It appears that it might be time to put this whopper on the scrap heap...
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
Hilarious! Or maybe just sad and pathetic. Certainly ignorant.
Sad, pathetic and ignorant alloak.
FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2015 10:46 AM EDT
GOP’s alarming Iraq amnesia: Jeb Bush, WMDs & the lies neocons want us to forget
Bush can’t say the invasion was a mistake, even knowing what we do now, because WMDs weren’t the reason behind itJOAN WALSH
GOP's alarming Iraq amnesia: Jeb Bush, WMDs & the lies neocons want us to forget
George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz (Credit: AP/Reuters/Charles Dharapak/Rebecca Cook/Yuri Gripas/Photo montage by Salon)
First, let me give Jeb Bush credit for one thing: He’s forced the rest of the 2016 GOP presidential field to say that knowing what we know now, invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was a mistake. In 2008 and 2012, only Rep. Ron Paul would say anything like that.Bush’s inability to give a clear answer to that question – it took four tries – is widely attributed to his unwillingness to disrespect his brother, and/or his terrible skills as a campaigner. But this misses the point. Bush had a hard time saying that the invasion was a mistake, even with what we know now – Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and toppling the dictator would smash the country into warring pieces – because he, and his core national security advisors, may well not think it was.
We seem to be suffering from collective amnesia when we act like the lack of WMD was a big “surprise” that Bush and the 2016 field must now reckon with, one that means the invasion was a tragic mistake. In fact, the Bush intelligence team cooked the books to either create or exaggerate the evidence at the time, to sell us a cruel war of choice.
Karl Rove stepped into the mess Friday morning on the “Today” show, where he reassured his audience that Bush will recover from his bad week. “He’s a very smart guy. He’s not a guy who needs the lesson taught to him twice,” Rove told Savannah Guthrie. But that’s demonstrably false. First, Jeb flubbed the big foreign policy speech orchestrated to show he’s different from, and smarter than, his big brother: he confused Iran and Iraq, exaggerated the size of ISIS, mangled his description of ISIS leadership and mispronounced Boko Haram. He sounded like a nincompoop.
Then this week alone, he’s had to be taught “the same lesson twice,” contra Rove, since it took him four tries to get his Iraq answer “right.”
Of course, the fun part of the story is what Gail Collins nailed Thursday: Wow, Jeb Bush is awful. The Bush III rollout has blown up a cliché of American punditry for the last 15 years: that the wrong brother won the White House, that Jeb was supposed to be president, only he lost his first race for Florida governor while George W. won in Texas. Oh, cruel fate. But in fact, Jeb looks terrible at this politics business.
FRIDAY, MAY 15, 2015 10:46 AM EDT
GOP’s alarming Iraq amnesia: Jeb Bush, WMDs & the lies neocons want us to forget
Bush can’t say the invasion was a mistake, even knowing what we do now, because WMDs weren’t the reason behind itJOAN WALSH
GOP's alarming Iraq amnesia: Jeb Bush, WMDs & the lies neocons want us to forget
George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz (Credit: AP/Reuters/Charles Dharapak/Rebecca Cook/Yuri Gripas/Photo montage by Salon)
First, let me give Jeb Bush credit for one thing: He’s forced the rest of the 2016 GOP presidential field to say that knowing what we know now, invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was a mistake. In 2008 and 2012, only Rep. Ron Paul would say anything like that.Bush’s inability to give a clear answer to that question – it took four tries – is widely attributed to his unwillingness to disrespect his brother, and/or his terrible skills as a campaigner. But this misses the point. Bush had a hard time saying that the invasion was a mistake, even with what we know now – Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and toppling the dictator would smash the country into warring pieces – because he, and his core national security advisors, may well not think it was.
We seem to be suffering from collective amnesia when we act like the lack of WMD was a big “surprise” that Bush and the 2016 field must now reckon with, one that means the invasion was a tragic mistake. In fact, the Bush intelligence team cooked the books to either create or exaggerate the evidence at the time, to sell us a cruel war of choice.
Karl Rove stepped into the mess Friday morning on the “Today” show, where he reassured his audience that Bush will recover from his bad week. “He’s a very smart guy. He’s not a guy who needs the lesson taught to him twice,” Rove told Savannah Guthrie. But that’s demonstrably false. First, Jeb flubbed the big foreign policy speech orchestrated to show he’s different from, and smarter than, his big brother: he confused Iran and Iraq, exaggerated the size of ISIS, mangled his description of ISIS leadership and mispronounced Boko Haram. He sounded like a nincompoop.
Then this week alone, he’s had to be taught “the same lesson twice,” contra Rove, since it took him four tries to get his Iraq answer “right.”
Of course, the fun part of the story is what Gail Collins nailed Thursday: Wow, Jeb Bush is awful. The Bush III rollout has blown up a cliché of American punditry for the last 15 years: that the wrong brother won the White House, that Jeb was supposed to be president, only he lost his first race for Florida governor while George W. won in Texas. Oh, cruel fate. But in fact, Jeb looks terrible at this politics business.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/
TUESDAY, FEB 10, 2015 11:06 AM EST
Yes, Bush lied about Iraq: Why are we still arguing about this?
Sorry, WSJ: Reminding everyone that George W. Bush lied about Iraq is good and necessary -- because man, did he lie
SIMON MALOYYes, Bush lied about Iraq: Why are we still arguing about this?
George W. Bush speaks about the Iraq War supplemental, Monday, April 16, 2007. (Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)
It seems clear now that we, as a nation, will never stop relitigating the Iraq war. Owing to partisan loyalty or (for the politicians and pundits who personally backed the war) gross self-interest, most of today’s conservatives will stridently argue that the war George W. Bush started on false pretenses was justified (despite the lack of justification) and on track for a successful conclusion (despite every bit of evidence to the contrary) before Barack Obama came in and threw away all of Bush’s good work.In this vein, the Wall Street Journal published an Op-Ed yesterday by Laurence Silberman, the conservative federal judge who co-chaired the 2004 Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. In the piece, Silberman takes objection with Ron Fournier (of all people) blithely asserting that George W. Bush “lied” in order to make the Iraq war a reality. Saying Bush “lied” is a bad, hurtful argument, Silberman writes, because he Bush didn’t lie; he just got every single thing wrong and that’s totally different:
Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons. But as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media.
It was just bad intelligence! Everyone was fooled! You can’t say Bush “lied” about Iraq pursuing WMDs or about the Saddam Hussein regime having ties to 9/11 because he was just echoing what the intelligence community said, which was wrong.
This is a line of argumentation that Bush administration officials and Iraq war boosters have been clinging to ever since it became clear that U.S. troops would found no mobile biological weapons labs and no Mutual Admiration Society correspondence between Saddam and Osama. “We were wrong just like everyone else” isn’t a particularly compelling argument, though I suppose that if you’re responsible for one of the modern era’s most significant foreign policy disasters, “shared incompetence” is a more appealing excuse than “willful deception.”
But the Bush administration absolutely did engage in willful deception. Quite a bit of it, in fact. It’s one thing to simply repeat an intelligence assessment that is wrong, and quite another to take a disputed, credibly challenged intelligence assessment and state it as uncontested fact. That’s a lie, and senior Bush officials did it often. There’s no better example of this than the aluminum tubes.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
[url] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush -didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war [/url]
So, a conservative columnist writes a hit piece framed around Bob Woodward telling Fox News Sunday that "there was no lying in this that I could find," and that's the end of the matter? Wow. Talk about a pure definition of confirmation bias.
Now I get why alloak spends so much time going back and forth with the people he dislikes so much. It's just run-of-the-mill trolling. Must be entertaining in some way.
quote:
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.About 13 years too late.
Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza, Colon Powell all lied. They are war criminals. Thousands of Americans, millions of civilian Iraqis are dead or dying because of there lies. They should be tried for their crimes.
They also bankrupted America with their lies. They are murderous war criminals, torturers, liars, death merchants...
[url] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/26/bob-woodward-bush -didnt-lie-to-start-iraq-war [/url]
So, a conservative columnist writes a hit piece framed around Bob Woodward telling Fox News Sunday that "there was no lying in this that I could find," and that's the end of the matter? Wow. Talk about a pure definition of confirmation bias.
Now I get why alloak spends so much time going back and forth with the people he dislikes so much. It's just run-of-the-mill trolling. Must be entertaining in some way.
Politics is an interesting topic that I'm comfortable discussing with anyone. Like or dislike never enters into it.
quote:
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.About 13 years too late.
Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza, Colon Powell all lied. They are war criminals. Thousands of Americans, millions of civilian Iraqis are dead or dying because of there lies. They should be tried for their crimes.
They also bankrupted America with their lies. They are murderous war criminals, torturers, liars, death merchants...
OK then. Bill and Hillary both gave roughly the same WMD threat speech. But when they did, they were telling the truth? How is that possible?
Nothing got the Democrats flipping their views on the war like Howard Dean jumping out to an early lead in the '04 race. John Kerry was among the first, who had to flip his view pronto! After that it was like dominoes, and pretty solid support for the war among Dems started to erode.
Howard Dean.
Another empty post from Little Billy.
What lies?
He specifies none or any proof.
It is easy to call someone a liar and run away.
I love the liberal’s lies though.
“a vast right-wing conspiracy”
- Hillary’s excuse for her husband’s infidelity… like the Republicans put Monica down on her knees.
“GOP’s war on women”
- Yea right. Obama and Hillary both paid women less for equal work.
“I am looking forward to working with Congress”
- Obama’s standard lie to the TV cameras and he refuses to work with Congress.
“The Republicans obstructionist ways”
- When it was Harry Reid that refused to allow any bill passed by the House to even be discussed in The Senate”
The list is long and the country is suffering because of the Democrats refusal to admit their failures and lies.
Thanks to the lies of bush the dullard, my daughter will NEVER be the same after what she went through in Iraq & Afghanistan.
bush, cheney, rumsfeld should all hang for war crimes.
muledouche and alloak are total morons and disgust me.
Another empty post from Little Billy.
What lies?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!
You dolt, you fool, you grotesque little worm slithering in a pile of pig excrement.
He specifies none or any proof.
Did you not read the post you moron?!?
I often feel bad responding to your simplistic, ignorant attempts at discussion. If you are brain damaged, I apologize.
The Lie That Got Us In: The Bush Administration Knew There Were No WMDs in Iraq
Posted By John Glaser On March 19, 2013 @ 7:23 am In News | Comments DisabledCharles Duelfer, who led the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group in 2004, argues a stunning yet popularly held belief in Foreign Policy magazine [1], that the Bush administration did not lie about Iraq’s alleged WMD program; they were just wrong about it.
“The intelligence wasn’t cooked or slanted to make policymakers happy,” Duelfer writes. “It was just wrong. That made Bush mistaken — but it doesn’t make him a liar.”
The first clause in that argument is one that many on the inside disagree with. The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan [2], who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.”
“At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war,” Brennan told PBS. When asked who was exerting this pressure, Brennan said “Some of the neocons” in the administration “were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision.”
And Paul Pillar, the CIA officer who led the hurried effort to provide Congress with a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs – an estimate that ultimately contained falsities that the administration retroactively used to justify their incorrect assessments – said [2], “The atmosphere in which they were working, in which a policy decision clearly had already been made, in which intelligence was being looked to to support that decision rather to inform decisions yet to be made, was a very important part of the atmosphere.”
According to Lawrence Wilkerson [3], chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the lead up to the invasion Powell himself said, “I wonder what will happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end of the other and find nothing.”
In addition to widespread assessments like these from people on the inside, it’s clear from the historical record that the Bush administration did not base their decision to go to war in Iraq on intelligence assessing Iraq had WMDs. As CBS News reported [4] in 2009, “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.”
The hodgepodge of justifications sputtering out from the administration in the lead up to the war also undercuts the argument that anyone was truly concerned about an actual WMD threat. Officials justified war on the basis of everything from an unsubstantiated connection to al-Qaeda [5] and the 9/11 attacks to Saddam’s own human rights violations to spreading democracy, among others.
“Given Saddam’s history,” Duelfer writes in defense of his theory, “it wasn’t crazy for the intelligence community to believe that he would reconstitute his WMD programs.”
Indeed, it wasn’t. What would have been crazy is if Saddam never planned to reconstitute his WMD programs. The most amateur observer of international relations knows such programs provide a valuable deterrent that discourages rampaging military superpowers like the United States from attacking. Given the obvious target Saddam had become in the eyes of Washington, it would have been rather self-destructive of him to completely forswear WMDs.
This is an analysis that was included in the infamous intelligence estimate that bolstered the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs. As Paul Pillar himself explains [6]:
Even that estimate did not support the war-making case. Among other things it contained the judgment that if Saddam did have any of those feared weapons of mass destruction he was unlikely to use them against U.S. interests or to give them to terrorists—except in the extreme case in which his country was invaded and his regime about to be overthrown. If this judgment had a policy implication it was not to launch the war. The judgment directly contradicted—but did nothing to slow down—the administration’s steady stream of scary rhetoric about how in the absence of a war Saddam could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.
So even if Duelfer is correct and the Bush administration truly believed their own assessments of Iraqi WMDs, the most authoritative intelligence concluded they were not an imminent threat to the United States. The administration went to war anyways. That makes the war a preventive war, which falls into the category of war crimes and incriminates the Bush administration regardless of what they truly believed about Iraq’s WMDs.
My argument is not just the opposite of Duelfer’s. I do believe the Bush administration lied about Iraqi WMD. But I think the truth goes far beyond that: if the Bush administration really did believe Saddam had WMDs, they never would have invaded. That is to say, it was the fact that Iraq had no WMDs that was crucial to the decision to go to war.
In his 2003 book Hegemony or Survival [7], Noam Chomsky pointed to three prerequisites for preventive war. “The target of preventive war must have several characteristics,” he wrote.
It must be virtually defenseless.
It must be important enough to be worth the trouble
There must be a way to portray it as the ultimate evil and an imminent threat to our survival.
“Iraq qualified on all counts,” Chomsky concluded.Update: I regretfully did not include the leaked minutes of a conversation between British intelligence officials and Prime Minister at the time Tony Blair, referred to as the Downing Street memo [8], which proves the point I made above.
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,” the secret memo reads. “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
The head of Britain’s spy service at the time, Richard Dearlove, had met with CIA Director at the time George Tenet days before the memo was written. From that meeting, Dearlove concluded: “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.”
Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://antiwar.com/blog
URL to article: http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/
URLs in this post:
[1] in Foreign Policy magazine: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/18/no_books_were_cooked_bush_iraq_wmd_intelligence
[2] According to John Brennan: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/themes/nie.html
[3] According to Lawrence Wilkerson:[4] reported: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html
[5] unsubstantiated connection to al-Qaeda: http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/18/911-and-iraq-the-wars-greatest-lie/
[6] explains: http://server1.nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/still-peddling-iraq-war-myths-ten-years-later-8227
[7] Hegemony or Survival: http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Survival-Americas-Dominance-American/dp/0805076883/antiwarbookstore
[8] Downing Street memo: http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
Why do you all let Mule troll you? You know he is doing this just to pull your chains right?
Just when I think I'm out... I get pulled back in... 😮 😛 😮
A completely inane exercise.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought I recalled Woodward not being much of a Bush fan.
President Bush's former chief of staff, Andy Card, said the Bush presidency will be judged by three things: "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq." Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, has just completed his third book on the Bush presidency, "State of Denial."
Woodward spent more than two years, interviewed more than 200 people including most of the top officials in the administration and came to a damning conclusion. He tells Mike Wallace that for the last three years the White house has not been honest with the American public.
"It is the oldest story in the coverage of government: the failure to tell the truth," Woodward charges.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-woodward-bush-misleads-on-iraq-28-09-2006/
Yup. From 2006.
I thought I recalled Woodward not being much of a Bush fan.
President Bush's former chief of staff, Andy Card, said the Bush presidency will be judged by three things: "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq." Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, has just completed his third book on the Bush presidency, "State of Denial."
Woodward spent more than two years, interviewed more than 200 people including most of the top officials in the administration and came to a damning conclusion. He tells Mike Wallace that for the last three years the White house has not been honest with the American public.
"It is the oldest story in the coverage of government: the failure to tell the truth," Woodward charges.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-woodward-bush-misleads-on-iraq-28-09-2006/
Yup. From 2006.
So, he failed to tell the truth, but somehow he didn't lie? I'm confused.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
I realize that so much for the Liberals rest on the "Bush lied about WMD" lynchpin. I mean, that HAS to be true or the case against him on multiple fronts starts to fall like a house of cards. I realize that, but not even I was expecting the gutter level blowback (and that's saying a lot.).... And you say I'm the one losing it? Wow.
I don't believe he was lying at this point. Back then I did, but now, it seems to me that he just believed what he was told about it. It doesn't excuse him for not doing more to be 100% certain. And if he gets a pass for being given false intelligence (and I do give him that pass if that's the case), then at least be honorable enough to give all Presidents that courtesy, whether on the right or left....cough, cough, Obama.
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by BoytonBrother]
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
I realize that so much for the Liberals rest on the "Bush lied about WMD" lynchpin. I mean, that HAS to be true or the case against him on multiple fronts starts to fall like a house of cards. I realize that, but not even I was expecting the gutter level blowback (and that's saying a lot.).... And you say I'm the one losing it? Wow.
There were no WMD's in Iraq. It was known by the UN inspectors at the time. Either Bush lied or his advisers lied to him. If he lied, well, he should have been impeached. If his advisers lied, he appointed them. I guess "the buck stops here" only applies to Democrats.
There were no WMD's in Iraq. It was known by the UN inspectors at the time. Either Bush lied or his advisers lied to him. If he lied, well, he should have been impeached. If his advisers lied, he appointed them. I guess "the buck stops here" only applies to Democrats.
This is what happens when Presidents are above the law. It started with that crap bag Ford pardoning Nixon. Now Presidents know they can do whatever they want without consequence. The greater the crime, especially war crimes, the greater the chance history will be written and their Presidential turds will end up polished.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that your posts seem more and more desperate lately. Never been a point of debate? That is either an intentional lie or an example that you are losing it, take your pick.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that your posts seem more and more desperate lately. Never been a point of debate? That is either an intentional lie or an example that you are losing it, take your pick.
You want to know what desperation is? That's pointing out the personality traits, intelligence level, or mental appraisal of a poster you don't agree with. That's desperation, and seems to be about as close a lot of people here can get to a debate.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that your posts seem more and more desperate lately. Never been a point of debate? That is either an intentional lie or an example that you are losing it, take your pick.
You want to know what desperation is? That's pointing out the personality traits, intelligence level, or mental appraisal of a poster you don't agree with. That's desperation, and seems to be about as close a lot of people here can get to a debate.
It is difficult to engage you on any level of debate since you often resort to making jokes when your point is disproven. Then you say that it is fun to do that. The fact is that you make statements off the top of your head and cannot defend them. So, debate with you is not really possible.
Well I guess that ends any debate on that topic.
About 13 years too late.
You thought I was serious? I guess the King of Snark doesn't recognize it when others use it.
I thought your use of the word "debate" was a little off.
Debate? Nothing about this has ever been a point of debate. It's merely been accepted by Liberals that Bush lied and that's the end of it. Now it's brought up as a point of discussion with a USA Today link and people start going apeshit.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that your posts seem more and more desperate lately. Never been a point of debate? That is either an intentional lie or an example that you are losing it, take your pick.
You want to know what desperation is? That's pointing out the personality traits, intelligence level, or mental appraisal of a poster you don't agree with. That's desperation, and seems to be about as close a lot of people here can get to a debate.
It is difficult to engage you on any level of debate since you often resort to making jokes when your point is disproven. Then you say that it is fun to do that. The fact is that you make statements off the top of your head and cannot defend them. So, debate with you is not really possible.
Yet you are deeply committed to live out the rest of your miserable days trying to debate him anyhow. And others too, yet to a lesser degree.
Explain that.
Just giving you another reason to get on your high horse and ridicule everyone, since that seems to be the only reason you come here and we'd hate to lose your charm and wit.
Hard to tell if Bush actually lied or was so anxious to attack Iraq that he was desperate for an excuse.
Even Richard Clarke, Bush's terrorism Czar, admitted that Bush never ordered him to manufacture evidence. But he also claims that the other high level advisors to Bush were fixated on attacking Iraq and that the reports from the Intelligence Agencies, CIA and FBI, which showed there was no connection between 911, Al Qaeda and Iraq may never had made it to Bush and were suppressed by his advisors.
Maybe Bush did not lie per say but it sounds like he was determined to attack Iraq and was desperate for a reason and was willing to accept any connection no matter how weak.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clarkes-take-on-terror/
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that your posts seem more and more desperate lately. Never been a point of debate? That is either an intentional lie or an example that you are losing it, take your pick.
You want to know what desperation is? That's pointing out the personality traits, intelligence level, or mental appraisal of a poster you don't agree with. That's desperation, and seems to be about as close a lot of people here can get to a debate.
It is difficult to engage you on any level of debate since you often resort to making jokes when your point is disproven. Then you say that it is fun to do that. The fact is that you make statements off the top of your head and cannot defend them. So, debate with you is not really possible.
Tell you this, guys. Given this a lot of thought. If there's one level headed, reasonable, classy poster here it's jkeller. Never gets personal with name-calling, insults, or judging other posters. Just all business proving his points, and thoughtful debate straight down the line no matter what.
When I think of a shining beacon that we should all emulate, I think of jkeller.
You're losing it man.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that your posts seem more and more desperate lately. Never been a point of debate? That is either an intentional lie or an example that you are losing it, take your pick.
You want to know what desperation is? That's pointing out the personality traits, intelligence level, or mental appraisal of a poster you don't agree with. That's desperation, and seems to be about as close a lot of people here can get to a debate.
It is difficult to engage you on any level of debate since you often resort to making jokes when your point is disproven. Then you say that it is fun to do that. The fact is that you make statements off the top of your head and cannot defend them. So, debate with you is not really possible.
Tell you this, guys. Given this a lot of thought. If there's one level headed, reasonable, classy poster here it's jkeller. Never gets personal with name-calling, insults, or judging other posters. Just all business proving his points, and thoughtful debate straight down the line no matter what.
When I think of a shining beacon that we should all emulate, I think of jkeller.
No, as much as I appreciate your kind words, we all know the moral compass of the Whipping Post is PerryBoynton.
