Step away from all of the politics for a moment...Follow

Lol. Um... Look in the mirror for neurosis there Smash.

You can't make a firm statement on anything. You continually make vague statements, and then change the specifics as you go along.


You were responding to *my post* in which I said that Bush didn't lie about WMD in Iraq. You responded by talking about Republicand lying and misleading. Yet, when I then support my position, you first backtrack by saying you weren't talking about lying about WMD (when you didn't say *what* lies you were talking about). And now you want to say that you weren't talking about Bush.


You responded to my statement Smash. Silly me for assuming that you were actually talking about the same thing I was talking about.

Again. Stop backtracking on irrelevancies. You and I both know that you are presumably including Bush in your list of Republicans who lied and mislead us about WMD in Iraq. You're just trying to change the subject.

"Did Bush know that Iraq did not have WMD when he said that they did?"

I want a firm "yes" or "no" answer, with support for your position.

Can you do that?


Allready said he didn't know they didn't have WMD. Allready said that *I* thought they had WMD.

Can you read?

All appearances would indicate no, yet you can clearly spew out stunningly verbose colums of text that have no meaning.

Can you say "I was wrong, you never said that"?

Can you do that?

I'm thinking you can't.

Mainly because you've been unable to ever once do so over three or so years.

Come on, surprise us all, even yourself. Just say "Hey, I was wrong."

Ok. So in other words, you have absolutely no evidence that Bush lied when he said that Iraq possessed WMD?

Is that correct?


You said above that he believed it to be true. Therefore he was not lying. Is that also correct?


If he was not lying, and you now *know* he was not lying (or know as well as you can), is it then not a lie to say he was lying?

Er? I've looked and looked Smash. But I don't see a single time where you said: "Bush didn't know they didn't have WMD when he said that they did".

In fact, you said what seemed to be the exact opposite:




How exactly do you reconcile those Smash?


Again. I want you to quote one of the two statements below. No wiggling. No rewording. No implication or innuendo. For once, actually make a straight statement:

"Bush did not know that Iraq did not possess WMD when he said that they did"

or

"Bush did know that Iraq did not possess WMD when he said they did"


It would seem to be really simple, yet you can't seem to do it. I know you have a degree in sociology, which is the science of stating the obvious while saying nothing, but isn't this a bit ridiculous?

Holy Crap! Talk about backpedalling Smash. That's crazy.


Um. At what point did you clarify you were talking about "Nuclear WMD"? Your first mention of that was a half a page after we started aruing about Bush (ok. Republicans) lying.


You made your "Republicans lied and misled" statement in direct responce to my post about how it's wrong to say that Bush lied about WMD since he didn't know they didn't have them at the time.

So you responded to that with a generic "they lied", but in reality you were just talking about nuclear WMD. And for some reason you chose not to share that bit with anyone until 20 posts later?


OMG. You are pathetic Smash. That's about the most sad backpedalling I've ever seen.

Does it anger you Gbaji that Smash gets to tease you so much and force so much typing effort, and yet regardless of how the arguement goes people who read are so much more endeared towards Smash?

Just askin'

Does it anger you Gbaji that Smash gets to tease you so much and force so much typing effort, and yet regardless of how the arguement goes people who read are so much more endeared towards Smash?


You're forgetting the mental illness factor. In the elaborate fantasy world, he wins every argument convincingly, and people are more endeared towards him.

You're operating under the assumption that he can actually process reailty.

Big mistake.

BIG MISTAKE.

Every time he goes "Heh." or "Ummm." (as sentences of course) I imagine him winking at his imaginary friend.


Haha.

I picture him reading the posts aloud in front of a mirror dressed up like Judy Garland adding the "um..s" and "folks" as changes after he reads them aloud.

Don't forget "Sheesh." look of disbelief towards imaginary friend

You were responding to my post Smash. Thus, by assumption, when you said that Republicans lied and misled, you were talking about "current possession of WMD in Iraq".


What are you fuc[/b]king high?

Please tell me there's some sort of drug addledness involved here.


[b]
Why are you confused that I'd take it that way? Once again, you are changing your argument around midstream.


Yeah, apparently I was confused that you'd translate

"The Republicans lied, misled, and did everything they could to establish Iraq as a direct threat to the US, and tied to 911.
"

into having to do with WMD.

Like if you said "Bush is ninety feet tall!"

And I Replied "Bush is a white man"

I wouldn't GENERALLY assume that you'd translate that into

"Bush is three feet tall!'

I was unaware of the crack you were smoking obviously.



That's how you backpedaled. Are you now claiming that your statement above had *nothing* to do with the block of text you quoted from me?


No, look, let me try to use small words.

I was responding to this, specfically:

"Just because you and most of the rest of the US citizenry is too lazy to actually become informed on the issue and find out the full reasons is no excuse."

I happened to quote the whole paragraph, because when I don't you accuse me of taking you out of context.

You know, how you're taking the one sentace of my reply completely out of context, and really DREAMING up an elaborate fantasy context?

So here, take a look"




Here's some of the other context from that post, that you're pulling one sentance from:

Hell, here's the whole thing.


The Republicans lied, misled, and did everything they could to establish Iraq as a direct threat to the US, and tied to 911.

Now that it's clear that all of that was a poorly executed sham, people are pissed off.

It's going to cost them the election.

Funny how trying to exploit the ignorance of the American People comes back to bite you in the *** like that, isn't it?

Kerry would never have gone to Iraq. In point of fact, pretty much NO ONE but Bush would have.

It was an aligning of a certain specefic constelation of neo-con zealots who should never have been in positions of power all at the same time.

There was a large chain of coincidal events that led to it even being possible, starting with Cheney being put in charge of an accelerated transition team after the '00 election and having disproportinate power to place his fellow neo-cons in high level jobs.

If the election had been a landslide for Bush, I don't think we'd have gone to Iraq. The echo chanmber wouldn't have been there and someone could have pointed out the obvious disasterous potential consequneces.



You'll notice none of it has anything to do with WMD, it has to do with the public being uninformed, and then later on in the post, how I think it's unlikely that Bush would have invaded without the partucilar team of Neo-Cons who were around him.



You've been trying to weasel and redefine your own statements in this thread so much that you don't even remember what you were talking about. I do. The quote above is pretty clear Smash. I made a statement. You countered with another statement.


Yeah, the problem is you apparently can't comprehend the statement I'm replying to from context, allthogh everyone else can instantly.

That's a real cognative dissonance problem you're having.

So far you've blatently attributed something I never said to me, back peadeled and attributed something I said as meaning something that it clearly doesn't, and then, when realizing you were wrong, accused me of backpeadling from the imaginary thing that I never said.

All this to avoid having to say you were wrong about something.

Are there no limits to how far you'd go?

Would you just forego reading my posts entirely and just creating quotes that didn't exist?

Wait, what am I saying, you do that now.



I've apparently proven my position since you have agreed that Bush did not lie when he said that Iraq had WMD.


Well, I guess I've proven my position that you don't fuc[/b]k elephants like you said you did.

Yes, congradulations, you've proven that I didn't argue something after claiming that I did, while no one was under the impression that I had save you.

Good work, Holmes.


[b]
The only result of this whole bit is that you've now agreed that my original statement was correct. That's all I wanted.


Yes, that's all I want out of an argument, too is to prove that something that someone agrees with me about is something they argued against even though that never happened and then to have them admit that they agree with me.

Again.

Victory!!


Edited, Tue Aug 3 19:27:37 2004 by Smasharoo

Sigh. Ok. Let's go around the merry-go-round again...


Tell me this then Smash. If it wasn't about WMD, then what exactly did the republicans lie and mislead the public about in terms of the "Iraqi threat"?


I'm just a bit confused here. We spent a good part of this thread talking about how WMD was the sole reason we went to Iraq. Or, as many people stated, the sole reason presented to the public for why we went to Iraq.


So. Three questions:

What exact lies did the Republicans say?

Who did they say them to (ie: who did they "mislead")?

How did those lies establish Iraq was a "direct threat to the US"?


If you can answer those without mentioning any form of WMD, I will be totally amazed. I'm betting you can't. But feel free to try anyway.


Looks like I'm going to have to spank you again. Whatever. Let the beating begin.

Wow. Why am I not surprised?

You've argued yourself into a corner and can't find a way out, so you're going to pick up your toys and go home. Whatever. Be the 5 year old if you want.


The sad part is that in a couple weeks, you'll again post on a thread that Bush "lied" about Iraq, and we'll repeat this argument right to this point again. And you'll do the same thing... again.



Why can't you face this fact Smash? Bush didn't lie. He really didn't. The American people certainly got caught up in what was going on, but none of the justifications used either by the Bush administration or Congress for the Iraq war was a "lie". And no amount of you saying it over and over will make it that way.


I just find it really funny that once I finally nail you down as to what you're actually trying to claim, and I demand some sort of support for your position, you fold like a cheap deck of cards. Sigh. I would hope you'd learn from this, but you probably wont.


EDIT: Um. Just because I'm curious (and you posted yet another "vague" statement). What exactly am I supposed to say I was wrong about? I've looked all through this thread, and I can't actually find you disproving anything I've said. I'm serious Smash. I have no freaking idea what you are talking about.

Edited, Tue Aug 3 20:30:47 2004 by gbaji