Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
There's really no discussion; if you support lies, torture & war profiteering, then you are in Congress with the Beast.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:


Oh wait, I guess some of them actually are...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
There's really no discussion; if you support lies, torture & war profiteering, then you are in Congress with the Beast. You are evil by mis-interpreting reality, or by embracing greed by way of death.

May God have mercy, 'cause Bush won't.


Biped Planetisall

---

Quote:

---

I don't support lies, and Bush has not told any.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't support lies, and Bush has not told any. I flat out don't agree w/ your premise, so I am for Bush, for freedom and will back him , his mission anywhere, all day long, for as long as I live.

Further, it is YOU who is evil, for being a knowing , willing useful idiot for those who want to destroy Western civilization, force women into Burkas, force girls into having their bodies mutilated, and all that is backwards and evil

May Shiva have no mercy on your worthless hides.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


I don't support lies, and Bush has not told any.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

I don't support lies, and Bush has not told any.

---

The problem is, you DO support lies. Saying you don't, and that Bush hasn't told any, is in and of itself a lie.

To say that Bush has never, ever, EVER lied... is a lie.

So you see, you do indeed support lies and the lying liars to tell them. Now and forever more.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh.

I thought Rapo was trying to be funny

You mean that was SERIOUS???? I guess I'll have to take back that howl of laughter!

---

Quote:

---

I was being RIGHT

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
He lied about his drugs.



----------
AFA permanent bases in Iraq... it's been discussed off and on for years. Every time it comes up somebody makes a fuss and it goes dark again. But this is "do or die" time for GWB.

But what I dont' understand is... even if GWB and al Maliki reach an accord, say it's written into Iraq law or becomes some sort of alliance, what's to prevent the next President from reversing the agreement?





---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

I don't support lies, and Bush has not told any.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
well, you said

Quote:

---

I don't support lies, and Bush has not told any.

---

I thought that was a general statement. But of course, he has. About his drug use, for one thing.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What does this have to do with the lies Bush told to attack Iraq, again ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What does this have to do with the lies Bush told to attack Iraq, again ?

---

Didn't you know? Clinton tricked Bush into telling those lies. Which makes them not really lies! Yeah.... it was Clinton's fault. That's the ticket!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Just a reminder of what a real horny bastard looks like.

---

Quote:

---

And that you'd buy into such propaganda as what a President did or didn't say, based on whether you LIKE him or not.

---

Quote:

---

There are bigger things than petty partisanship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What does this have to do with the lies Bush told to attack Iraq, again ?

***************************************************************
When Clinton lied, nobody died.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What does this have to do with the lies Bush told to attack Iraq, again ?

***************************************************************
When Clinton lied, nobody died.

---

Bush told no lies to attack Iraq. That's the point.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What does this have to do with the lies Bush told to attack Iraq, again ?

***************************************************************
When Clinton lied, nobody died.

---

Bush told no lies to attack Iraq. That's the point.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Just keep tellin' yourself that...

Takin' Care of Business, Baby!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You know what I'd like ? I'd like for YOU or anyone to given an example of ONE lie which Bush told that took us to war w/ Iraq.

JUST ONE !! So far, in 5 + yrs, no one seems to have remembered a single one. I find that curious, don't you ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You can't do better than to offer a link to a partisan, biased web site that twists and distorts the facts ?

---

Quote:

---

IS IT TRUE that "no WMD was found" in Iraq?
IN FACT:
The Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam Hussein retained both the intention and the capability to revive bio-chemical weapons programs after sanctions were ended.
The reports we had from U.S. intelligence officials on Iraqi WMD painted essentially the same picture that those officials had presented to the Clinton Administration. The CIA declared that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The stockpiles catalogued by the UN weapons inspectors in 1999 were still unaccounted for, and were therefore presumed to exist. (p. 224)

[T]he Iraq Survey Group team concluded that Saddam had retained the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons rapidly (within a month or two). In the 1990s he had shut down factories dedicated solely to making such weapons, replacing them with "dual-use" facilities capable of producing both civilian products and chemical or biological weapons. That gave him deniability if inspections ever started up again, as Saddam evidently expected they would. (p. 327)

The Iraq Survey Group also found that Saddam had the intention to revive Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs once the sanctions were ended. He had preserved the necessary teams of technicians, who would be the key to reviving the programs quickly. (p. 327)

The public's impression of the Duelfer Report on these matters was shaped by news media headlines to the effect that "nothing was found." Those headlines were misleading (one might even say fundamentally false), because the ISG found substantial WMD capabilities in Iraq, including personnel, materiel, facilities, and intentions-but not the stockpiles of the weapons themselves. (p. 328)

In the end, there are only three possible explanations for the failure to find the WMD materiel that had been catalogued in detail by UNSCOM. Saddam might have destroyed it, he might have hidden it in Iraq, or he might have transferred it out of Iraq. To this day, we do not know for sure which explanation is correct. (p. 330)

The Iraq Survey Group confirmed that President Bush had grounds for viewing Iraq's WMD capabilities as a compelling threat. The CIA's unsupportable statements about Iraqi stockpiles and WMD activity did not justify critics in making unsupportable pronouncements of their own, to the effect that Saddam had no WMD ambitions or capabilities. (p. 330)

---

Quote:

---

JUST ONE !! So far, in 5 + yrs, no one seems to have remembered a single one. I find that curious, don't you ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

Quote:

---

JUST ONE !! So far, in 5 + yrs, no one seems to have remembered a single one. I find that curious, don't you ?

---

They've been gone over ad nauseum, for 5+ years. So far, YOU are the only one who can't seem to remember that.

EC

Takin' Care of Business, Baby!

---

Quote:

---

By the way, if any of you liberal Bush-hating peace-mongers who are reading this don't know the book that AURaptor was quoting from, it was written by Douglas J. Feith, more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith. Just the sort of unpartisan, unbiased source of information AURaptor wants to see in this discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I really should stayout of this thread, but I can't help myself.
How 'bout this one?

On May 29, 2003, during a visit to Poland, President Bush declared that the U.S. had “found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. . . . They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.”
On June 1, 2003, Bush proclaimed that “we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.”

---

Quote:

---

“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Bagdad resumed production of chemical munitions therafter.” ( No one knows that for certain, because of the shell game Saddam played w/ U.N. Inspectors. )

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The stockpiles catalogued by the UN weapons inspectors in 1999 were still unaccounted for, and were therefore presumed to exist. (p. 224)

---

Quote:

---

How do you KNOW it was a lie ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here's an example of what the Left twists and distorts and then calls LIES , when in fact, there's no lie here, what so ever.

Lie ? Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies

What was discovered, AFTERWARDS :HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO GIVE OUT. ( Everyone assumed this not to be the case, most Democrats included . Not a lie )

“had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended. ( This has proven to be false. Saddam DID have plans to revive his WMD program after sanctions ended. )

Quote:

---

IS IT TRUE that "no WMD was found" in Iraq?
IN FACT:
The Iraq Survey Group found that Saddam Hussein retained both the intention and the capability to revive bio-chemical weapons programs after sanctions were ended.
The reports we had from U.S. intelligence officials on Iraqi WMD painted essentially the same picture that those officials had presented to the Clinton Administration. The CIA declared that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. The stockpiles catalogued by the UN weapons inspectors in 1999 were still unaccounted for, and were therefore presumed to exist. (p. 224)

[T]he Iraq Survey Group team concluded that Saddam had retained the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons rapidly (within a month or two). In the 1990s he had shut down factories dedicated solely to making such weapons, replacing them with "dual-use" facilities capable of producing both civilian products and chemical or biological weapons. That gave him deniability if inspections ever started up again, as Saddam evidently expected they would. (p. 327)

The Iraq Survey Group also found that Saddam had the intention to revive Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs once the sanctions were ended. He had preserved the necessary teams of technicians, who would be the key to reviving the programs quickly. (p. 327)

The public's impression of the Duelfer Report on these matters was shaped by news media headlines to the effect that "nothing was found." Those headlines were misleading (one might even say fundamentally false), because the ISG found substantial WMD capabilities in Iraq, including personnel, materiel, facilities, and intentions-but not the stockpiles of the weapons themselves. (p. 328)

In the end, there are only three possible explanations for the failure to find the WMD materiel that had been catalogued in detail by UNSCOM. Saddam might have destroyed it, he might have hidden it in Iraq, or he might have transferred it out of Iraq. To this day, we do not know for sure which explanation is correct. (p. 330)

The Iraq Survey Group confirmed that President Bush had grounds for viewing Iraq's WMD capabilities as a compelling threat. The CIA's unsupportable statements about Iraqi stockpiles and WMD activity did not justify critics in making unsupportable pronouncements of their own, to the effect that Saddam had no WMD ambitions or capabilities. (p. 330)

---

http://www.waranddecision.com/misconceptions/misconception-8
Iraq failed “to acquire long range delivery systems “to replace inventory exhausted in the Iran/Iraq war.” ( It's unlikely Saddam would have sold / given away any of his medium to long range scuds - a moot point. But then one has to ask, what was he using to bomb Israel with then ? Hmmm )

The survey group “uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles” and “documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.”

Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.
“Initial, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety. . . [but] [a]ggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender compenents of the program.” ( Wait..Saddam was trying to HIDE something from the Inspectors ? Tell me this isn't true !! )

“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Bagdad resumed production of chemical munitions therafter.” ( No one knows that for certain, because of the shell game Saddam played w/ U.N. Inspectors. )

“With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995 . . . Baghdad [destroyed undeclared stocks of biological weapons] and abandoned its existing BW [biological warfare] program in the belief it constituted a potential embarrassment” which would undercut any ability to lift sanctions. ( More " undeclared " stocks of biological weapons. Iraq wasn't coming clean w/ all the " undeclared " munitions it had , how was ANYONE to know if this really was the last of what they had ??

In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.” ( Again, what of the UNDECLARED stockpiles ? Iraq was charged w/ producing EVERYTHING it had, and yet yrs after the inspections started, would continue to find MORE undeclared items. Since a true account could not be known, it's impossible to say we knew for certain that the WMD stocks or their production methods were TRUELY destroyed. )


It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


All I asked for was ONE lie, and you can't even do that. Amazing.

---

Quote:

---

The United States disappeared years ago and no one noticed. Corporations run the sham and you all babble about nothing

---