PDA

View Full Version : Bush is booed at Nationals Park


Thig Lyfe
03-30-2008, 07:58 PM
<param name="movie" value="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf?swfv=03060801" /><param name="flashvars" value="embedId=26e1aa08-6427-423d-8d1b-265c49c5d621" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://media.redlasso.com/xdrive/WEB/vidplayer_1b/redlasso_player_b1b_deploy.swf?swfv=03060801" flashvars="embedId=26e1aa08-6427-423d-8d1b-265c49c5d621" width="390" height="320" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" name="Redlasso"></embed></object>

BWillie
03-30-2008, 07:59 PM
What's even funnier is their best pitcher is ODALIS PEREZ

Bootlegged
03-30-2008, 08:03 PM
Yeah - really Booed loud there. Does booed mean 10% of the crowd?

VonneMarie
03-30-2008, 08:04 PM
What's even funnier is their best pitcher is ODALIS PEREZ

ROFL

Demonpenz
03-30-2008, 08:05 PM
well people tend to remember when you lie to go to war

doomy3
03-30-2008, 08:06 PM
tacky.

Fruit Ninja
03-30-2008, 08:08 PM
That wasnt enough booing

Bootlegged
03-30-2008, 08:10 PM
well people tend to remember when you lie to go to war

and off to DC it goes. Just takes 1 dumbass politico dem every time

banyon
03-30-2008, 08:11 PM
and off to DC it goes. Just takes 1 dumbass politico dem every time

Yeah Demonpenz is a regular political hack.

Coach
03-30-2008, 08:11 PM
I can't believe Ray King is pitching for Washington. Dude is still woofin down the cheezeburger.

smittysbar
03-30-2008, 08:34 PM
well people tend to remember when you lie to go to war

:rolleyes: :shake: :rolleyes:

keg in kc
03-30-2008, 08:37 PM
That's one of the more negative reactions I've seen for a first pitch at any park.

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:38 PM
and off to DC it goes. Just takes 1 dumbass politico dem every time

exactly, That was low class. Even if they don't like him.

I thought it was cool to see him in the booth.

CanadaKC
03-30-2008, 08:38 PM
Judging from the previous posts...KC must be republican country...

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:39 PM
PORNO!!!!:rolleyes: :shake: :rolleyes:

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:42 PM
Judging from the previous posts...KC must be republican country...

Nope KC and this place has been misguided for yrs. They hate our president.

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:44 PM
What's even funnier is their best pitcher is ODALIS PEREZ

and the Braves couldn't even beat him. UGGH!!

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:45 PM
I can't believe Ray King is pitching for Washington. Dude is still woofin down the cheezeburger.

LMAOLMAO

KCChiefsMan
03-30-2008, 08:49 PM
ole W probably thought they were yelling BUUUUUUSH

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:53 PM
ole W probably thought they were yelling BUUUUUUSH

You mean that dumbass? The one that has a degree from an Ivy-league school? He's so dumb...

BWillie
03-30-2008, 08:53 PM
and the Braves couldn't even beat him. UGGH!!

Man that is sad. I bet he pulls something out of his ass this year and gets like 15 wins. That would be the royals luck

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:55 PM
Man that is sad. I bet he pulls something out of his ass this year and gets like 15 wins. That would be the royals luck

I'm not talking to you.

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 08:55 PM
Jerkesque avy and all. GO DIE!

Rausch
03-30-2008, 08:55 PM
You mean that dumbass? The one that has a degree from an Ivy-league school? He's so dumb...

I made the same argument 4 years ago.

I'll argue with you over it in a different forum.

That said, I like seeing the pres at sporting events. Doesn't matter who it is or what team they all need a break.

Bowser
03-30-2008, 09:03 PM
Yeah - really Booed loud there. Does booed mean 10% of the crowd?

I bet Clinton never got booed like that at a baseball game.


:Poke:

BWillie
03-30-2008, 09:04 PM
Jerkesque avy and all. GO DIE!

haha u'll hate me alot more saturday night

KCChiefsMan
03-30-2008, 09:04 PM
You mean that dumbass? The one that has a degree from an Ivy-league school? He's so dumb...

oh jesus. You go around in public and call people dumbasses when they make a statement you don't find funny or disagree with? Or do you keep that attitude for the anonymity of the net? Well, no matter where he got his degree...he doesn't sound very intelligent when he speaks. Just another naive republican that thinks Bush is a great president...sorry

Rausch
03-30-2008, 09:05 PM
I bet Clinton never got booed like that at a baseball game.


:Poke:

The crowd that still believes in Santa and no roids?

Probably not...

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 09:06 PM
I made the same argument 4 years ago.

I'll argue with you over it in a different forum.

That said, I like seeing the pres at sporting events. Doesn't matter who it is or what team they all need a break.

nope. I'll connect live w/ somebody, but I'm not debating or trying to converse politically w/ anyone on a kybd. and an LCD. Totally appreciate that second part though.

Thig Lyfe
03-30-2008, 09:07 PM
They were saying "Boooo-ush, Booooo-ush".

BWillie
03-30-2008, 09:07 PM
oh jesus. You go around in public and call people dumbasses when they make a statement you don't find funny or disagree with? Or do you keep that attitude for the anonymity of the net? Well, no matter where he got his degree...he doesn't sound very intelligent when he speaks. Just another naive republican that thinks Bush is a great president...sorry

hey, he got me a six hundred dollar rebate check and lowered my taxes. if it wasn't for his foreign policy i wouldn't hate him so much.

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 09:07 PM
oh jesus. You go around in public and call people dumbasses when they make a statement you don't find funny or disagree with? Or do you keep that attitude for the anonymity of the net? Well, no matter where he got his degree...he doesn't sound very intelligent when he speaks. Just another naive republican that thinks Bush is a great president...sorry

I should've put "that" in italics. I wasn't calling you one. Re-read that.

KCChiefsMan
03-30-2008, 09:13 PM
I should've put "that" in italics. I wasn't calling you one. Re-read that.

alright, misunderstanding.

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 09:13 PM
haha u'll hate me alot more saturday night

Again, Is this a guaranteed Kansas victory by you?

Simply Red
03-30-2008, 09:15 PM
alright, misunderstanding.

you should know me better than that. ;) People are allowed to have opinions. I think that is what make this place interesting. :)

Logical
03-31-2008, 12:34 AM
Amazing it was not far worse. I assume the joy of the new ballpark helped keep the boos down.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-31-2008, 01:04 AM
hey, he got me a six hundred dollar rebate check and lowered my taxes. if it wasn't for his foreign policy i wouldn't hate him so much.

Where do you think that money came from, genius?

CrazyPhuD
03-31-2008, 01:22 AM
Wonder what secret service would do if someone held up a sign that said "I like my bush shaved"

|Zach|
03-31-2008, 02:51 AM
Yeah - really Booed loud there. Does booed mean 10% of the crowd?

You're a clown.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 03:11 AM
I'm guessing here, but I'd say that those that heard the minor groups of people boo'ing were not aware that in each and every first game pitch by a president there has been boo'ing.

There are always assholes in the crowd that are not concentrating on what the event is all about, the beginning of baseball for the year.

:huh:

beavis
03-31-2008, 03:13 AM
Odalis lied, people died.

DaKCMan AP
03-31-2008, 05:58 AM
Where do you think that money came from, genius?

It doesn't grow on trees? :shrug:

Demonpenz
03-31-2008, 06:43 AM
I'm guessing here, but I'd say that those that heard the minor groups of people boo'ing were not aware that in each and every first game pitch by a president there has been boo'ing.

There are always assholes in the crowd that are not concentrating on what the event is all about, the beginning of baseball for the year.

:huh:

so if hitler was throwing out the first pitch I shouldn't boo him because "hey it's opening day?" I don't follow that logic

Dartgod
03-31-2008, 06:52 AM
so if hitler was throwing out the first pitch I shouldn't boo him because "hey it's opening day?" I don't follow that logic
Hitler = Bush? :spock:

This kind of logic is exactly why there is a separate forum for political discussion.

Could a mod please move this thread there?

Sully
03-31-2008, 06:59 AM
Mr. Burns: [Mr. Burns' film is being booed by the audience] Smithers, are they booing me?
Smithers: Uh, no, they're saying "Boo-urns, Boo-urns".
Mr. Burns: [Stands and faces the audience] Are you saying "Boo" or "Boo-urns"?
[the audience boos and throws rubbish at him]
Hans Moleman: I was saying "Boo-urns"!

Bootlegged
03-31-2008, 07:24 AM
You're a clown.

You're a virgin

StcChief
03-31-2008, 07:50 AM
well people tend to remember when you lie to go to war
too bad he can't draft the kids on here to go fight for their country

banyon
03-31-2008, 08:19 AM
too bad he can't draft the kids on here to go fight for their country

Where are we going to fight for our country?

Brock
03-31-2008, 08:22 AM
too bad he can't draft the kids on here to go fight for their country

It would give inner-city youths something to do.

stevieray
03-31-2008, 08:22 AM
Where are we going to fight for our country?


this opinion brought to you by the taxpayers of dodge city...;)

gblowfish
03-31-2008, 08:31 AM
That first pitch was really high and inside....kind of like how the KBR contracts were awarded.


Thank you. I'll be here all week.

StcChief
03-31-2008, 08:40 AM
Where are we going to fight for our country?

where ever they are needed.

Brock
03-31-2008, 09:09 AM
where ever billionaires need their interests protected.

fyp

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:59 AM
well people tend to remember when you lie to go to war

Yeah, they remember it so well that they can't quite put their finger on what exactly constituted that lie.

penchief
03-31-2008, 10:15 AM
Yeah, they remember it so well that they can't quite put their finger on what exactly constituted that lie.

People know when they've been intentionally misled. You can parse words and imitate Dick Cheney all you want but people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Cheneyburton may have succeeded in stonewalling the truth and preempting the kind of accountability that would prove their culpability, but we all remember how they sold a false bill of goods to the public.

The arrogant self-serving manner in which they've tried to defend their idiocy hasn't set well with the public, either. The only reason they have any dignity left at all is because the corporate media is more interested in serving the same interests rather than doing it's job.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 10:21 AM
People know when they've been intentionally misled. You can parse words and imitate Dick Cheney all you want but people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Cheneyburton may have succeeded in stonewalling the truth and preempting the kind of accountability that would prove their culpability, but we all remember how they sold a false bill of goods to the public.

The arrogant self-serving manner in which they've tried to defend their idiocy hasn't set well with the public, either. The only reason they have any dignity left at all is because the corporate media is more interested in serving the same interests rather than doing it's job.

Is this the "they must had lied because I don't like where we ended up" indictment?

banyon
03-31-2008, 10:45 AM
Rumsfeld's comment on March 30, 2003: "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

a1na2
03-31-2008, 10:51 AM
so if hitler was throwing out the first pitch I shouldn't boo him because "hey it's opening day?" I don't follow that logic

I'm not sure where you got that logic, but hey what ever floats your boat skippy.

Tell me when Hitler was ever President of the U.S., that might be a starting point.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 10:54 AM
Rumsfeld's comment on March 30, 2003: "We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

There are several problems with this:

1. Rumsfeld isn't Bush

2. This statement came after the war began so it couldn't possibly be a "lie" that led us into war.

3. "[E]ast, west, south, and north somewhat" covers a pretty broad area. And it should be noted that we actually found WMD in this area even if it was leftover Gulf War I era WMD.

4. How do we know that this is a lie and not just another case of relying on faulty intelligence? The same faulty intelligence that told us that there were ongoing WMD programs to begin with. (Edit: I can illustrate this one with an analogy to shopping for peanut butter at my local grocery store at the request of my wife, if you want me to. ;) )

mlyonsd
03-31-2008, 11:28 AM
Anyone claiming the Bush administration lied about WMD and Iraq without openly saying the democrats are also guilty of lying about the subject actually has less credibility than either one of them.

At least when it came to pre-war intelligience both sides looked at the evidence and came to their own conclusion.

Being so partisan to avoid the obvious throws your cred out the window.

mlyonsd
03-31-2008, 11:31 AM
General Michael Hayden, Director CIA on Meet the Press Sunday (yesterday)....


MR. RUSSERT: You were not at the CIA on September 11th, 2001 and the successive months after that. You were at the National Security Agency. But looking back at what the American people were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was there a colossal intelligence failure?

GEN. HAYDEN: Yeah, we got it wrong. All right? And although I wasn't at the CIA, I was in the room when that National Intelligence Estimate was approved by the community--it wasn't just a CIA document--and frankly, Tim, I voted yes. It was my belief that what we were saying in that document was correct.

MR. RUSSERT: Why did you get it wrong?

GEN. HAYDEN: Lots of reasons. This, this has certainly been gone over by whole generation of American intelligence officers. There are a couple of narratives. I can suggest a few to you right now. Number one, maybe momentum in terms of what we knew about Iraq, what we had learned about Iraq. And even though our more recent reporting had been very thin, we still kind of carried the old conclusions forward without, frankly, holding them up enough to the light in order to see whether or not they were still valid. I, I'll tell you this. I've seen since then, I've seen estimates that we've had with high confidence turn to medium confidence. And I'd say to our...(unintelligence), "Why is that now medium confidence? Nothing's changed." And, and the answer is, "Yes, but the information on which it has been based has aged off, and therefore we're reducing our confidence level." So we've gone to school on this.


When even Tim Russert admits our stance on pre-war Iraq was based on the intelligience community and not Bush lying you know you've lost that battle.

Demonpenz
03-31-2008, 11:44 AM
I remember before we went to war that if they don't find anything he will be impeached and drug through the streets. I was surprised nothing happened.

DaneMcCloud
03-31-2008, 11:53 AM
Nope KC and this place has been misguided for yrs. They hate our president.

I'm an equal opportunity hater though I live in Los Angeles.

I despised Clinton and I certainly don't like Bush. The only Presidents in my lifetime that I even remotely liked were Bush I and Reagan in his first term.

Johnson sucked.
Nixon sucked.
Ford was in an impossible position.
Carter is a far better statesman than President (much like Al Gore would be, if he ever won the election).
Reagan was amazing in his first term but he totally lost his way in the second term.

Regarding the booing, more power to them. Freedom of Speech is alive and well (thankfully!).

penchief
03-31-2008, 12:24 PM
General Michael Hayden, Director CIA on Meet the Press Sunday (yesterday)....



When even Tim Russert admits our stance on pre-war Iraq was based on the intelligience community and not Bush lying you know you've lost that battle.

Russert played softball with Hayden. He didn't even follow up on any of his questions. It was pretty much a free forum for Hayden to give his side of it without any grilling whatsoever. Russert has really gone soft lately. He could have pressed him on domestic spying, waterboarding, why agents would fear future consequences of unlawful acts, etc. The Corporate Media has proven it isn't willing to buck this administration.

penchief
03-31-2008, 12:27 PM
Is this the "they must had lied because I don't like where we ended up" indictment?

Nope, I was dragged along for the ride kicking and screaming. I remember it in real time. As do most people.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 12:51 PM
Nope, I was dragged along for the ride kicking and screaming. I remember it in real time. As do most people.

But yet you can't tell us what the lie was. I have no doubt that you could see, all along, that the direction Bush was taking the country in was not the direction you wanted, but I have serious doubts that you actually remember a lie.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 12:54 PM
One lie was SH had WMD's implying a nuke.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:00 PM
One lie was SH had WMD's implying a nuke.

Please, that's not even a serious attempt to describe a lie. It's nothing more than a false smear.

Donger
03-31-2008, 01:02 PM
This again?

Do the people who say "Bush lied" really think that Bush knew that Iraq no longer had WMDs and promoted that they did in order to justify the war?

Messier
03-31-2008, 01:04 PM
I don't think there were any lies by the Bush administration, but I do believe there was some "fingers in the ears" action. Not wanting all the truth because it might not support what you're hoping to find, and that's just as awful to me.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:11 PM
I don't think there were any lies by the Bush administration, but I do believe there was some "fingers in the ears" action. Not wanting all the truth because it might not support what you're hoping to find, and that's just as awful to me.

Thanks for at least admitting that there weren't really any lies. What kinds of things do you consider "finger in the ears" action? Are you just talking about the administration's failure to publicize a few dissenting voices within the intelligence community or are you talking about something more directly related to the WH?

Simply Red
03-31-2008, 01:13 PM
This again?

Do the people who say "Bush lied" really think that Bush knew that Iraq no longer had WMDs and promoted that they did in order to justify the war?

I don't. I think it was a hard time to be the president. Again though; thank god we didn't have some pussy in there that would fold up in the fetal posi. Thank god we had an ass-kicker in charge w/ pursuit. If he had not retaliated or responded, guess who'd be the first compaining claiming he didn't do enough.

**Grabs jacket and leaves slamming the door**

scott free
03-31-2008, 01:13 PM
This again?

Do the people who say "Bush lied" really think that Bush knew that Iraq no longer had WMDs and promoted that they did in order to justify the war?

If you havent yet had a chance, watch the Frontline special "Bush' War".

They pressured the CIA in a variety of ways to come up with evidence backing their assertions.

Aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobile labs...all a bunch of BS, people who WERE on his side started dropping like flies when he started throwing this shit at the wall, to see if it would stick.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:16 PM
If you havent yet had a chance, watch the Frontline special "Bush' War".

They pressured the CIA in a variety of ways to come up with evidence backing their assertions.

Aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobile labs...all a bunch of BS, people who WERE on his side started dropping like flies when he started throwing this shit at the wall, to see if it would stick.

Like what?

scott free
03-31-2008, 01:21 PM
Like what?

What do you mean???

How were they pressured???

You dont think "they" could lean heavily on the CIA, threaten careers etc???

Watch the show if you get a chance, i'm not pulling anything out of thin air.

irishjayhawk
03-31-2008, 01:30 PM
What do you mean???

How were they pressured???

You dont think "they" could lean heavily on the CIA, threaten careers etc???

Watch the show if you get a chance, i'm not pulling anything out of thin air.

Dude, it's fine:

It's not a lie, it's a false smear.
It's not a lie, it's reliance on shitty intelligence.
It's not a lie, it's a mistake.
It's not a lie, it's an error of judgment.
It's not a lie, it's Bush telling the dishonest truth.

I've asked him at what point does something that is false become a lie. He seems to think it never does. Relying on faulty intelligence isn't a lie, it's just faulty intelligence. But when you're entire case is built upon faulty intelligence and you still go through with it, it's still not a lie.

I feel like this sometimes with patteeu: :) Only no smile.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:38 PM
What do you mean???

How were they pressured???

You dont think "they" could lean heavily on the CIA, threaten careers etc???

Watch the show if you get a chance, i'm not pulling anything out of thin air.

Like what... are you alleging... specifically. If "they" leaned, who did the leaning and in what way did he lean? Who says that this was the case? Does the leaner admit he leaned or is this an unproven allegation?

I've seen enough episodes of 60 minutes to know that news documentaries can be presented in a way that makes just about anything seem real. I don't know if this happened in "Bush's War" or not, but I'd rather talk about the broader view of all the evidence rather than one particular presentation of the evidence.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:42 PM
Dude, it's fine:

It's not a lie, it's a false smear.
It's not a lie, it's reliance on shitty intelligence.
It's not a lie, it's a mistake.
It's not a lie, it's an error of judgment.
It's not a lie, it's Bush telling the dishonest truth.

I've asked him at what point does something that is false become a lie. He seems to think it never does. Relying on faulty intelligence isn't a lie, it's just faulty intelligence. But when you're entire case is built upon faulty intelligence and you still go through with it, it's still not a lie.

I feel like this sometimes with patteeu: :) Only no smile.

Most people agree that it becomes a lie when you believe that it's false but present it as truth anyway, regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

irishjayhawk
03-31-2008, 01:44 PM
Most people agree that it becomes a lie when you believe that it's false but present it as truth anyway, regardless of whether it is actually true or not.

So, in essence, those claiming he has lied have about as much evidence as those who claim he didn't. That evidence being ZERO.

Baby Lee
03-31-2008, 01:49 PM
Dude, it's fine:

It's not a lie, it's a false smear.
It's not a lie, it's reliance on shitty intelligence.
It's not a lie, it's a mistake.
It's not a lie, it's an error of judgment.
It's not a lie, it's Bush telling the dishonest truth.

I've asked him at what point does something that is false become a lie. He seems to think it never does. Relying on faulty intelligence isn't a lie, it's just faulty intelligence. But when you're entire case is built upon faulty intelligence and you still go through with it, it's still not a lie.

I feel like this sometimes with patteeu: :) Only no smile.

Meteorologists are by definition LIARS!!! ;) - not trying to rehash this mass of former horseflesh.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 01:52 PM
So, in essence, those claiming he has lied have about as much evidence as those who claim he didn't. That evidence being ZERO.

Not really. After who knows how many public statements and numerous exhaustive investigations carried out by bipartisan, non-partisan, and extremely partisan people and organizations, the fact that there still isn't really any evidence that Bush lied is, IMO, pretty strong evidence that he didn't.

Every time someone comes up with something that they think is a lie, a closer examination of the evidence explains why it wasn't.

scott free
03-31-2008, 02:00 PM
Like what... are you alleging... specifically. If "they" leaned, who did the leaning and in what way did he lean? Who says that this was the case? Does the leaner admit he leaned or is this an unproven allegation?

I've seen enough episodes of 60 minutes to know that news documentaries can be presented in a way that makes just about anything seem real. I don't know if this happened in "Bush's War" or not, but I'd rather talk about the broader view of all the evidence rather than one particular presentation of the evidence.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/etc/synopsis.html


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070209/9cia.htm


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Here are a few links, pick it apart 'til your hearts content...it doesnt matter, you'd need to see videotape of Bush & Cheney saying "WE LIED" to sway you anyway.

But there is plenty of material out there on this.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 02:09 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/etc/synopsis.html


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070209/9cia.htm


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Here are a few links, pick it apart 'til your hearts content...it doesnt matter, you'd need to see videotape of Bush & Cheney saying "WE LIED" to sway you anyway.

But there is plenty of material out there on this.

You might as well just link me to the entire internet and tell me it's out there somewhere. If you are so sure that Bush lied us into war, you ought to be able to describe one specific example and provide substantiation for it. Just one. But you can't.

irishjayhawk
03-31-2008, 02:13 PM
Not really. After who knows how many public statements and numerous exhaustive investigations carried out by bipartisan, non-partisan, and extremely partisan people and organizations, the fact that there still isn't really any evidence that Bush lied is, IMO, pretty strong evidence that he didn't.

Every time someone comes up with something that they think is a lie, a closer examination of the evidence explains why it wasn't.

But no one knows if he lied. Only he does. Everything else is circumstantial and perspective based.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 02:22 PM
But no one knows if he lied. Only he does. Everything else is circumstantial and perspective based.

Yeah, it's not proven beyond all possible doubt that he didn't lie. Big deal. I'm not the guy who goes around spontaneously saying "Bush didn't lie us into war!" I'm the guy who responds to people who spontaneously say that he did by pointing out that they can't point to a single provable lie of any significance.

scott free
03-31-2008, 02:23 PM
If you are so sure that Bush lied us into war, you ought to be able to describe one specific example and provide substantiation for it. Just one. But you can't.

I could spend this entire afternoon scouring around for the perfect article, but it wouldnt make a Goddamned bit of difference to you.

It would therefore be, a big waste of my time.

Your a true 100%er.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 02:25 PM
Do the people who say "Bush lied" really think that Bush knew that Iraq no longer had WMDs and promoted that they did in order to justify the war?
Yes!

Because Bill Clinton knew and lied too.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 02:26 PM
I could spend this entire afternoon scouring around for the perfect article, but it wouldnt make a Goddamned bit of difference to you.

It would therefore be, a big waste of my time.

Your a true 100%er.

It would be a big waste of your time because in the end you wouldn't find a lie that you could back up. But given your confidence that Bush lied, it shouldn't take you any effort at all because you should already have a clear example of the lie in your head and it should just be a matter of articulating it and googling a quick link to back up your allegation. The reason it's so difficult is because you don't really know he lied. You just believe the myth.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 02:28 PM
Please, that's not even a serious attempt to describe a lie. It's nothing more than a false smear.

It's not a smear. A smear is a falsehood. Bush lied. VP's don't go to the CIA to make things go the way they want. That violated traditional protocol. He wanted to influence the outsome of the intel. CIA told the yellow cake charges from Nigeria were unreliable too.

irishjayhawk
03-31-2008, 02:44 PM
It would be a big waste of your time because in the end you wouldn't find a lie that you could back up. But given your confidence that Bush lied, it shouldn't take you any effort at all because you should already have a clear example of the lie in your head and it should just be a matter of articulating it and googling a quick link to back up your allegation. The reason it's so difficult is because you don't really know he lied. You just believe the myth.

You cannot deny that you won't accept pretty much anything that isn't 100% while proving your analysis is 100%.

I'm not the only one that sees you're extreme backbending.

Logical
03-31-2008, 02:53 PM
You cannot deny that you won't accept pretty much anything that isn't 100% while proving your analysis is 100%.

I'm not the only one that sees you're extreme backbending.

Definitely true, patteeu will bend the reality to fit whatever shape he wants it to fit. He is a master at it now on the order that only DEnise before him had been able to achieve.

Logical
03-31-2008, 02:56 PM
Yeah, it's not proven beyond all possible doubt that he didn't lie. Big deal. I'm not the guy who goes around spontaneously saying "Bush didn't lie us into war!" I'm the guy who responds to people who spontaneously say that he did by pointing out that they can't point to a single provable lie of any significance.Sorry but any lie, is a lie of significance.

banyon
03-31-2008, 03:08 PM
Sorry but any lie, is a lie of significance.

Two words, "plausible deniability". it's been this administration's MO since day 1.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 03:22 PM
It's not a smear. A smear is a falsehood. Bush lied. VP's don't go to the CIA to make things go the way they want. That violated traditional protocol. He wanted to influence the outsome of the intel. CIA told the yellow cake charges from Nigeria were unreliable too.

It's a smear precisely because you can't back it up.

There is no "protocol" against VP's going to the CIA for briefings. There is no credible evidence that the VP pressured the CIA to change it's analysis. Challenging analysis, asking additional questions, digging more deeply to find out what's behind an analytical conclusion; these are the things a competent, critical thinker does when he's being briefed on the intelligence product of an organization with a pretty dismal record of getting it wrong. The people making charges like this fall into two categories. Those who have a political agenda to advance, and those whose shoddy analysis is the subject of criticism.

The CIA did not reject the yellow cake charges even though they determined that one particular document was a forgery. At one point they concluded that they couldn't back up the charges themselves, but they never took the position that they were false (at least not prior to the war). The CIA even interpreted Joe Wilson' trip report as supportive of the yellow cake charge.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 03:25 PM
You cannot deny that you won't accept pretty much anything that isn't 100% while proving your analysis is 100%.

I'm not the only one that sees you're extreme backbending.

What is this 100% BS. Either you have proof that he lied or you don't. Proof doesn't have to be 100%, but it does have to be fairly substantial, IMO, to say without equivocation that he lied. I'm not sure I've ever even heard a "more likely than not" case made in favor of a Bush lie.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 03:30 PM
Sorry but any lie, is a lie of significance.

Sorry, not all lies are created equal.

If the assistant deputy national security advisor says that the WH will hold a press conference to discuss WMD in Iraq tomorrow at noon when he knows the press conference won't be held until 3:30pm, he's lying, but he's not telling a lie of any significance in terms of whether or not we were lied into war.

If Bush says "we know" something based on intelligence that is deemed to be of a "high confidence" quality by the CIA, he's not literally being accurate, but it's the kind of puffery that is normal, common, and completely acceptable to any reasonable person.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 03:35 PM
But no one knows if he lied. Only he does. Everything else is circumstantial and perspective based.

From your perspective everything is lies? Glad you cleared that up.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 03:36 PM
Yes!

Because Bill Clinton knew and lied too.

BEP, get your head out of the sand.

Chemical weapons are WMD's. I hope that you know that.

Traces of Ricin was found, but those that want to damn the administration have written that little point off.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 03:37 PM
Two words, "plausible deniability". it's been this administration's MO since day 1.

:BS:

Logical
03-31-2008, 03:40 PM
Sorry, not all lies are created equal.

If the assistant deputy national security advisor says that the WH will hold a press conference to discuss WMD in Iraq tomorrow at noon when he knows the press conference won't be held until 3:30pm, he's lying, but he's not telling a lie of any significance in terms of whether or not we were lied into war.

If Bush says "we know" something based on intelligence that is deemed to be of a "high confidence" quality by the CIA, he's not literally being accurate, but it's the kind of puffery that is normal, common, and completely acceptable to any reasonable person.


Bush and Cheney lied because their reasons for going into Iraq were not WMDs, were not the cruelty of Saddam as a dictator, but was an economic decision about the strategic importance of oil in the area and an economic reason to enrich many of their key supporters such as Haliburton executives. Everything else presented to get us into Iraq and to later keep us there are simply excuses and in essence lies of convenience.

By the way the support of our access to oil in the region might have been a valid reason for the war had they only been truthful about it. They just did not have the huevos to try and make the legitimate case.

Donger
03-31-2008, 03:43 PM
Bush and Cheney lied because their reasons for going into Iraq were not WMDs, were not the cruelty of Saddam as a dictator, but was an economic decision about the strategic importance of oil in the area and an economic reason to enrich many of their key supporters such as Haliburton executives. Everything else presented to get us into Iraq and to later keep us there are simply excuses and in essence lies of convenience.

By the way the support of our access to oil in the region might have been a valid reason for the war had they only been truthful about it. They just did not have the huevos to try and make the legitimate case.

Is that speculation or you know?

Logical
03-31-2008, 03:45 PM
BEP, get your head out of the sand.

Chemical weapons are WMD's. I hope that you know that.

Traces of Ricin was found, but those that want to damn the administration have written that little point off.

Actually a Chemical weapon is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction (as almost no physical damage is done by such a weapon). Perhaps if we were to change what the acronym stands for it would be accurate Weapons of Mass Death (but then are not all bombs weapons of mass death?).:doh!:

Logical
03-31-2008, 03:46 PM
Is that speculation or you know?Lets just say it is probability based factual conclusions.;)

a1na2
03-31-2008, 03:48 PM
Actually a Chemical weapon is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction (as almost no physical damage is done by such a weapon). Perhaps if we were to change what the acronym stands for it would be accurate Weapons of Mass Death (but then are not all bombs weapons of mass death?).:doh!:

You work in the defense industry and are saying this? My experience might have lost it's edge since 2005, but in 2005 chemical weapons were considered WMD's by the department of defense.

Donger
03-31-2008, 03:50 PM
Actually a Chemical weapon is not a Weapon of Mass Destruction (as almost no physical damage is done by such a weapon). Perhaps if we were to change what the acronym stands for it would be accurate Weapons of Mass Death (but then are not all bombs weapons of mass death?).:doh!:

IIRC, the "destruction" is not limited to structures, buildings, etc., but also the mass destruction of human life.

Logical
03-31-2008, 03:52 PM
You work in the defense industry and are saying this? My experience might have lost it's edge since 2005, but in 2005 chemical weapons were considered WMD's by the department of defense.


I am just pointing out the fallacy of the acronym as a name and why it probably creates confusion. There has become a widespread perception that Nukes are WMDs (but you are correct that the government since WWII has considered Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons WMDs).

a1na2
03-31-2008, 03:53 PM
IIRC, the "destruction" is not limited to structures, buildings, etc., but also the mass destruction of human life.

That is the way I understand WMD's.

Buildings can be replaced. Life cannot.

Logical
03-31-2008, 03:54 PM
IIRC, the "destruction" is not limited to structures, buildings, etc., but also the mass destruction of human life.
:hmmm:
I find that an interesting way to look at it, I have never heard it used that way but that does not make you wrong. You limeys always have a unique perspective on language.:)

Donger
03-31-2008, 03:56 PM
Here's a fun question: rank the type of WMD you'd like to be exposed to, in order of ascending ickiness.

For me:

Nuclear
Chemical
Biological

penchief
03-31-2008, 03:56 PM
But yet you can't tell us what the lie was. I have no doubt that you could see, all along, that the direction Bush was taking the country in was not the direction you wanted, but I have serious doubts that you actually remember a lie.

We didn't find out they were intentionally misleading us until after the whole "yellow cake from Niger" incident. It was one of the first big clues that they were trying manipulate intelligence to suit their agenda. After that, there were matter-of-fact statements about where the WMD were and manufactured claims of al-qaeda/Saddam connections by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Then there was also the overexaggerated drone claims.

Like I said, they did a nice job preempting the kind of accountability that would easily expose their deceptions. And they did a nice job stonewalling the truth. But when you look back on their claims, the certainty with which they made those claims in the face of reasonable doubts, and the smear campaign that they used on those who challenged their claims, it's pretty easy for someone with eyes to see that they deliberately misled the nation in order to ram their own agenda down the country's throat.

There was a CLEAR PATTERN of manipulating and cherry-picking inteligence. There was a CLEAR PATTERN of boldly making claims that were later found out to be untrue. There was a CLEAR PATTERN of smearing those who pointed out the inaccuracies. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Americans that this presidency took us to war under false pretense.

Again, people are not as stupid as you think they are. And I hope someday that Dick Cheney, George Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the other usurpers in the Cheneyburton Administration get exactly what they deserve. Where's Ken Starr when you really need him?

Logical
03-31-2008, 04:00 PM
Here's a fun question: rank the type of WMD you'd like to be exposed to, in order of ascending ickiness.

For me:

Nuclear
Chemical
Biological
Kind of depends on how close I am to the exposure and what typoe of Biological or Chemical wepaon I am being exposed to, to play I need more information.

Adept Havelock
03-31-2008, 04:29 PM
Kind of depends on how close I am to the exposure and what typoe of Biological or Chemical wepaon I am being exposed to, to play I need more information.

Agreed. If I'm being exposed to MM-88 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_(1980_film)), DC2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Terror), or something like that, I'd probably put it at the top.

If I'm being exposed to weaponized Athlete's Foot, Nuclear probably goes at the top of the list.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 04:37 PM
Here's a fun question: rank the type of WMD you'd like to be exposed to, in order of ascending ickiness.

For me:

Nuclear
Chemical
Biological

Probably the same order if it was a have to. I'd like to choose to die of extreme old age.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2008, 05:19 PM
It's a smear precisely because you can't back it up.

There is no "protocol" against VP's going to the CIA for briefings. There is no credible evidence that the VP pressured the CIA to change it's analysis. Challenging analysis, asking additional questions, digging more deeply to find out what's behind an analytical conclusion; these are the things a competent, critical thinker does when he's being briefed on the intelligence product of an organization with a pretty dismal record of getting it wrong. The people making charges like this fall into two categories. Those who have a political agenda to advance, and those whose shoddy analysis is the subject of criticism.

The CIA did not reject the yellow cake charges even though they determined that one particular document was a forgery. At one point they concluded that they couldn't back up the charges themselves, but they never took the position that they were false (at least not prior to the war). The CIA even interpreted Joe Wilson' trip report as supportive of the yellow cake charge.
I've been backing it up on and off for two years. You just refuse to recognize it because you're a Bushie. Testimony is evidence and there was the testimony of inspectors and their determinations, also when SH's son defected to Jordan he said the same as the inspectors. Clinton knew all along as well they hadn't anything real on SH because certain inspectors were undercover CIA operatives trying to overthrow SH. Inspectors weren't even thrown out either. Clinton told them he was sending a bomb in and if they wanted to be safe they'd leave.

On the CIA that's not exactly true either.

Thig Lyfe
03-31-2008, 05:33 PM
It's funny that there are (apparently) still people who don't realize that Bush's presidency has been a total f*ck-up.

Sully
03-31-2008, 05:35 PM
It's funny that there are (apparently) still people who don't realize that Bush's presidency has been a total f*ck-up.

Just think...
Of every 10 people you meet, 2 of them belong in that group!!!

a1na2
03-31-2008, 05:53 PM
It's funny that there are (apparently) still people who don't realize that Bush's presidency has been a total f*ck-up.

Gee, let me guess. You are a liberal!?!

a1na2
03-31-2008, 05:54 PM
Just think...
Of every 10 people you meet, 2 of them belong in that group!!!

another flaming lwnj speaks out. :rolleyes:

Sully
03-31-2008, 05:59 PM
another flaming lwnj speaks out. :rolleyes:

Oddly, you are the only one I flame.
It's still funny how much you cry when people call you names, Tom, and then you resort to it more than anyone.
I'm sorry you are so angry and unintelligent. I hope this anger is reserved for this board, and doesn't drift into your real life.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 06:00 PM
I've been backing it up on and off for two years. You just refuse to recognize it because you're a Bushie. Testimony is evidence and there was the testimony of inspectors and their determinations, also when SH's son defected to Jordan he said the same as the inspectors. Clinton knew all along as well they hadn't anything real on SH because certain inspectors were undercover CIA operatives trying to overthrow SH. Inspectors weren't even thrown out either. Clinton told them he was sending a bomb in and if they wanted to be safe they'd leave.

On the CIA that's not exactly true either.

I've not seen you back up anything with credible information. It all seems to be your opinion of something that someone else wrote that might have had access to someone that might have read a report that might have been recorded by someone that had an uncle that was once in the salvation army but had talked to a buck private from the Vietnam era that didn't get out of Fresno, California during the war.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 06:03 PM
Oddly, you are the only one I flame.
It's still funny how much you cry when people call you names, Tom, and then you resort to it more than anyone.
I'm sorry you are so angry and unintelligent. I hope this anger is reserved for this board, and doesn't drift into your real life.

Are you or are you not a liberal? Your posts all indicate that you are fringe liberal which makes you a lwnj. That is not callling anyone a name, it's describing them.

Your attempt to insult me is lame at best. You are probably the most useless of the lwnj's at that.

Keep slinging your shit, your insults only show that you do not have a lucid response.

Sully
03-31-2008, 06:16 PM
Are you or are you not a liberal? Your posts all indicate that you are fringe liberal which makes you a lwnj. That is not callling anyone a name, it's describing them.

Your attempt to insult me is lame at best. You are probably the most useless of the lwnj's at that.

Keep slinging your shit, your insults only show that you do not have a lucid response.

I am a liberal.
Which of my views are fringe? Got any examples?
And calling someone a nut job isn't calling names? That's even more unintelligent that you usually... check that... that's about par for the course with you.
You never cease to make me laugh, you small, small, person.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 06:23 PM
I am a liberal.
Which of my views are fringe? Got any examples?
And calling someone a nut job isn't calling names? That's even more unintelligent that you usually... check that... that's about par for the course with you.
You never cease to make me laugh, you small, small, person.

Gee, I'm so insulted. A flaming liberal is making fun of me because I don't believe the tripe the puts out. What will I ever do?

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Sully
03-31-2008, 06:26 PM
Gee, I'm so insulted. A flaming liberal is making fun of me because I don't believe the tripe the puts out. What will I ever do?

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Which "tripe" are you under the impression that I care if you believe or not?
Which of my views are fringe?
Or are you going to be a coward and run...again?

Gracie Dean
03-31-2008, 06:40 PM
hey, he got me a six hundred dollar rebate check and lowered my taxes. if it wasn't for his foreign policy i wouldn't hate him so much.

And your gas prices rose 500% and that rebate check is more than LONG gone

a1na2
03-31-2008, 06:43 PM
yama yama yama

You still lose you liberal zealot.

ROFLROFLROFL

Sully
03-31-2008, 06:59 PM
You still lose you liberal zealot.

ROFLROFLROFL

Run, coward!!!! Run!!!

Have you ever in your life not backed down when asked to back up your idiocy? Ever?

You never cease to add laughs to my day. I thank you for that. Dance monkey.... dance for my amusement!

ROFL

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:14 PM
:rolleyes:



ROFLROFLROFL

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:15 PM
:rolleyes:



ROFLROFLROFL

If I were afraid to answer direct questons, because my claims had been shown to be fraudulent, I suppose my only defense would be little cartoons, as well.
Take care, T om Cash. Your cowardice is safe.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:20 PM
Dude, just give up. You are only making yourself look like an ass.

Oops ..... too late!

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:26 PM
Dude, just give up. You are only making yourself look like an ass.

Oops ..... too late!

Your fear is funny.
If I look like an ass for pointing out what a coward you are, then I'm cool with that. Of course, you could always answer the questions you are running from... though I'd bet good money you won't...

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:28 PM
Dude, just say no to drugs!

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:32 PM
Dude, just say no to drugs!

So. You aren't going to answer the simple questions?
Good enough, coward.
If you need to play games and pretend I'm on drugs, for expecting you to be an adult, so be it.


Just a recap of what's happened:
T om Cash calls names (a thing he cries about incessantly when it happens to him).
T om Cash tries to "describe" a person's beliefs (without actually describing them).
When T om Cash is asked to back up any of his claims, he runs and runs (at least he's true to a pattern).
T om Cash, in order to try and muddy what has happened, tries to delude himself that the person asking for simple answers to simple questions is the one that is on drugs.

T om Cash... you are delightful, you silly, senile little person.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:36 PM
Still don't get it do you?

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:37 PM
Still don't get it do you?

That you are a coward? And can't answer a simple question?
I get that very clearly. I see it bright as day.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:39 PM
I'm sure that you have a mental problem here. SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP NOW!

Have you not gotten that your insults are nothing more than a childish attempt to stir shit?

When you you get a clue?

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:40 PM
I'm sure that you have a mental problem here. SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP NOW!

Have you not gotten that your insults are nothing more than a childish attempt to stir shit?

When you you get a clue?

When I I get a clue?
I don't know what that means.
If asking you to back up your name-calling is stirring up shit... so be it.
You are dancing on my string... boy.
You can't help yourself but reply... even though you can't bring yourself to answer for your own claims.

Coward.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 07:44 PM
Still don't get it?

Maybe some day that little bit of gray matter will eventually turn on ....

Not really. No chance of that happening.

Logical
03-31-2008, 07:45 PM
So. You aren't going to answer the simple questions?
Good enough, coward.
If you need to play games and pretend I'm on drugs, for expecting you to be an adult, so be it.


Just a recap of what's happened:
T om Cash calls names (a thing he cries about incessantly when it happens to him).
T om Cash tries to "describe" a person's beliefs (without actually describing them).
When T om Cash is asked to back up any of his claims, he runs and runs (at least he's true to a pattern).
T om Cash, in order to try and muddy what has happened, tries to delude himself that the person asking for simple answers to simple questions is the one that is on drugs.

T om Cash... you are delightful, you silly, senile little person.

OMG you used his name, that will be good for a bitch session to the moderators about you.

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:47 PM
LOL
Now the coward tries to go to the PMs to run from his further outing as a coward...

Fat and stupid is no way for you to go through life!
You haven't the intelligence to understand that I'm not going to play your stupid game.

Some day you will realize that the reason people hate you is because you invite the hatred.

I actually pity you. It must be a realy be bad to be you!

Live with your insecurities you mental midget.

Who hates me?
I have the intelligence to see that you can't help but play my game, like a cat pawing at a thread... you keep playing... Whether it's on here, or now in PM... it's all the same. You still dance for me, boy.
Pity me all you want. I guarantee you I have more happiness and fulfillment in my life than you have ever seen.
Keep dancing... or answer the questions you are running from... either way, I'm enjoying toying with you.

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:47 PM
OMG you used his name, that will be good for a bitch session to the moderators about you.

Like everyone doesn't know his name already.

memyselfI
03-31-2008, 07:48 PM
Not enough boos but the moron wouldn't hear them anyway. ROFL

Sully
03-31-2008, 07:48 PM
Still don't get it?

Maybe some day that little bit of gray matter will eventually turn on ....

Not really. No chance of that happening.

I told you... I get it!!!
You are a coward.
You are weak, and scared!
I GET IT!!!!
lol

a1na2
03-31-2008, 08:44 PM
Sully, you still don't get it.

I don't need to argue with you. I don't care one little bit about your opinion of me or what I believe. You are a non-entity.

You are nothing.

Get it yet?

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:01 PM
Bush and Cheney lied because their reasons for going into Iraq were not WMDs, were not the cruelty of Saddam as a dictator, but was an economic decision about the strategic importance of oil in the area and an economic reason to enrich many of their key supporters such as Haliburton executives. Everything else presented to get us into Iraq and to later keep us there are simply excuses and in essence lies of convenience.

By the way the support of our access to oil in the region might have been a valid reason for the war had they only been truthful about it. They just did not have the huevos to try and make the legitimate case.

If you're saying that they committed lies of omission by not explaining every detail of our strategy (militarily and diplomatically) for the region, then I agree that they left some of the detail out. To be completely forthcoming with these kinds of details would be idiotic and, most likely, counterproductive, diplomatically speaking. It wouldn't have been very diplomatic for our leaders to say something like "first we're planning to take out Saddam and we're hoping that by using the leverage of two democracies on either side of Iran along with scores of thousands of US troops on it's borders we can hasten regime change in Tehran." And it probably wouldn't have gone over well with our allies if we'd have been bluntly honest about our intention to plant the seeds of freedom and democracy in Iraq in the hope that such ideals would spread throughout the region and result in reforms in the governments of even our closest Arab allies. But despite the fact that these would not be something a government would ever talk bluntly about, both of them were widely speculated about during the run-up to war so anyone who followed closely would have had some idea about what might have been going on.

To the extent that you've stumbled onto the truth about global dependence on oil and the region's importance in that regard: congratulations, you're now on to a fact that was so obvious that it goes without saying.

You other theories are bizzare and without any support whatsoever.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:11 PM
We didn't find out they were intentionally misleading us until after the whole "yellow cake from Niger" incident. It was one of the first big clues that they were trying manipulate intelligence to suit their agenda. After that, there were matter-of-fact statements about where the WMD were and manufactured claims of al-qaeda/Saddam connections by the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Then there was also the overexaggerated drone claims.

Like I said, they did a nice job preempting the kind of accountability that would easily expose their deceptions. And they did a nice job stonewalling the truth. But when you look back on their claims, the certainty with which they made those claims in the face of reasonable doubts, and the smear campaign that they used on those who challenged their claims, it's pretty easy for someone with eyes to see that they deliberately misled the nation in order to ram their own agenda down the country's throat.

There was a CLEAR PATTERN of manipulating and cherry-picking inteligence. There was a CLEAR PATTERN of boldly making claims that were later found out to be untrue. There was a CLEAR PATTERN of smearing those who pointed out the inaccuracies. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Americans that this presidency took us to war under false pretense.

Again, people are not as stupid as you think they are. And I hope someday that Dick Cheney, George Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the other usurpers in the Cheneyburton Administration get exactly what they deserve. Where's Ken Starr when you really need him?

We've been through this before. There was one forged document in the yellow cake affair, but despite that forged document, the British concluded that President Bush's SOTU reference to Niger was "well founded". And just about everything you read from Joe Wilson turned out to be a lie according to the bipartisan Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence. That's two different politically diverse groups from two different countries who had the opportunity to review all the best evidence including some evidence that you and I aren't privy to and both of them came to the opposite conclusion as you did, penchief.

It would be nice if someday someone would lay out an actual specific case for the best, most unarguable lie they can think of so that we'd actually have something concrete to discuss instead of these vague references people make to "the 'yellow cake from Niger' incident", "matter-of-fact statements about where the WMD were", "manufactured claims of al-qaeda/Saddam connections". That's just arm waving blather.

a1na2
03-31-2008, 09:17 PM
We've been through this before. There was one forged document in the yellow cake affair, but despite that forged document, the British concluded that President Bush's SOTU reference to Niger was "well founded". And just about everything you read from Joe Wilson turned out to be a lie according to the bipartisan Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence. That's two different politically diverse groups from two different countries who had the opportunity to review all the best evidence including some evidence that you and I aren't privy to and both of them came to the opposite conclusion as you did, penchief.

It would be nice if someday someone would lay out an actual specific case for the best, most unarguable lie they can think of so that we'd actually have something concrete to discuss instead of these vague references people make to "the 'yellow cake from Niger' incident", "matter-of-fact statements about where the WMD were", "manufactured claims of al-qaeda/Saddam connections". That's just arm waving blather.

The vagueness of the issue at hand is their only weapon.

For the most part, the information that was used to go into Iraq is probably still classified and that is the linchpin in their argument. They don't know so they speculate. You can get more mileage out of speculation than you can with facts that debunk your theory.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:26 PM
I've been backing it up on and off for two years. You just refuse to recognize it because you're a Bushie. Testimony is evidence and there was the testimony of inspectors and their determinations, also when SH's son defected to Jordan he said the same as the inspectors. Clinton knew all along as well they hadn't anything real on SH because certain inspectors were undercover CIA operatives trying to overthrow SH. Inspectors weren't even thrown out either. Clinton told them he was sending a bomb in and if they wanted to be safe they'd leave.

On the CIA that's not exactly true either.

The Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence found no evidence of undue influence on the intelligence analysts. Testimony from random crack-pots and from guys who are bent because their intelligence products turned out to be pretty embarassing is evidence, but it's not very credible evidence. If there was a compelling story to tell here about how Dick Cheney forced analysts to draw certain conclusions against their will, we'd know about it. And we wouldn't be relying on sparse examples of people saying they "felt" pressure to make the case either.

The CIA produced an intelligence estimate that concluded with high confidence that Saddam had WMD. There were individual pieces of intelligence and opinions from analysts (or inspectors) that dissented from this judgment, but the final product of the range of intelligence that we had on the subject was that he had them. Pointing at dissenters and complaining that people should have known that the dissenter's opinion was right and everyone else was wrong is simply a failure on your part to understand how intelligence is synthesized for use by decision makers and it's an egregious case of relying on hindsight that was not available to the intelligence chiefs or the decision makers.

patteeu
03-31-2008, 09:30 PM
Not enough boos but the moron wouldn't hear them anyway. ROFL

When I finally ended up hearing the audio, I was surprised at how few boos there really were. Having seen that someone made a thread out of it here earlier in the day, I expected more.

Hydrae
03-31-2008, 10:21 PM
When I finally ended up hearing the audio, I was surprised at how few boos there really were. Having seen that someone made a thread out of it here earlier in the day, I expected more.

Yeah, I thought it was going to be worse than it turned out. I did notice he got rid of the ball and off the mound pretty quick though. :)

a1na2
03-31-2008, 10:28 PM
When I finally ended up hearing the audio, I was surprised at how few boos there really were. Having seen that someone made a thread out of it here earlier in the day, I expected more.

In my lifetime I've seen the President throw out a few balls on opening day. It seems like there are always a few boo birds in the stands. No President is popular with all of the people, and no President is hated as much in the open as they are behind the anonymity of a keyboard on a blind internet bulletin board.

Thig Lyfe
04-01-2008, 12:02 AM
Gee, let me guess. You are a liberal!?!

Reality tends to have a liberal bias.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 01:55 AM
Reality tends to have a liberal bias.

Whatever

Sully
04-01-2008, 05:31 AM
I see you don't like PM's
Keep whining like the child you are.

You are calling me names on the board and then posting the PM's with your own little twist on them. Nice, just goes to prove that you are mentally unstable.

Get a life you loser.

I don't mind PMs at all, Tiny Dancer. I get all warm inside when I see that you, while claiming you aren't going to argue with me, take the time to send me one. (Although accusing me of editing them seems paranoid and shows a lack of memory of the things you type)
You don't care what I think... but again, you just can't help but engage me. But whatever you do, don't actually engage the true discussion, because you know you'll continue to be shown as the unintelligent, dishonest coward that you have proven to be at every opportunity.
Am I mentally unstable? I'm pretty sure between the two of us, one is. I'm pretty sure that your unprovoked attack on me will lend to the evidence on that matter.
Face it. I own you. You are... at this point... my bitch. When I pull your string, you squawk. I can't seem to get the cow say moo, but that has more to do with the toy that is you being defective, rather than my string pulling skills.
So, you can post here, gimp, or you can send another deranged PM. But every time you do you prove 2 things. A) You aren't intelligent enough to withstand the rigors of adult conversation, and B) I control you.

Have a nice day, Tom. I look forward to our next reply.

stevieray
04-01-2008, 07:20 AM
I don't mind PMs at all, Tiny Dancer. I get all warm inside when I see that you, while claiming you aren't going to argue with me, take the time to send me one. (Although accusing me of editing them seems paranoid and shows a lack of memory of the things you type)
You don't care what I think... but again, you just can't help but engage me. But whatever you do, don't actually engage the true discussion, because you know you'll continue to be shown as the unintelligent, dishonest coward that you have proven to be at every opportunity.
Am I mentally unstable? I'm pretty sure between the two of us, one is. I'm pretty sure that your unprovoked attack on me will lend to the evidence on that matter.
Face it. I own you. You are... at this point... my bitch. When I pull your string, you squawk. I can't seem to get the cow say moo, but that has more to do with the toy that is you being defective, rather than my string pulling skills.
So, you can post here, gimp, or you can send another deranged PM. But every time you do you prove 2 things. A) You aren't intelligent enough to withstand the rigors of adult conversation, and B) I control you.

Have a nice day, Tom. I look forward to our next reply.

getting up early and putting this much energy into it would appear to indicate it owns you too...:shrug:

Sully
04-01-2008, 07:41 AM
getting up early and putting this much energy into it would appear to indicate it owns you too...:shrug:

Nah. I was up for work, and eating my breakfast.
This is fun for me.

banyon
04-01-2008, 07:42 AM
getting up early and putting this much energy into it would appear to indicate it owns you too...:shrug:

And society is punished once again as more artwork is left undone while you take the time to make this post.

Chiefnj2
04-01-2008, 07:50 AM
Considering what a horrible president he has been the booing wasn't bad at all and is being overhyped.

patteeu
04-01-2008, 08:11 AM
I just watched the video. Bush has a pretty decent arm.

banyon
04-01-2008, 08:20 AM
I just watched the video. Bush has a pretty decent arm.

Yeah, it's really too bad for all of us he didn't go into pitching instead. :cuss:

scott free
04-01-2008, 11:40 AM
I'm not sure how well it works, but heres a link to watch the entire Frontline special "Bush's War".

I'd hate for Patteeu to think that he shut me up yesterday, here it is, watch for yourself & then tell me how much more you know about the situation than the broad spectrum of people interviewed here.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Bowser
04-01-2008, 12:04 PM
I just watched the video. Bush has a pretty decent arm.

It's unfortunate that his brain-to-mouth function doesn't perform as well as his pitching arm.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 12:06 PM
I don't mind PMs at all, Tiny Dancer. I get all warm inside when I see that you, while claiming you aren't going to argue with me, take the time to send me one. (Although accusing me of editing them seems paranoid and shows a lack of memory of the things you type)
You don't care what I think... but again, you just can't help but engage me. But whatever you do, don't actually engage the true discussion, because you know you'll continue to be shown as the unintelligent, dishonest coward that you have proven to be at every opportunity.
Am I mentally unstable? I'm pretty sure between the two of us, one is. I'm pretty sure that your unprovoked attack on me will lend to the evidence on that matter.
Face it. I own you. You are... at this point... my bitch. When I pull your string, you squawk. I can't seem to get the cow say moo, but that has more to do with the toy that is you being defective, rather than my string pulling skills.
So, you can post here, gimp, or you can send another deranged PM. But every time you do you prove 2 things. A) You aren't intelligent enough to withstand the rigors of adult conversation, and B) I control you.

Have a nice day, Tom. I look forward to our next reply.

Considering what you have posted is not what I sent, I'm guessing that you life must suck so badly that you need to vidicate yourself with lies.

I may be an asshole, but at least I'm not going to edit your PM's and throw them out on the board.

Nice try, bonapart.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 12:07 PM
Nah. I was up for work, and eating my breakfast.
This is fun for me.

I'd say that you are obsessed with yourself.

Get over it and grow up.

Sully
04-01-2008, 12:09 PM
I'd say that you are obsessed with yourself.

Get over it and grow up.

Obsessed with myself!!!???!!!
That's awesome!!!

Fear is funny. You are funny.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 12:12 PM
Obsessed with myself!!!???!!!
That's awesome!!!

Fear is funny. You are funny.

Why on God's green earth would I fear you?

You have nothing that can be considered fearful.

Sully
04-01-2008, 12:14 PM
Why on God's green earth would I fear you?

You have nothing that can be considered fearful.

I don't know.
Why are you afraid to answer my questions concerning your claims?
Are you afraid that you are wrong? Are you afraid that you will look lke the fool...again? You'll have to be the one to explain why you are afraid. I'm just responding to the evidence you put forth.

mlyonsd
04-01-2008, 12:28 PM
Russert played softball with Hayden. He didn't even follow up on any of his questions. It was pretty much a free forum for Hayden to give his side of it without any grilling whatsoever. Russert has really gone soft lately. He could have pressed him on domestic spying, waterboarding, why agents would fear future consequences of unlawful acts, etc. The Corporate Media has proven it isn't willing to buck this administration.

Right, I see. Next you'll be telling me Cheney with his supernatural powers knocked down the twin towers on 911.

I know it's just by opinion but I'm thinking your hatred is bluring your judgement. Your choice though.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 12:32 PM
I don't know.
Why are you afraid to answer my questions concerning your claims?
Are you afraid that you are wrong? Are you afraid that you will look lke the fool...again? You'll have to be the one to explain why you are afraid. I'm just responding to the evidence you put forth.

I have no fear of you. I have no need to feed trolls, which is what you are. You only make yourself look small by ranting like a lunitic.

Carry on though, I'm sure your ulcers will flare up soon and then the board will have one less troll.

Sully
04-01-2008, 12:35 PM
GRRRRR!!!!
These ulcers are flaring up from pointing out someone's fear and lack of intelligence!!!!!!

GRRRRRRR!!!!!

Tom won't FEED me!!!!!!! He WON'T RESPOND!!!!!

GRRRRR!!!!!!!

Please, someone call 911!!!!!!!!

banyon
04-01-2008, 12:43 PM
I have no fear of you. I have no need to feed trolls, which is what you are. You only make yourself look small by ranting like a lunitic.

:shake:

Carry on though, I'm sure your ulcers will flare up soon and then the board will have one less troll.

Only if his ulcers would burst into flame and consume you. If only!

a1na2
04-01-2008, 01:11 PM
Only if his ulcers would burst into flame and consume you. If only!

If only your hate would surge and explode your pea brain.

Nobody would notice the difference, eh?

a1na2
04-01-2008, 01:14 PM
GRRRRR!!!!
These ulcers are flaring up from pointing out someone's fear and lack of intelligence!!!!!!

GRRRRRRR!!!!!

Tom won't FEED me!!!!!!! He WON'T RESPOND!!!!!

GRRRRR!!!!!!!

Please, someone call 911!!!!!!!!

Why is it that you feel the need for someone to fear you?

You've got nothing that anyone could fear.

Everyone has been saying that you are a pussy . cat.

patteeu
04-01-2008, 01:14 PM
I'm not sure how well it works, but heres a link to watch the entire Frontline special "Bush's War".

I'd hate for Patteeu to think that he shut me up yesterday, here it is, watch for yourself & then tell me how much more you know about the situation than the broad spectrum of people interviewed here.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

No offense, but since you have yet to come up with a specific lie that you can back up, I'm still thinking I shut you up.

banyon
04-01-2008, 01:34 PM
If only your hate would surge and explode your pea brain.

Nobody would notice the difference, eh?

Probably only you. Your jealousy over not even having the equivalent of the remnants of the pea would have you scraping up the pieces in desperation to staple to your current salt-grain sized "brain'.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 01:39 PM
Probably only you. Your jealousy over not even having the equivalent of the remnants of the pea would have you scraping up the pieces in desperation to staple to your current salt-grain sized "brain'.

Quite of an impressive retort for a brain dead ambulance chaser.

If only you knew.....

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Sully
04-01-2008, 01:52 PM
Why is it that you feel the need for someone to fear you?

You've got nothing that anyone could fear.

Everyone has been saying that you are a pussy . cat.

I wish you didn't fear backing up what you said. This conversation, though it's fun as hell showing you up for what you are, would be much more interesting if you would do so.

Of course, all your "friends" ROFL who are calling me a pussy, are doing it behind my back...what does that make them (other than figments in your imagination)?

a1na2
04-01-2008, 02:20 PM
I wish you didn't fear backing up what you said. This conversation, though it's fun as hell showing you up for what you are, would be much more interesting if you would do so.

Of course, all your "friends" ROFL who are calling me a pussy, are doing it behind my back...what does that make them (other than figments in your imagination)?

I didn't say that my friends were calling you a pussy. I said that everyone was calling you a pussy cat. And those that are saying it aren't saying it behind your back, it's rightout there on the boards.

Now we see your problem, you can't read and when you do try you can't comprehend.

You need to find another line of work, you are failing at your hate mongering.

BTW, I don't know anyone on this board well enough to even consider them friends. There are people here that agree with my opinions and they number more than your little mind can handle. But.. far be it from me to interfere with your hate fest.

Continue on just like someone on the other end cares about what you think or do.

It must really suck to be you.

scott free
04-01-2008, 02:35 PM
No offense, but since you have yet to come up with a specific lie that you can back up, I'm still thinking I shut you up.

I'm pretty good at a number of things, but one thing i dont have is a steel trap memory that enables me to recall every detail, of every thing i have ever read or watched within the last 2 weeks.

If your so sure of your position, then it shouldnt be any big whoop to take the time to watch it & see the wide array of government & military insiders who have FAR more insight into the situation than you could ever hope to have, who back up every claim i've made.

If after watching it, you can pass it all off as a "couple of disgruntled nobodies, who's ideas werent heeded & now their mad"...then you are even more blinded than i could have guessed.

Sully
04-01-2008, 02:50 PM
I didn't say that my friends were calling you a pussy. I said that everyone was calling you a pussy cat. And those that are saying it aren't saying it behind your back, it's rightout there on the boards.

Now we see your problem, you can't read and when you do try you can't comprehend.

You need to find another line of work, you are failing at your hate mongering.

BTW, I don't know anyone on this board well enough to even consider them friends. There are people here that agree with my opinions and they number more than your little mind can handle. But.. far be it from me to interfere with your hate fest.

Continue on just like someone on the other end cares about what you think or do.

It must really suck to be you.

Okay... people are saying it in the open...link it, quote it... anything, Tom.
Or will this be another claim you run and hide from.
You seem to care what I think, because of the continued responses, the PMs and the neg rep...Hell, you are the one that started in with insulting me in this thread... There must be something about me that allows you to let me control you like I do...
It does suck to be me, a great life, a good job, a great career path, a beautiful, loving wife, a child on the way... It's hard.

Now come up with another of the 3 responses you are capable of using, that you respond to everyone else with.
Or...again, you could back up a claim you've made like an adult.
Either way... like I said... it's fun running you around like this. Although, I admit, I'm starting to feel a little bad. I certainly wouldn't normally torment a special needs person, like this... but till that guilt makes my ulcers flare up (GGRRRRRRRRR!) I guess I'll keep going.

Tom C@sh, you make my life funnier. Thanks, again.

penchief
04-01-2008, 03:30 PM
Right, I see. Next you'll be telling me Cheney with his supernatural powers knocked down the twin towers on 911.

I know it's just by opinion but I'm thinking your hatred is bluring your judgement. Your choice though.

There's no hatred. Just disgust and disillusionment.

patteeu
04-01-2008, 04:31 PM
I'm pretty good at a number of things, but one thing i dont have is a steel trap memory that enables me to recall every detail, of every thing i have ever read or watched within the last 2 weeks.

If your so sure of your position, then it shouldnt be any big whoop to take the time to watch it & see the wide array of government & military insiders who have FAR more insight into the situation than you could ever hope to have, who back up every claim i've made.

If after watching it, you can pass it all off as a "couple of disgruntled nobodies, who's ideas werent heeded & now their mad"...then you are even more blinded than i could have guessed.

Like I said, one lie. The best, most clearcut, least ambiguous lie you can muster. Out of all the lies this administration supposedly told, that can't be too much to ask.

Unfortunately, I have a dialup connection* so I can't do your legwork for you. (Not that I would anyway, but if I had broadband I might watch "Bush's War" for my own enlightenment). But don't let that put you off. If you can point to one specific lie, I'll have plenty of legwork of my own to do to debunk it. I *am* sure of my position which is why I'm leaving it up to you to decide which "lie" to present.


------------------
*On occasion, I have access to a broadband connection, but rarely do I have the luxury on those occasions to watch a full-blown movie.