President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Please do not misunderstand, Mr. Dyslexia. You can post "fricking Amazing" as often as you wish. I must,however, hold that your phrase can never rise to more than a personal opinion unless you give evidence.
You say'Fricking Amazing"-- I say-"not fricking amazing" Now, if you wish to present evidence that there are grounds for it being "fricking Amazing" please do so.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some examples of okie's garbages posted in this thread:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard, I'm not sure what the intense love affair or obsession is with polls. As an aside, I remember Clinton had his staff take a poll to decide where he went on vacation. That time, it ended up being Jackson Hole, WY. That one was humorous.

I guess the libs or Democrats now want to do everything by poll. If a poll says wage war one day, send in the troops, if the next day the poll says no, order them out, and on the 3rd day if the pollster frames the question a bit differently and it says yes, its war, send them in again.

If a poll says give every man, woman, and child a roof over their head, 2 cars for every family, and a minimum wage of $20.00/hr., then lets do it. Write a check for everybody. Hey, I am beginning to like the concept Bernard.

okie doesn't know it, but that's full of crap!

Beautiful, imposter, keep posting it. I think it is 100% correct. I stand behind it and endorse what I said. What you think is crap is totally correct.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Please do not misunderstand, Mr. Dyslexia. You can post "fricking Amazing" as often as you wish. I must,however, hold that your phrase can never rise to more than a personal opinion unless you give evidence.
You say'Fricking Amazing"-- I say-"not fricking amazing" Now, if you wish to present evidence that there are grounds for it being "fricking Amazing" please do so.

Fricking stupid.

0 Replies

Absolutely fricking stupid.

0 Replies

The reason I never rebutted you line by line, Mr. Parados is that you rarely give links. I would be glad to attempt to rebut your liberal slants.

Try me.

In the meantime, my post giving evidence( it is almost all quotes so it is easy to rebut if it is false) that President Bush did not lie concerning WMD's; that the major intelligence organizations of many countries believed that Saddam had WMD's right before the war began; that ALL of the US Intelligence Agencies agreed that Saddam was a threat; That President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all were quoted to the effect that they believed that Saddam had WMD's HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY YOU.

IT STANDS!!!!

Are you afraid to try to rebut the statements above because you know you can't do it, Mr.Parados?

That seems to be the case!

Now, if you wish to learn how to rebut, post some garbage from Move On or Common Dreams... I will show you how it is done-----if, of course, the information given is incorrect or hopelessly biased.

0 Replies

Vice-President Cheney remains unabashed about the Administration's reliance on the Niger documents, despite the revelation of their forgery. In a September interview on "Meet the Press," Cheney claimed that the British dossier's charge that "Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa" had been "revalidated." Cheney went on, "So there may be a difference of opinion there. I don't know what the truth is on the ground. . . . I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him."
The Vice-President also defended the way in which he had involved himself in intelligence matters: "This is a very important area. It's one that the President has asked me to work on. . . . In terms of asking questions, I plead guilty. I ask a hell of a lot of questions. That's my job."

0 Replies

So Seymour Hersh is your expert! No wonder you are confused. Why do you keep posting all that propaganda?

0 Replies

This is propoganda?

Vice-President Cheney remains unabashed about the Administration's reliance on the Niger documents, despite the revelation of their forgery.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Please do not misunderstand, Mr. Dyslexia. You can post "fricking Amazing" as often as you wish. I must,however, hold that your phrase can never rise to more than a personal opinion unless you give evidence.
You say'Fricking Amazing"-- I say-"not fricking amazing" Now, if you wish to present evidence that there are grounds for it being "fricking Amazing" please do so.

Please understand Mr Gatos when you post such drivil as to my knowledge vs Mr Ashermans knowledge without your knowledge of either Mr Ashermans knowledge our my knowledge all the while purport to understand the difference you continue to perpetuate the assumption of readers that your posts consist of nothing more than fart bubbles.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

The reason I never rebutted you line by line, Mr. Parados is that you rarely give links. I would be glad to attempt to rebut your liberal slants.

Try me.

In the meantime, my post giving evidence( it is almost all quotes so it is easy to rebut if it is false)You mean I need to rebut a post where you didn't post a link? that President Bush did not lie concerning WMD's; that the major intelligence organizations of many countries believed that Saddam had WMD's right before the war began; that ALL of the US Intelligence Agencies agreed that Saddam was a threat; That President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all were quoted to the effect that they believed that Saddam had WMD's HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY YOU.

IT STANDS!!!! So then all my unrebutted posts stand as does CI's if we use your standard of demanding that posts without links be rebutted or they stand

Are you afraid to try to rebut the statements above because you know you can't do it, Mr.Parados?

That seems to be the case!

Now, if you wish to learn how to rebut, post some garbage from Move On or Common Dreams... I will show you how it is done-----if, of course, the information given is incorrect or hopelessly biased.

Rarely give links? When it is my words I have to give links? (By the way. You are the one that posted Posner's crap ad infinitum and didn't give a link.)

You posted this
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2108267#2108267
You didn't give a link. So, where you on crack when you asked?

Quote:

In case you have trouble reading and analyzing this Mr. Parados( I say this only because you have not responded to it or REBUTTED IT LINE BY LINE IN THE PAST, I will be happy to help you.

But, you must rebut it or allow it to stand. In which case, your position is hopelessly wrong!!!

It's obvious since you didn't give a link that I don't have to rebut it... see your statement here..

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2108479#2108479

Your rules, I don't have to rebut if you don't give links. Your failure to provide a link proves you lose.

You must be on crack to demand I rebut a post of yours that has no a link in the same post that you state you don't have to rebut anything without a link.

0 Replies

There is a link for Podhoretz but for some reason it does not work-

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/file

so the only way you can get the article is to type the following in the web search

Podhoretz Who is Lying in Iraq

If you do that you will have your link. So, now, stop this pusillanimity, Mr. Parados and rebut the evidence.

No amount of twisting and turning will save you. You must rebut or capitulate.

0 Replies

or just click here:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148

i provide the link as a public service; opinions expressed in the article may not represent my views.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Why don't you talk about the inspections in 2002-3 Brandon instead of 1995-98?

Can we say Bush is still a drunk today because he was arrested for drunk driving 30 years ago?

In case you didn't realize it Brandon. Bush didn't invade in 1998 when the Iraqis were no cooperating. He invaded in 2003 when they were.

By the way Brandon, they just raised the maximum age to join the army. You can now join at the age of 42. Better jump on it quick and prove how much you love this country and this war.

1. An evil dictator had active programs to develop WMD.
2. He promised by treaty to destroy them verifiably.
3. A dozen years later he has a history of concealment, lying, and thwarting inspections.
4. One single use of one of some weapons of this class could annihilate hundreds or thousands of people.
5. Now, a dozen years later, he might be cooperating, but, on the other hand, he might just be more skillful at concealment.

Sounds to me like a situation in which a reasonable person would err on the side of caution, since a collosal number of lives might be lost if a mistake is made.

As for me running off and joining the army in order to have permission to have an opinion, you cannot in any way, shape, or form disprove my assertions by listing my personal flaws, and you should know it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
This bullshit apologia of yours for an illegal and immoral war wears thin pretty quickly.

Your assertion of illegality and immorality is merely an unproven claim.
.

Just simply frickin' amazing

A tacit admission that you cannot disprove anything I say. Non-statements like this are irrelevant in the world of debate.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It's moot. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there might have been workable WMD, and we couldn't take the chance.

Brandon proves once again that he does not understand risk management.

Really? Can you support this assertion, or is it just a lot of hot air?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:
Why don't you talk about the inspections in 2002-3 Brandon instead of 1995-98?

Can we say Bush is still a drunk today because he was arrested for drunk driving 30 years ago?

In case you didn't realize it Brandon. Bush didn't invade in 1998 when the Iraqis were no cooperating. He invaded in 2003 when they were.

By the way Brandon, they just raised the maximum age to join the army. You can now join at the age of 42. Better jump on it quick and prove how much you love this country and this war.

1. An evil dictator had active programs to develop WMD.

No such programs existed.

Quote:

2. He promised by treaty to destroy them verifiably.

He claimed to have done so. The majority were verified.

Quote:

3. A dozen years later he has a history of concealment, lying, and thwarting inspections.

History is not the same thing as what was actually happening in 2003

Quote:

4. One single use of one of some weapons of this class could annihilate hundreds or thousands of people.

Yeah? But not one single such weapon was found to exist.

Quote:

5. Now, a dozen years later, he might be cooperating, but, on the other hand, he might just be more skillful at concealment.

A dozen years after his record of a dozen years of failing to cooperate? I don't think we waited 24 years

Quote:

Sounds to me like a situation in which a reasonable person would err on the side of caution, since a collosal number of lives might be lost if a mistake is made.

Sounds to me like an unreasonable evaluation. We have seen a collosal number of lives lost because a mistake was made. The situation was carefully examined. The least dangerous route wasn't taken. I had the same opinion before the war and I have been proven correct. You are continuing to defend the undefensable. I see it all the time in post mortems on projects that have gone badly. Someone refuses to see the reality was there before the project was undertaken. They continue to argue that they only had certain facts even when the facts they claim didn't exist are shown to have existed and were discarded and not considered in the planning. They might have WMD? That is hardly a case for planning a war. Korea DOES have WMD. Why are we willing to use diplomacy there? I only see complete disregard for facts and possible outcomes in this war. Anyone should know wars can go badly. Anyone that thinks people will throw flowers at occupying troops has a serious problem in their thought process.

Quote:

As for me running off and joining the army in order to have permission to have an opinion, you cannot in any way, shape, or form disprove my assertions by listing my personal flaws, and you should know it.

1.Bush has a drinking problem
2.Bush promised to stop drinking
3. A dozen years later he has a history of lying and decieving
4. A drunk as president could cause thousands of deaths.
5. Now he might have stopped drinking but he might just be more skillful in concealment.

If we use your logic Brandon then Bush shouldn't be president.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's moot. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there might have been workable WMD, and we couldn't take the chance.

Brandon proves once again that he does not understand risk management.

Really? Can you support this assertion, or is it just a lot of hot air?

You proved it in your 5 point assessment of the situation.

You failed to address any of the possible downsides of an invasion. That is a pretty common error by people that don't understand risk management. They play up the issues that support their preconceived conclusion while ignoring or playing down anything that doesn't support it.

This statement is your downfall right here.

Quote:

4. One single use of one of some weapons of this class could annihilate hundreds or thousands of people.

It is nothing but an emotional appeal. You even highlighted it in red to make it more emotional. Yes, a single weapon can kill thousands but you have failed to address if he has them or not and how he could possibly deliver any such weapon to do damage. Nor have you dealt with any possible countermeasures. The risk of any weapon being used effectively by Saddam is actually quite small and there are many countermeasures that could be undertaken that would cost less and be more effective in the long run.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

There is a link for Podhoretz but for some reason it does not work-

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/file

so the only way you can get the article is to type the following in the web search

Podhoretz Who is Lying in Iraq

If you do that you will have your link. So, now, stop this pusillanimity, Mr. Parados and rebut the evidence.

No amount of twisting and turning will save you. You must rebut or capitulate.

Just giving me a way to google it is enough now? Funny. You don't google what others post when they give you enough information. You demand a link or they have no standing. Do you not live by the same standard? You can weasel all you want Bernie. Either change your tune or dance to it yourself.

As for Podhoretz, I have rebutted the claim of lying on Iraq. Asking me to do it again doesn't change your failure to address my statements. Nor does it change the fact that you continue to claim you get to live by different standards and not have to rebut articles.

I will take your failure to deal with my statements as capitulation on your part. Until such time you find and deal with those statements I see no reason but to remind you of your words.

0 Replies

Of Course!

0 Replies

parados said...

Quote:

He claimed to have done so. The majority were verified.

Under the terms of the cease fire after the first gulf war,ALL of his WMD and WMD programs were supposed to have been destroyed and verified.
Not "the majority",but ALL of them,100%.

By your own admission,he didnt do that.
Why not?

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know