| Do you believe that bush has lied to the people during his presidency on one or more issues to the public | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 112
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:17 am Post subject: Does Bush lie? | |
| Just doing a quick poll to find out whether or not people on this forum think that if Bush lied to us in any way during his presidency (on topics such as the war on Iraq) | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2398
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:02 am Post subject: | |
| Well, duh.......yeah! ~GoodFella | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2109
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:47 am Post subject: | |
| There is nobody on this planet that's honest 100% of the time. | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2398
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:52 am Post subject: | |||
Well, George and his crew might be dishonest about 75% of the time. Sorry kiddo.  ~GoodFella
|
|||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:06 pm Post subject: | |||||
Guess you've redefined the word "lie" like other good democrats always do. By your premise, a lie is anything a democrat doesn't like or simply disagrees with. Facts are "lies" in your world. Problem with Bush is he's too honest, makes you guys uncomfortable, you'd rather have leader like Ole sleeze Bag Bill, so you feel can feel better about yourself in comparision. |
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:56 pm Post subject: | |
|
^^ :roll:
Seeing as how their existance must be "fact", perhaps you could tell us where the WMD's in Iraq are Don? *** Some other links on the subject (some of 755,000 google results for the keywords George Bush lies): The Other Lies of George Bush All the President's Lies The Bloody Lies of George W. Bush *** |
|
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:30 am Post subject: | |||
I can tell you they were in Iraq, and may well still be there. Even your side acknowledged that they were there. If not, what did Sadam use to kill all those Kurds? As to where they are right now.........maybe Iraq, remember those jerks buried F-15s in the sand, maybe they sent them to Iran, or maybe even to John Kerry's back yard in Massachusetts. Makes as much sense as you do !!!! Be careful what you claim doesn't exist, remember that blue dress ??? Oh yeah, and as to the "Bush lied about the reason for war." This President acted on the best information available to ALL our leaders, even Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards. Seems they now can claim they were mislead but Bush is responsible. Right ! What a bunch of hypocrite babies. Another thing, Clinton didn't even go the the World Trade Center after the '92 bombing, much less do anything about it. That's your sides answer to everything...hide under the rug. Over 3000 innocent people died on 9/11/01 case you forgot you, Twit ! About time we did something about all those murdering dictators you and Jimmy Carter love so much. Does that answer your questions, you fool ? [/b] |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 613
Location: New Frickin' Jersey
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:49 am Post subject: | |||||
typical republican answer..when you are wrong, you blast everyone for being un-american and change the topic...republicans lie constantly, however they do with so much anger and fervor that people believe they are right |
|||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:16 am Post subject: | |
|
Hey Unhap !
Just like a lying democrat. No substance, no reply to the issues. That's the best you can do, Huh ? You deserve to be lied to. And Kerry will gladly do that for you. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:26 am Post subject: | |||||
I've re-emphasized the important bits for you.
And how does this demonstrate the GWB hasn't lied? As I recall, GWB and his entire administration were quite adamant the these weapons existed, would be found, and were an "imminent" threat to the US. No weapons were found, thus no threat existed, thus GWB and his administration lied in order to rally support for an invasion. Seems pretty clear, no? As the rest of your post is entirely irrelevant, I won't waste my time addressing it. However, I think you should spend some time with the PG. Personal attacks are not permitted and won't be tolerated. This is the only warning you will receive. |
|||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:22 am Post subject: | |
|
Dearest Administrator sleK,
Your comment about an "imminent" threat is totally dishonest and you are smart enough to know that. The rest of your statements are simply wrong. It also constitutes, in my humble opinion, a direct "personal attack" upon the President of the United States, by you. I'm sure I can assume safely that you have warned yourself, as well. Your dislike of our President clearly motivates your judgement. I respectfully disagree with your position, your opinion, and everything that opinion stands for. Thank you. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:38 am Post subject: | |||||||
Ahem, the world knew they existed....the UN...the Brits....the Germans....even the FRENCH. It is a fact they existed. The proof was when he USED such weapons against the Kurdish people in 1991. So your assertation that no such weapons existed is incorrect. No weapons have been found yet. \ IF GWB was such a liar then dont you think he would have "arranged" for some WMD's to be found by now? You have no proof that the President lied. A lack of evidence is not "proof". As you ask me all the time....can you prove that lies were told? I dont see how you can since you are not privy to the same reports and intellegence that was used. So any talk of "lies" told is unsupported by any "facts" |
|||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||
False (on both accounts ).
... and I quote:
And I should take your word for it, why?
No. It's fair criticism founded in factual observations that have been very well documented.
No. I dislike your president because of his well-documented dishonesty and have every right to question his suitability for office based upon this fact.
That's nice. Doesn't make for very good discussion though. |
|||||||||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:02 am Post subject: | |||||||||
Ever existed? Sure. Existed within the context that they were used to rally support for an invasion? No. They never existed in the capacity that the administration claimed.
I was under the impression that weapons investigators were pulled out long ago?
Is not proof of what? It's "innocent till proven guilty" BG. Not "guilty till proven innocent". And there's a good reason for this; you can't prove a negative.
As stated above, these lies are very well documented and, contrary to your assertion, lies can, will, and do take place outside of "reports" and "intelligence". |
|||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:13 am Post subject: | |||||
|
Your logic is flawed...just because they have not been found yet does not mean they are not there. US troops and scientific teams are looking for them as we speak.
The lies are not "documented". They are accusations.
That right! you cant PROVE they are NOT there.
Funny you are willing to give this very western idea of justice to Saddam .......a filthy murdering dictator......oh there is plenty of "proof" for that statement BTW. But you are not willing to give the same for The President of the United States. Untill every last hiding place has been rifled or the weapons have been shown to have been moved (Syria is the place many experts think they are) then you should apply the same standard accross the board dont you think? |
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:12 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
I agree. It simply means that, despite statements made by the administration, there was no factual basis for the invasion.
They've been looking for how long already?
Of course it's right.
I've never suggested that Saddam wasn't a "filthy" or "murdering dictator". But, as you should recall, the foundation of the administrations case for the invasion was the "imminent" threat of Iraqs "WmD's". Evidently, there are no WmD's, thus there was no threat to the US.
No. That's not how it works. First you get the intelligence, then you attack. Doing otherwise undermines the very foundation of American ideals and clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy in the current US administration. |
|||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:37 am Post subject: | |
|
There was indeed a factual basis of the invasion. Iraq refused to offer evidence of the destruction of their WMD's...do you understand that? They allowed inspectors back only under threat of force.....they delayed and distracted the inspectors....they were asked over and over either to give proof as to the WMDs destruction OR to hand over what they had. Iraqs response was to stonewall and evade. It is very simple logic to follow. Since Saddam was proven to be a liar and a murderer AND evidently the CIA AND MI6 said he still had WMDs and showed no willingness to discount that fact, it was decided to take him out.
Iraq is roughly the size of California......we have been there not quite a year...how long do you think it will take to search the entire country?....BTW the amount of Allied personell looking for the WMD is less than 5,000 by some reports. Again, it is not a logical conclusion to say there are no WMD based on the facts at hand. Not sure why you put filthy and murdering dictator within quotes....perhaps you think he was none of those things? Evidently we had the evidence of a threat and acted upon it, hence it was not a lie. To tell a lie implies the INTENT to decieve and you have no evidence to show that the Aministration INTENDED to decieve. Yes it may have been a mistake, but niether have been proven as of this date. We HAD the intellegence and it was acted upon. It may well be proven to have been mistaken or inaccurate but at the time it was (and I think still is) thought to be correct. So your points are invalid. Your [/i]perception of our motives may be different but the facts point otherwise. Unless you can "prove" the intent of a national policy I really dont see much point in going on. So will you give GWB the same benifit of the doubt that you seem to be giving to Saddam...a proven murderer, liar, theif and dictator? Or will you continue to spout the talking points of the left? |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:15 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'd like a link for this. IIRC, Iraq did offer evidence but, for one reason or another, it wasn't sufficient. Regardless, perhaps you could explain how the Iraqis could prove that WmD's didn't exist? "Prove a negative", remember? Can't do it.
So? That's not proof of WmD's nor is it proof of an "imminent threat" to the US. If I don't answer the door when you knock, does it automatically mean that I have buckets of ebola in the basement and I intend to empty them into the water supply? Didn't think so.
Try not to lose sight of the topic BG. Whether or not Saddam was a liar or murderer is not the issue. The issue is whether or not GwB and his administration used lies to elicit support for an invasion.
You found Saddam, did you not? I posit that it's much more difficult to find a person than it is to find stockpiles of WmD's and the equipment necessary to produce them.
Nor is it logical to invade a sovereign nation based upon speculation. However, it certainly is logical to suggest that, as no WmD's have been found, WmD's did not exist in the capacity that GWB's administration used to drum up support for the invasion. Why don't you save us both the trouble and address this^^ point?
I've already cited three quotes from white house spokepeople that help to demonstrate a canyon-sized gap between the invasions justification and what has actually been discovered. Here's some more... From David Kays report (head of the ISG):
(emphasis added) ... this differs substantially from the allegations the administration made to garner support. For example:
(emphasis added) "We know for a fact that there are weapons there". "We have not yet found stocks of weapons". You do the math.
a) that's false b) that's not relevant. A) A lie is deception. Intent doesn't affect the outcome. B) The administrations intent has little bearing upon this topic.
As before, intelligence first, then invasion.
"Intelligence" seems quite the misnomer then, no?
Intent is not the focus of this topic. Nor have I made any point of "motives". Whether or not GwB lied during his term, is the topic here. And, all that is required to demonstrate this is the simple juxtaposition of the administrations statements over the results of the invasion.
:roll: An ad-hom in disguise. *** For all the viewers out in TV land, this is where BG tries to discredit my points by suggesting that I'm a Hussein sympathizer, thus anti-american, and not to be trusted. *** Please provide some semblance of fact to demonstrate that I've ever taken a sympathetic position with Husseins alleged tyranny. And please stop stooping to such transparent fallacies. Stick to the topic instead.
Troll. The last troll. For there shall be no more. Right? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:06 pm Post subject: | |||
selK, Please don't ! Continue with your very selective references and accusations. We are very divided in this country, dangerously so. It will take the constant drum of untrue claims from your side to wake people up and see how close we are to anarchy. The "Darma and Greg", John Kerry-Jane Fonda drug culture of the sixties and seventies has come way too close in it's quest to destroy this country and what it has stood for. Every time you level another obvious, untrue charge from the left, more Americans take notice. Please, don't let me change your mind, continue......... PS./ the blue dress line really set you off, didn't it? |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 765
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:50 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Remember, David Kay also said that it was a reasonable conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat based on the intelligence available at the time of "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Did Bush Lie seems to be a very general question...and the assumption that the administration used this to push the need for action in Iraq seems presumptive....as members of both parties as well as most major countries believed the intelligence at the time. WMD's Does this constitute a lie, when all involved believed that Iraq was a threat to our national and world security? Slek said:
It was the stated policy of the United States beginning in 1998 that "regime change" should occur in Iraq. Iraq was given numerous opportunities to live up to stipulations given to it by the U.N., which it continued to ignore. WMD's were not the only reason given for going into Iraq, but they were an important reason. And as far as the capacity of WMD's held by a militant dictator...isn't any amount too much? |
|||||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:47 pm Post subject: | |
|
CCCs,
Thanks for the input. You appear to be quite eloquent, so I doubt you will be drawn into the use of descriptive phrases like those which earned me my warning. On that topic, I've actually grown to agree that it was not necessary. What is necessary to expose these people and then, they decribe themselves. We argue with them over their "facts", which are really little more than twisted, inaccurate statements that they believe take on crediblity through simple repeatition. With the willing help of a biased, left-wing media, these tactics rally their fellow travelers but, other outlets, like talk radio and FOX News, offer facts which bring their assertions into question. That's why the left hates FOX News and talk radio so much. Lefties points cannot stand up a two way discussion, as on talk radio, or to the exposure of "both sides" of issues. They are only comfortable when they control the information. selK will never admit that the WMD were there and still may be. His agenda doesn't allow for it. The view of those facts has changed due to the current desired results. In 1998, everyone agreed, today, they need an issue. The "imminent threat" comment was carefully avoided by the President. That is documented fact. Advisors use many terms on both sides, but the man who had to decide what to do was carefull NOT to use that phrase. I believe he felt it to be the case, but he never said it. The world is a dangerous place, the Clinton policy of "kicking the can down the road" made it much worse. We can't ever allow again, our leaders to hide thier eyes and hope for the best. People get killed that way. I reference 9/11, again. Thanks, DonQuixote |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:19 pm Post subject: | |||||||
I think that my question is legitimate to our debate. I am not saying that you are a Hussein sympathizer. I do believe, based on your postings the past year, that you are indeed anti-American. Or at least not a fan of America. That is not an attack it is just my opinion. You are of course entitled to it. You have shown that you believe that the US administration lied about WMD without any factual way of knowing what the Admin knew based on secret intelligence. But you appear to be giving the benifit of the doubt to Iraq. I have re-read most of this thread and I can come to no other conclusion. It appears that our views of the US are so opposed that no usefull discussion can ever take place. Ones frame of mind and point of view are important in any debate. The conclusions drawn from such debate reveal themselves over time. My statement about "talking points" was not meant as a troll...sorry if it sounded like one. But many of the points that you have been making are indeed the ones that are being used by the Democrats in the US. Like CCC's has pointed out below, the President never used the word "imminent" so your point and quotes from other officials using that word are not relevent to this thread correct?
I disagree. A human being cannot long survive in a hole in the ground without moving, eating, breathing etc. There will be evidence to a humans nature if the human is indeed alive. Remember many of the WMDs were small physicaly....a footlocker sized box buried in the desert does not move or breathe, so it is much harder to find.
Either that WMDs did not exist in the capacity that was believed by MI6 and the CIA is a possibility that should not be discounted for sure. But we see this from such different angles.....you dont believe the US acted on intelligence it had, you think it "drummed" up stuff to justify the invasion. I think the President acted on the evidence he and the world had and acted for the safety of the US and the world. Maybye we should start another thread about how the world and Iraq are better places without Saddam. (As I am writing this the Iraqi councel just enacted a transitional constitution with a bill of rights) Maybye the debate about wether W lied is pointless....I believe him and you do not......not sure what more debate would accomplish. |
|||||||
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:39 pm Post subject: | |||
|
To: Bodyguard,
Sorry to quote myself, but this applies to you as equally as to CCCs. Yours are all good points and valid arguments that go wasted on these leftists.
|
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:53 pm Post subject: | |
|
Well Don, that is why I said that there is really not much more to talk about. One must have some sort of common ground in order to have any kind of discussion. I really dont see any in this thread......I am probably done for now.
Last edited by Bodyguard on Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 56
Location: southeast
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject: | |
|
Bodyguard -
I agree..........plus the "exposure" I spoke of is pretty much, out there. With thoughts of November....I close. Thanks again ! |
|