President Bush Fires Back Against Critics

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

According to John McCain, anyone who says the President lied, shouldn't be believed. I give John McCain more credit for knowing what happened than I would a political layman.

"We know where they are" - Rumsfeld, 3/31/03

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," " - Condi Rice, 6/8/03

On the record, of course.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 09/19/02

“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003

"the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004

On the record, of course.

And apologists enable their lying by making excuse after excuse for it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ReBirth 0]

lilberal trickseees they are <gollum>

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

How about this or this how about this one can you hear me now?

How about now?

Yes, it is all speculation without valid merit.

Sept. 9, 2005: ABC News

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was "painful" for him personally and would be a permanent "blot" on his record.

"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world," Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation "will always be a part of my record."

"What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or, by (quickly) recreating the Iraqi (armed) forces," he said.

"It may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things differently."

Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists.

He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Hey, you seem to discount my sources so why should I evern bother

When I have given them before you (and others) go after the source, but that is a typicla liberal tactic that dosen't bother me any more.

Oh, and you don't have to tell me about your education. I already know you think you are smarter than conservatives.............

He asks about your source, you attack him. Nice.

But you post makes me wonder. Why do you bother to post at all then? If no one believes in your sources, even when you actually give them, why do you bother? Just doing it for the people who already believe what you are saying? Reaffirmation? what?

If you are not going to give a source for the information you supply, why should anyone who may have questions listen?

THAT is a horrible debate tactic.

AndI have gone after your sources; usually when said source is the only place I can find the information you have posted.

And I am not a liberal (at least, not per the definition of a democrat liberal you are using).

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Look, I may be getting a little too frustrated. If my post came across as and attack please forgive me. while it was meant with a little sharp edge I did not mean it as an attack.

As for the link here it is.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/14/233507.shtml

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Look, I may be getting a little too frustrated. If my post came across as and attack please forgive me. while it was meant with a little sharp edge I did not mean it as an attack.

As for the link here it is.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/14/233507.shtml

Even if true, you still don't know what it was.
Even the most prolific liars tell the truth occasionally.

Here's one for you:
www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/15/143950.shtml

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,117]

>As for the link here it is.

Thanks.

So, the 'evidence' is that two Iraqi military types talked about a modified vehicle they didn't want inspectors to see, made by the Al Kindi company. What could it be?

The Al Kindi company makes missiles for the Iraqi army. They were rumored to have been working on Scud-B's, which (depending on which motor was used) violated the maximum-range limitations of his surrender. Since we suspected they were doing this, we kept bombing that particular company. They were certainly working on smaller missiles (they admitted this; short range missiles were not proscribed by the surrender agreement.)

So - what's more likely? That this Iraqi colonel had a truck mounted missile launcher built by the Al Kindi company that could be linked to the Scud-B, a forbidden missile depending on its motor? Seems like something he'd want to get rid of before inspectors got there.

Or did he have a top secret mobile biological weapons lab, the sort we claimed he had (but later turned out to be hydrogen generators?) If you're a Bush supporter the answer is clear, but there is simply no evidence of those vaunted "mobile WMD labs" that everyone was hyping before the invasion. None. Zero.

When this war started, Bush made no bones about WMD's. He said there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Now, as "proof," Bush apologists are offering up snippets of conversation about a missile launcher. How far we've come in three years.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Look, I may be getting a little too frustrated. If my post came across as and attack please forgive me.

No prob. It happens to all of us at times.

Thanks for the link.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>As for the link here it is.

Thanks.

So, the 'evidence' is that two Iraqi military types talked about a modified vehicle they didn't want inspectors to see, made by the Al Kindi company. What could it be?

The Al Kindi company makes missiles for the Iraqi army. They were rumored to have been working on Scud-B's, which (depending on which motor was used) violated the maximum-range limitations of his surrender. Since we suspected they were doing this, we kept bombing that particular company. They were certainly working on smaller missiles (they admitted this; short range missiles were not proscribed by the surrender agreement.)

So - what's more likely? That this Iraqi colonel had a missile launcher built by the Al Kindi company that could be linked to the Scud-B, a forbidden missile depending on its motor? Seems like something he'd want to get rid of before inspectors got there.

Or did he have a top secret mobile biological weapons lab, the sort we claimed he had (but later turned out to be hydrogen generators?) If you're a Bush supporter the answer is clear, but there is simply no evidence of those vaunted "mobile WMD labs" that everyone was hyping before the invasion. None. Zero.

When this war started, Bush made no bones about WMD's. He said there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Now, as "proof," Bush apologists are offering up snippets of conversation about a missile launcher. How far we've come in three years.

And then there's this:

“Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." , GWB, Oct 2002, speech in Cincinnati.

The Air Force had told the White House that the aircraft in question could carry a payload up to 650 kilometers. How far is Iraq from the USA? Does Iraq have a secret base in the Bahamas?

And, of course, no UAVs have actually been found.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Explain how that is not deliberate deception (aka "lie").

Imagine someone you liked saying those things -- that might help you grasp the concept of "miscalculation".

All people with responsibilities, including presidents, make miscalculations. Whether Bush has lied or made miscalculations (on any given subject) remains to be seen.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —GWB discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AlexCrowley 0]

The fact remains that the WMD issue was known to be bullshit pre-war and the US Press, politicians and people got sucked into a dramatic story with little to no substance.

How can I make such statements? because the worlds press tore apart every claim made by the US government, Chalabi (by way of Judith Miller) who was the prime source of all WMD rumors, and the UK government at the time.

I realize that if it doesnt happen in the US it didnt exist in reality but there was a reason that politicians in europe were ranting, raving and resigning over the topic. I know that for msot americans its a sea of socialism out there, but those people did have some integrity.

The WMD issue was bullshit, was known to be bullshit and has proved to be bullshit. Those still calling for patience are simply idiots who refuse to accept that its impossible to prove a negative, since those WMDs could still be hidden somewhere.

Santa may also exist judging from the snippets of audio my kid managed to capture of my wife and I talking in hushed tones her present delivery this year.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

According to John McCain, anyone who says the President lied, shouldn't be believed. I give John McCain more credit for knowing what happened than I would a political layman.

"We know where they are" - Rumsfeld, 3/31/03

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," " - Condi Rice, 6/8/03

On the record, of course.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 09/19/02

“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003

"the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004

On the record, of course.

And apologists enable their lying by making excuse after excuse for it.

Even if all true, it doesn't mean anyone lied. Of course we've been down this road more times than I care to remember.

So you are calling John McCain an apologist? I would give him much more credibility. But, then again, I can tell the difference between a lie and just being wrong.

[kallend 2,148]

Apparently the American public is also now waking up and recognizing the lies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

According to John McCain, anyone who says the President lied, shouldn't be believed. I give John McCain more credit for knowing what happened than I would a political layman.

"We know where they are" - Rumsfeld, 3/31/03

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," " - Condi Rice, 6/8/03

On the record, of course.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 09/19/02

“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003

"the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004

On the record, of course.

And apologists enable their lying by making excuse after excuse for it.

Even if all true, it doesn't mean anyone lied. Of course we've been down this road more times than I care to remember.

So you are calling John McCain an apologist? I would give him much more credibility. But, then again, I can tell the difference between a lie and just being wrong.

I have given several examples where the Bush administration said "A" on the record, and later claimed on the record that no-one in the administration ever said "A".

Please explain how one of those statements is not a lie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

If I wish it, it will come true.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

If I wish it, it will come true.

That is one fine hat. Where are those sexy sun glasses?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

If I wish it, it will come true.

That is one fine hat. Where are those sexy sun glasses?

I will have to take a forward picture with the glasses on.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

According to John McCain, anyone who says the President lied, shouldn't be believed. I give John McCain more credit for knowing what happened than I would a political layman.

"We know where they are" - Rumsfeld, 3/31/03

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," " - Condi Rice, 6/8/03

On the record, of course.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 09/19/02

“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003

"the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004

On the record, of course.

And apologists enable their lying by making excuse after excuse for it.

Even if all true, it doesn't mean anyone lied. Of course we've been down this road more times than I care to remember.

So you are calling John McCain an apologist? I would give him much more credibility. But, then again, I can tell the difference between a lie and just being wrong.

I have given several examples where the Bush administration said "A" on the record, and later claimed on the record that no-one in the administration ever said "A".

Please explain how one of those statements is not a lie.

I haven't read most of your posts. Maybe I will later. But this isn't about me.

Just for the record..you are calling John McCain a liar and an apologist and contending that therefore he should not be believed. Is that correct? Yes or no?

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

According to John McCain, anyone who says the President lied, shouldn't be believed. I give John McCain more credit for knowing what happened than I would a political layman.

"We know where they are" - Rumsfeld, 3/31/03

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored," " - Condi Rice, 6/8/03

On the record, of course.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 09/19/02

“This is about an imminent threat.” Scott McClellan, Feb 2003

"the administration never said Iraq was an imminent threat. The media have chose to use the word 'imminent' to describe the Iraqi threat." Scott McClellan, Jan 2004

On the record, of course.

And apologists enable their lying by making excuse after excuse for it.

Even if all true, it doesn't mean anyone lied. Of course we've been down this road more times than I care to remember.

So you are calling John McCain an apologist? I would give him much more credibility. But, then again, I can tell the difference between a lie and just being wrong.

I have given several examples where the Bush administration said "A" on the record, and later claimed on the record that no-one in the administration ever said "A".

Please explain how one of those statements is not a lie.

I haven't read most of your posts. Maybe I will later. But this isn't about me.

Just for the record..you are calling John McCain a liar and an apologist and contending that therefore he should not be believed. Is that correct? Yes or no?

Did McCain specifically refer to the examples I gave when claiming Bush did not lie, or was he talking about something else?

Is McCain a politician? Did his lips move?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,117]

>you are calling John McCain a liar . . .

So that would be saying that someone who says that someone who says someone is a liar, is a liar, is a liar?

In any case, McCain is merely mistaken. If he later says "I never said that!" then he would be either a liar or a victim of a defective memory.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>you are calling John McCain a liar . . .

So that would be saying that someone who says that someone who says someone is a liar, is a liar, is a liar?

In any case, McCain is merely mistaken. If he later says "I never said that!" then he would be either a liar or a victim of a defective memory.

It could all hinge on what the meaning of "is" is when stated by a member of the Bush administration.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>you are calling John McCain a liar . . .

So that would be saying that someone who says that someone who says someone is a liar, is a liar, is a liar?

In any case, McCain is merely mistaken. If he later says "I never said that!" then he would be either a liar or a victim of a defective memory.

I agree with you Bill. But you and I are using a different defiition of a lie than Kallend. By his definition, McCain is a liar.

[rushmc 23]

Damit, why can't you all get it??

I have never said that the inteligence was correct or perfect have I?

But the acusation that "Bush lied" about the war is a crazy argument unless..............................

you call Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Ried, Clinton, Edwards, the UN, Russia, Great Briton, Itally, Germany, France and whole fucking rest of the world liers!!

The line that the senate does not see the same intel is a bullshit line too.

The statement made saying Bush lied have only one purpose. To bring another party in to power.

If you can't see this then your eyes are wide closed!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The "worlds press". what a fucking joke that is.

there is so much out there such as the finding of the centrafuges to enrich the tons of yellow cake into weapons grade uranium but that is not in the "worlds press"

Nice try..............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SudsyFist 0]

I'll let everyone else dispute the issues in the rest of your post, but I'll tackle this one:

Quote

The line that the senate does not see the same intel is a bullshit line too.

No, it is not.