- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush Lied ! Thousands died......
Bush Lied ! Thousands died......Follow
Oh how I love Gbaji
Fuck Bush.
So Gbaji, Bush is either a liar, or a fucking drooling ******, that hired a group of ignorant shit-kickers that also happen to be fucking drooling retards.
I'm okay with either of those choices, which would you like me to pick?
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 6:07pm by Rimesume
I'm okay with either of those choices, which would you like me to pick?
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 6:07pm by Rimesume
Admiral Rimesume wrote:
So Gbaji, Bush is either a liar, or a fucking drooling ******, that hired a group of ignorant shit-kickers that also happen to be fucking drooling retards.
I'm okay with either of those choices, which would you like me to pick?
I'm okay with either of those choices, which would you like me to pick?
You possess free will, right? Pick whatever you want.
But whichever one you pick you are also applying to every single name on the list I just posted.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
But whichever one you pick you are also applying to every single name on the list I just posted.
Ah, but the difference between them, and Bush, is well, how do I say this?
A fucking war? A shitty economy? Crashed housing economy? A ****-poor international policy?
Or were you hinting at something else?
Holy random topic change Batman!
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
I know this makes you uncomfortable, having to actually address the issue on the basis of facts, but a radical change of topic to avoid the subject? Isn't that a bit silly? It's not like it's not obvious or anything...
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
I know this makes you uncomfortable, having to actually address the issue on the basis of facts, but a radical change of topic to avoid the subject? Isn't that a bit silly? It's not like it's not obvious or anything...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Holy random topic change Batman!
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
Even if they did lie, they didn't cause a war. What part of that is unclear to you? They didn't act on said lie, unlike the Bush Administration.
I'll also add that what they (the various people you listed) said, really doesn't matter. Why didn't they act? I think it's very safe to say that the Clinton Administration didn't propagate that lie, and certainly not enough to cause a war.
You asked "Why don't I see any "Clinton lied" thread?" Here is your answer you fuckwit, because Clinton did not start a highly controversial war in Iraq.
Simple enough? Or shall I draw it out in crayon for you?
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 6:44pm by Rimesume
I would like to interrupt this discussion for a moment, and dedicate a song to Paulsol.
Paulsol this is for you sir.
Strategery.
Paulsol this is for you sir.
Strategery.
gbaji wrote:
Odd that I've never seen a "Clinton lied and our soldiers died!" bumper sticker, despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton was actually in the branch of the government that has the power to send us into war, and voted to do so.
I've never heard anyone say that about Kerry either. Or Bob Graham. Or Waxman or Byrd or anyone else in your little list.
I've heard numerous accounts of it regarding Bush though.
Even if you want to claim that all the stories are false, the basis of the "Bush lied" statement isn't that he looked at the intelligence and was wrong. It's that he literally lied about what the intelligence said.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 8:40pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Holy random topic change Batman!
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
I know this makes you uncomfortable, having to actually address the issue on the basis of facts, but a radical change of topic to avoid the subject? Isn't that a bit silly? It's not like it's not obvious or anything...
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
I know this makes you uncomfortable, having to actually address the issue on the basis of facts, but a radical change of topic to avoid the subject? Isn't that a bit silly? It's not like it's not obvious or anything...
They're all politicians. They're all liars. This is specifically why I don't vote. I choose not to participate in a thoroughly corrupt system.
I know I haven't said anything in this discussion thus far but just felt that I had to mention it.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Admiral Rimesume wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Holy random topic change Batman!
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
Even if they did lie, they didn't cause a war.
Huh? Hillary Clinton didn't cause a war?
Congress declares war. Not the president.
Congress voted to send us to war. Not the president.
Hillary Clinton is in Congress and voted for the resolution that sent us to war.
Care to revise your statement?
Oh. And Joph? I'm not going to play point-counterpoint with you about the claims made against the Bush administration by a group of people who disagree with him. Anyone can do that. Let's accept that anti-war folks are going to be against the war and not quote their articles as though they have some sort of magical weight to them, ok?
The fact of the matter is that on the eve of the very first speech Bush gave in which he made the claim that Iraq "had WMDs", he point blank asked the head of the CIA if he could safely make that claim and was told is was a "slam dunk". Period. That has vastly more weight then a report or two written by a couple junior analysts for the CIA that likely never reached the presidential level.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And Joph? I'm not going to play point-counterpoint with you about the claims made against the Bush administration by a group of people who disagree with him. Anyone can do that. Let's accept that anti-war folks are going to be against the war and not quote their articles as though they have some sort of magical weight to them, ok?
Quote:
That has vastly more weight then a report or two written by a couple junior analysts for the CIA that likely never reached the presidential level.
Or maybe he did and then ignored and misrepresented it. Neither is a really bright gold star for his record.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Rimesume wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Holy random topic change Batman!
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
What happened to the whole "Bush lied" bit?
If he lied, then everyone on that list did to. What part of that is unclear to you?
Even if they did lie, they didn't cause a war.
Huh? Hillary Clinton didn't cause a war?
Congress declares war. Not the president.
Congress voted to send us to war. Not the president.
Hillary Clinton is in Congress and voted for the resolution that sent us to war.
Care to revise your statement?
Or manipulated or falsified reports not made only to the UN, but also congress? Wow, quite astonishing.
You pick.
Oh wait, the Department of Defense "isn't in the intelligence business".
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 7:12pm by Rimesume
Quote:
I would like to interrupt this discussion for a moment, and dedicate a song to Paulsol.
Paulsol this is for you sir.
Strategery.
Paulsol this is for you sir.
Strategery.
Nice choon
Cheers !"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And Joph? I'm not going to play point-counterpoint with you about the claims made against the Bush administration by a group of people who disagree with him. Anyone can do that. Let's accept that anti-war folks are going to be against the war and not quote their articles as though they have some sort of magical weight to them, ok?
*cough*
Read the statement you made. Read the articles you linked. Notice that several of them don't come anywhere close to supporting what you said (at least the Christian Science Monitor doesn't, and that's as far as I read before concluding that you were just tossing links out there for the sake of tossing links).
Look. Put a link and a quote stating something supporting your claim that Bush had sufficient intel from the CIA that he should have known that Iraq didn't have WMDs.
Or dont. It's your point to prove Joph. I'm not going to dig through the list of links you put out there and argue how each one doesn't support your claim.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 7:43pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Yes Rime. Obviously George Bush and only George Bush knew everything there is and knew that Iraq really didn't have any WMDs, but lied about it to make everyone else think there was.
Seriously. That's the dumbest position you can hold. What's remarkable is how many people are just that dumb.
Congress has these committees that have oversight on the intelligence services. They have direct access to the same intelligence that Bush has. All of it.
There is no way for Bush to "lie" to Congress on this. There was nothing preventing any member of those committees from getting any of the intelligence they wanted. More to the point it is their job to do so.
Power and responsibility go hand in hand. Congress has the power to declare war. Therefore, they have the responsibility for making that choice. It was their job to dig through the intelligence and decide if they agreed with the President's assessment or not. Their job. Not Bush's. Not Cheney's. Not yours. Not mine. Theirs. Period.
The fact is that they did look at the available information and made a decision. However, since that decision has become unpopular among their constituents, Dems have invented the whole "Bush lied to us" bit in order to avoid the responsibility for the decision they made.
That's the Congressional equivalent of "my dog ate my homework"...
Seriously. That's the dumbest position you can hold. What's remarkable is how many people are just that dumb.
Congress has these committees that have oversight on the intelligence services. They have direct access to the same intelligence that Bush has. All of it.
There is no way for Bush to "lie" to Congress on this. There was nothing preventing any member of those committees from getting any of the intelligence they wanted. More to the point it is their job to do so.
Power and responsibility go hand in hand. Congress has the power to declare war. Therefore, they have the responsibility for making that choice. It was their job to dig through the intelligence and decide if they agreed with the President's assessment or not. Their job. Not Bush's. Not Cheney's. Not yours. Not mine. Theirs. Period.
The fact is that they did look at the available information and made a decision. However, since that decision has become unpopular among their constituents, Dems have invented the whole "Bush lied to us" bit in order to avoid the responsibility for the decision they made.
That's the Congressional equivalent of "my dog ate my homework"...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Oh you're right Gbaji, obviously the Bush Administration is absolved of all responsibility. 
Well it's only fitting that you propagate a huge failure of a war and put blame elsewhere. Now, that's true conservatism.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 8:20pm by Rimesume
Well it's only fitting that you propagate a huge failure of a war and put blame elsewhere. Now, that's true conservatism.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 8:20pm by Rimesume
gbaji wrote:
Congress has these committees that have oversight on the intelligence services. They have direct access to the same intelligence that Bush has. All of it.
Except for the information 'they' had access to, was manufactured. No big deal.
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Congress has these committees that have oversight on the intelligence services. They have direct access to the same intelligence that Bush has. All of it.
Except for the information 'they' had access to, was manufactured. No big deal.
Hillary Clinton got us in the Iraq War. Quite a powerful woman.
/coversface
(Not that I think there's anything wrong with a powerful woman.)
Admiral Rimesume wrote:
Hillary Clinton got us in the Iraq War. Quite a powerful woman.
Don't blow smoke up my ***, boy.
gbaji wrote:
Or dont. It's your point to prove Joph. I'm not going to dig through the list of links you put out there and argue how each one doesn't support your claim.
So read it or don't read it. I'm not holding your hand while you refuse to walk. For anyone else, I hope they read the links and make their own conclusions. At the very least, I'd guess that they'll agree that "Bush lied" is water drawn from a different well than "But So-and-So said in 1998 that Saddam was bad!!!"
Gbaji wrote:
Congress has these committees that have oversight on the intelligence services. They have direct access to the same intelligence that Bush has. All of it.
The president has much more access to intelligence than members of Congress do. Ask any member of Congress. Ask a Republican member of Congress, do you get the same access to intelligence that the president does? [...] The president has much more access to intelligence than any member of Congress. - Senator Bob Kerrey, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Makes sense that Gbaji would know more about that than the senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, huh?
Edited, Jan 23rd 2008 10:41pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48REDACTED,
Posted: Jan 23 2008 at 9:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) To be honest, you're guy's ******** over it won't solve the issue.
Quote:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
If the intelligence presented as as good as claimed, airstrikes on military development sites would have been deemed appropriate. Hillary approved the war resolution but disagreed with the methods used. I don't think any of them proposed occupying the entire country on an infantry level. We have the means to eliminate targets from a great distance. Repeating the process every dozen years or so is an entirely acceptable solution, given the alternative shown in the present situation. The argument should not be about the war itself, but the tactics implemented.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji, your sock is hanging out. 
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Recent Visitors: 394
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (394)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush Lied ! Thousands died......
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC