LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Now THAT is some serious wishful thinking!
Printable View
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Now THAT is some serious wishful thinking!
Nope. Observation of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
???Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I'm sorry... was your link supposed to show something other than a fifth of voters are completely ignorant of Reagan's presidency?
I'm sure you could probably find an equal percentage of people in a certain group that would have no problem with letting their children have a sleepover with Michael Jackson. :rolleyes:
Reagan was a criminal and a d-bag second only to Dubya.
No. It shows that Reagan ranks as amongst the best presidents in US history, according to those polled. It stands to reason that, if the majority of people believed that he did the things you accuse him of, he would not get that result. If you think it's flawed because it's not an over-all majority, go ahead and look up his direct approval rating. You may be disappointed to find that most people disagree with your view of him, by a wide margin.
Even Obama disagrees with you, often citing Reagan's example during his campaign.
As I stated... Reagan ranks highly among those who are ignorant of the facts, and as much as I like Obama I'm not going to pretend that he's not a politician.
So, do you think he is lying? Or, is he ignorant?
Have you read the bill?
Here is what the whitehouse states
Here is The Bill
If there is a lie go find it.
934 more lies and he'll catch up...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
We were talking about Obama's glowing references to Reagan. Not the health bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
Didn't know it was a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Kind of a ridiculous article. Many people believed lots of things that turned out to be apparently untrue about Iraq. If you include Democrats in the totals of untrue Iraq statements, it would probably bulge up to 10,000 false statements. Not being correct about something is not automatically a lie.
I didn't either. But at this rate... it's utterly childish. Case in point, publicly heckling the president. Bad manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
It's fact though.Quote:
Kind of a ridiculous article. Many people believed lots of things that turned out to be apparently untrue about Iraq. If you include Democrats in the totals of untrue Iraq statements, it would probably bulge up to 10,000 false statements. Not being correct about something is not automatically a lie.
I agree that it was the wrong time to do it for Wilson, assuming that's what you're referring to. He apologized. Not really a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
It might be. I haven't looked at the methodology behind this groups findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
My point is that, even if it is true, it's relatively unremarkable.
935 lies are unremarkable?
Especially given how many people have died for those lies?
You lie.
I love your "turned out to be apparently untrue about Iraq." ...you still don't get it about Iraq do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Let me spell it out... f-a-l-s-e p-r-e-t-e-n-c-e-s = L-I-E-S
...and what the hell does it have to do with the health system reforms on the table anyway?
I thought this thread was about USA's capability to provide adequate health care to all, including the 40,000,000 under the poverty line over there.
Frets was posting on topic, more than I can say about discussion of the good or bad points of former (and in some cases disgraced) presidents.
david
As I pointed out before, it isn't a lie if the person saying something believes it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Yes. The number of times a cherry picked group of people mentions something based on faulty intelligence is unremarkable. If we added up every time someone mentioned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that most of the world believed Saddam had and/or was building, we could arrive at a very high number. Unremarkable information and I pity the people who wasted moments of their lives trying to figure it out.
I'm glad that you appreciate my sense to not claim things that I do not know beyond reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Let me spell it out: v-i-o-l-a-t-i-o-n- -o-f- -i-n-t-e-r-n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l- -l-a-wQuote:
Originally Posted by david petley
True or not?
Why don't you take that up with the person who brought it up. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Disgraced as in impeached? I don't believe anyone has mentioned Clinton yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
We're going to have to disagree here.Quote:
As I pointed out before, it isn't a lie if the person saying something believes it is true.
Once you find out otherwise and you don't correct it, just keep saying what you believe in despite being told and shown otherwise... that's living a lie.
Until I see a full retraction, it's all been a lie.
I always change my position when I find out otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Believing something is a lie without proof doesn't sound like a very tenable position. So, I don't buy into it, given what we know.
And having no proof shown that supports your original statements, a gentleman worth anything usually will issue a sincere retraction of prior stated "truths" with actual truths.
Neither have happened fully. Thus, it is still a lie. And I will not/do not/cannot buy into your stance at all.
Like I said before; we will have to disagree here.
Strange the US hasn't invaded Israel yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
dp
There's no oil there. And their tech research helps us.
That's why. I'm tired of using long-winded responses where there's no need.
Not to mention they have nukes... and can fight fairly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
The article as proof of bush lieing about iraq... sort of childish.
Did bush appologize about getting the intell wrong on iraq's wmds.. I believe he did. Did he appologize for dismissing intelligence that stated otherwise and placing weight on individuals nicknamed "screwball" no.
Was the war in iraq about oil? No.. you would have to be fairly dim to believe invading a nation is the cheapest way to secure oil. Seriously a large heavy piece of oil rigging equipment must have fallen upon your head.
Was the war in iraq about wmds and ties to terrorism? Maybe.. slightly.
Was the war in iraq about violations of international law? seriously a warning before you say something that funny.. could have doused the keyboard in coffee.
Was the war in iraq about brining represenative government to the middle east. Possibly.. it was the nation with a history of representative government and has the highest literacy rate in the mid east. Also one of the few secular governments.
Was the war in iraq started because they new a war in Afghanistan was unwinnable? Ah now your get your conspiracy theory on.
I never stated that the Iraq war was about oil. I stated that we did not invade Israel because they have no oil.
Now, by full retraction... I meant exactly that. Explain why he didn't listen to reports that said overwhelmingly otherwise instead of zeroing in on the few that said "perhaps" and made those into "definite".
Apologies that only say very little in the way of how wrong you truly were might as well be kept in your damn head because they mean very little.
And besides... we know the two reasons we went to Iraq was because "He tried to kill my Daddy" and Saddam had a mustache that was second to only Magnum P.I.
The intelligence agencies in the US and UK are generally considered to be very capable. So, when they were concluding that Saddam had or was developing WMDs, it wasn't unreasonable that most, if not all, political leaders in the world took it as a given to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
On balance, I'll add that I also find it surprising that those agencies could be as wrong as they apparently were. However, I think that is more a product of people (myself included) to generally over-estimate the intelligence gathering capability of the CIA, etc. For whatever reason, it feels like those guys know everything. But, maybe there's a lot more room for error and misinterpretation in that business than we realize.
In hindsight, if our ability to know those things via CIA were solid, why would UN inspections be necessary at all? The bottom line is that UN resolution 687 required Iraq to comply with the inspections so that we could know.
It's like a criminal who tries to rob a bank with a toy gun hidden in his jacket. You don't blame the police for using lethal force against the criminal when he points the toy gun at them. The criminal had the option to surrender and disclose that the gun was fake. The police had to assume the gun was real in order to protect themselves.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Not all violations are equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Some would certainly argue that Israel has committed questionable acts. However, I think most would agree that they were not on the scale of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent disregard for UN resolution 687 (and so on up to the final 1441).
Reminds me of a joke I heard last week...
Reporter: Why did you say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
George Bush: Heh. I have the receipt.
They are, and they both concluded that Iraq had no WMDs and was no threat before the invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
That is why Bush had to manipulate and cherry-pick the intelligence, and outright lie to the American public via the media to build a case for war.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
The Downing Street Memos showed that the UK knew the "facts were being fixed" around Bush's political policy and they had to make the decision to either stand with the truth against their longtime ally or support the conspiracy.
http://downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html
Remember "Freedom Fries"? LOL
France, Germany, New Zealand, and Canada were just some of our allies that were against the invasion and argued that there was no evidence of WMDs beforehand.
I find it surprising that you would continue to try and pull that old lie out as if you really believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Bush had to create his own alternative "intelligence" office to support his case because the the real intelligence agencies including the CIA didn't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020802387.html
Quote:
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community
Quote:
Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."
Quote:
the inspector general concluded that Feith's assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a "mature symbiotic relationship" was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.
The two key pieces of "evidence" Bush used as the basis for the invasion were both known to be unreliable and false long before the invasion.Quote:
Feith, who was defense policy chief before leaving the government in 2005, was one of the key contributors to the administration's rationale for war. His intelligence activities, authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and coordinated with Vice President Cheney's office, stemmed from an administration belief that the CIA was underplaying evidence of then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's ties with al-Qaeda.
1) The drunken liar "Curveball" who the Germans warned us against using.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/03/iraq.usa1
and
2) The infamous aluminum tubes which Condoleezza Rice got up in front of the nation and told us were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," and "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." a full year after our own government's nuclear experts told her were not usable for a nuclear program and were most likely only for small artillery rockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/in...rint&position=
And lets not gloss over the fact that Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector told us that there was no evidence of WMDs or nuclear programs before the invasion and that Saddam was providing full access even while Bush was on TV telling the American public the exact opposite... which SOME people on here would still have us believe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...raq.iraq/print
Or the fact that 2 weeks before the invasion the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told us the same thing.Quote:
But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.
"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.
"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."
With all the exposed lies and the information available in this day and age, for anyone to try and pretend that the Iraq invasion was based on anything even remotely legitimate is nothing more than an attempt to play us all for a fool... again.Quote:
the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them.
Actually it was more like a crooked cop who shoots an unarmed suspect for personal reasons and then plants a gun on the body afterwards... except in this case Bush forgot to plant the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
'bout time you called a spade a spade....more than just questionable I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I'm just surprised that you didn't think to slip an 'apparently' in that statement somewhere.
The only WMD* deployed in the Iraq war was by the US administration of the time...Weapons of Mass Deception...leading to the death of thousands of US citizens as they fought a dirty little war that didn't need to be fought.
...but, from outside observation, I still think that Obama's reforms to the health care of a nation are probably overdue.
david
This battle has been fought for so many years. Unfortunately sometimes a great speech isn't enough.
The question is who has a greater control over congress.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...money.cnn.html
Something to be real proud about... http://bit.ly/yIjCA
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You mean the document typed up by an anti-war "journalist"? For which no authentic document has been provided or confirmed by anyone who would have knowledge of the event?
Good one, LR. Good one.
Some of our allies disagreed with the invasion. I don't recall any of them arguing that there was no evidence of WMDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The intelligence referred to in the article you posted was regarding the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Not WMD in Iraq. Furthermore, it confirms that the CIA conclusion was that there "was an evolving association [of Iraq with Al-Qaeda] based on sources of varying reliability."Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You don't know what Feith's basis was for using stronger language. Perhaps he saw the same evidence offered by the CIA and felt that it was conclusive.
You haven't any idea what intelligence was "key" because much intelligence remains classified. All you know is what has been publicized in the media.
And let's not gloss over that Hans Blix was hired to do one thing, report on whether or not Saddam Hussein complied with UN resolution 1441. He reported that he was not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Blix not finding WMD was an unremarkable fact given that the point of 1441 was that Saddam had to cooperate with the UN to show that they didn't have WMD to hide. They were not cooperating with that effort, thus the toy gun comparison that I provided.
I guess I could have forgotten some argument from the past. Why should it be "about time" that I acknowledged that people think Israel has done something wrong? Was I disagreeing with that at any time?Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
to make it clearer, it's like the cop knew it was fake, the cop posted the pictures inorder to scare another nations police station, to justify stealing the ["criminal's"] wallet, then shot the criminal, shot everyone in the bank and bombed the whole neighborhood....to liberate them!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
It's like a criminal who tries to rob a bank with a toy gun hidden in his jacket. You don't blame the police for using lethal force against the criminal when he points the toy gun at them. The criminal had the option to surrender and disclose that the gun was fake. The police had to assume the gun was real in order to protect themselves.
this is a picture a little closer to reality i think.
Are you a "truther"?
Are you a "shoe dodger" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
No... I meant the document that was reported on by an extremely reputible, award winning journalist and former British military specializing and working in military intelligence, along with several other documents at the time, none of which have been questioned in their legitimacy or denied by officials who had firsthand knowledge of the event including Prime Minister Tony Blair, and has been confirmed unofficially by multiple sources contacted by multiple media outlets... but I applaud your failed attempt to throw sand in the umpire's eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
*golf clap*
LOL, I love this term... so I guess this makes you "anti-truth", FL?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
As opposed to a war obsessed "president"?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I didn't say you did. I appologize for implying that you did. Some of the questions were quite open ended.. just the concept that the war was for oil sets me on edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
my feelings have always been that our friendship with isreal is based on what nation in the mid east was best equiped to secure and protect the oil fields form the communists. by earlier 70s after a few wars that choice became clear.Quote:
I stated that we did not invade Israel because they have no oil.
I think in the conditions of the time he may have felt it was best to err on the side of caution. Honestly i really believe he needed a legal marketable reason to invade iraq to set up a representative government. Or perhaps just set up a killing field for various islamic radicals.Quote:
Explain why he didn't listen to reports that said overwhelmingly otherwise instead of zeroing in on the few that said "perhaps" and made those into "definite".
Is that a much greater bending, or downright breaking, of the truth than Obama on healthcare. I would say so.
If Obama was a republican would the people calling him a liar support him and those supporting him call him a liar.. probably.
now I have a vision of Saddam getting out of a 308 with tight op shorts and a Hawaiian shirt... thanks.Quote:
And besides... we know the two reasons we went to Iraq was because "He tried to kill my Daddy" and Saddam had a mustache that was second to only Magnum P.I.
Do you have any substantial arguments to make or are you just a shoe thrower?Quote:
Originally Posted by moath86
None of those qualities that you rattled off change the fact that nobody has ever provided an actual Downing Street Memo. There's a word for what was provided: hearsay. [And you are mistaken that it has not been denied by those with first-hand knowledge, "including Prime Minister Tony Blair." Read more, err less.]Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You can call that fact a "failed attempt" all you want. You go ahead and enter hearsay evidence in a court of law and get back to me whether or not it succeeds or fails to be accepted.
Do you know what the term means?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I am not anti truth. But, I am certainly anti "truther". Are you?
Oh my.Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Investigative journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Fixed.
Yes, I do, but I do have to question if you know the meaning of the term "truth" sometimes... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I'm a truther.
Now. What does it mean?