who was he planning to attack ?


I can site over 100,000 Kurd families for starters... Not to mention Saddams own revelations of his intent.

The man was not exactly quiet about what he wanted to do. And what he supported.


September 11'th Even our enemies expressed condolences for the attacks.

Saddam said Serves them right, good job Osama. I have wanted this for years.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:10 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51320 wrote:
I can site over 100,000 Kurd families for starters... Not to mention Saddams own revelations of his intent.

The man was not exactly quiet about what he wanted to do. And what he supported.


September 11'th Even our enemies expressed condolences for the attacks.

Saddam said Serves them right, good job Osama. I have wanted this for years.


The massacre of the kurds that was brought up at his trial was actually before Rumsfield went to iraq and shook Saddam hand and to sell him more weapons,the US knew all about it and did nothing,the kurds had nothing to do with the US going to war in Iraq.
hatukazi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:10 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51319 wrote:
The time line does not show Bush had evidence contrary to the belief that Saddam had WMD's. Even though such a claim on your part definitely helps with your propagandistic ideas.

I already explained how Clinton was worse than Bush.


I will take the time to retype it.


Clinton knew he had nailed that intern. And point blank said, I did not nail that intern.

Bush... Took multiple sources of Intelligence all saying the same thing, and repeated it. It turned out to be wrong... MISINFORMED is not LYING.

If you need further clarification than that, I suggest you press CTRL ALT Delete, and forget you have a computer.



you think that "plausable deniability" bullsh** is getting anywhere with the thousands upon thousands of casualties of this war??

YOUR countrymen DIED from Bush Adm. lies, do you care?

thousands of innocent Iraqis DIED, do you care?

if this war is so great then why arent you in Iraq fighting it?, you believe it's the right thing to do than do it or shut up.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:13 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51317 wrote:
LMAO... You are not seriously blaming bush for the Deaths of 100's of thousands.


100s of thousands of people have died,including over 3000 allied troops,for what ? no weapons of mass destruction,no link to 9/11,and iraq was not a threat to the US :beat:
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:15 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;51326 wrote:
100s of thousands of people have died,including over 3000 allied troops,for what ? no weapons of mass destruction,no link to 9/11,and iraq was not a threat to the US :beat:



I did not say 100'000 people HAVENT died, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that is bush's fault.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:18 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51327 wrote:
I did not say 100'000 people HAVENT died, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that is bush's fault.


They died because the US invaded Iraq.
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:20 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;51324 wrote:
The massacre of the kurds that was brought up at his trial was actually before Rumsfield went to iraq and shook Saddam hand and to sell him more weapons,the US knew all about it and did nothing,the kurds had nothing to do with the US going to war in Iraq.



His willingness to commit genocide, and his open remarks of cleansing were though.


Your question was in regards to Who was he an immediate threat too.


His own countrymen, the neighboring countries whom h had invaded before, and expressed would gladly do again.


It is funny that you would mention The Weapons the US sold Saddam, thoe are some of the very WMD's we were looking for. Saddam had provided no proof that they were gone destroyed whatever.


If I give you my XBOX... and later I say Hey Do you still have that xbox... and your response is "None of your buisness." I can rightly assume you still have it.


I suppose the better action would have been.


None of our business okay... *WAITING* NY YORK TIMES :SADDAM DROPS CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON KUWAIT


And then what? We would be blamed for not acting.
0 Replies
 
hatukazi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:20 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51327 wrote:
I did not say 100'000 people HAVENT died, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of saying that is bush's fault.


so we were just going to war with Iraq anyway?

the President has a RESPONSIBILITY to his country, when he makes a mistake it is his job to MAN UP and repair the damage as best he can and abdicate the office.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 01:20 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;51316 wrote:
Coalition of the willing went in with us... Not to mention the UN agreed that Saddam was an immediate threat, they just did NOT agree on the action needed.


An immediate threat to whom,who was he planning to attack ?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » only 935?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 12:29:45