Did Bush Lie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Thekla:
Oh no. That’s not how it goes. I have repeatedly given evidence to my contention that the administration deliberately left the American public with a false impression (lied) for war.

Where are your facts to back up your allegations? Still non-existent I see. And the response “You can look it up yourself” simply reinforces what I said earlier about your need to list some credible sources for your allegations. I don’t have to look them up and do your research for you; you need to back them up.

Even when I ask you for sources, you apparently cannot help but go back to the Clinton bashing. Go right ahead because he’s long gone from the presidency and doesn’t matter to me, but it’s not helping your case.

But as I said, anytime you want to move on, there is a new batch of incompetent politicans to harangue…
Repeatedly giving your definition of “lying” and “allowing a false impression to exist” are not “giving evidence” and many people have posted the proof that you are wrong. This is exactly why I will not bother doing your homework for you. It is a waste of my time to look up and post proof that will only be ignored.
 
Of course Bush didn’t lie, everyone in authority says he didn’t lie, all the White House say’s he didn’t lie, the Pentagon say’s he didn’t lie and he would never have lied,

until after the next presidential election that is, then…?
 
40.png
Thekla:
Oh no. That’s not how it goes. I have repeatedly given evidence to my contention that the administration deliberately left the American public with a false impression (lied) for war.

Where are your facts to back up your allegations? Still non-existent I see. And the response “You can look it up yourself” simply reinforces what I said earlier about your need to list some credible sources for your allegations. I don’t have to look them up and do your research for you; you need to back them up.

Even when I ask you for sources, you apparently cannot help but go back to the Clinton bashing. Go right ahead because he’s long gone from the presidency and doesn’t matter to me, but it’s not helping your case.

But as I said, anytime you want to move on, there is a new batch of incompetent politicans to harangue…
Well, I had some time to waste so I thought I might throw up some more evidence for you to ignore after all:

Four sources about the Clinton Administration ignoring offers from Sudan to turn over Bin Laden, at least three of which are no friend of Bush:

infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
L.A Times
sudan.net/news/press/postedr/58.shtml
Vanity Fair
opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289
Wall Street journal
dehai.org/archives/dehai_archive/feb05/0035.html
Washington Post

Four sources (of MANY) providing details of the Clinton Administration ignoring Able Danger’s warnings:

timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14720231&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

nypost.com/news/nationalnews/53533.htm

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/22/01631.shtml

rawstory.com/news/2005/WhitewashingProtection_of__0818.html

Two sources (of many) detailing Clinton’s huge intelligence spending cuts and a legislative attempt to restore the funding and block any such irresponsible cuts in the future:

fas.org/irp/congress/1993_cr/h930302-budget.htm

house.gov/house/Contract/defensed.txt

OK Thekla, ignore away.
 
40.png
walstan:
Of course Bush didn’t lie, everyone in authority says he didn’t lie, all the White House say’s he didn’t lie, the Pentagon say’s he didn’t lie and he would never have lied,

until after the next presidential election that is, then…?
And more importantly no one has been able to provide any facts proving he lied.
 
40.png
estesbob:
And more importantly no one has been able to provide any facts proving he lied.
Not true. Thekla has frequently cited opinion polls, which, as everyone knows, always accurately reflect reality. They’re certainly much more reliable than any official investigations which conclude there have been no improprieties.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Not true. Thekla has frequently cited opinion polls, which, as everyone knows, always accurately reflect reality. They’re certainly much more reliable than any official investigations which conclude there have been no improprieties.

– Mark L. Chance.
you forgot the sarcasim face
 
40.png
Thekla:
Oh no. That’s not how it goes. I have repeatedly given evidence to my contention that the administration deliberately left the American public with a false impression (lied) for war.
Another error of fact. You’ve offered up a theory without evidence to give it any credibility.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Not true. Thekla has frequently cited opinion polls, which, as everyone knows, always accurately reflect reality. They’re certainly much more reliable than any official investigations which conclude there have been no improprieties.

– Mark L. Chance.
I appreciate the effort, but let’s be accurate when speaking for me. I never said that the opinion polls that show 57% of Americans saying that the administration misled the nation for war were proof that Mr. Bush lied.

I simply said that it was proof that people believe that he lied. Continue on.
 
40.png
2shelbys:
Well, I had some time to waste so I thought I might throw up some more evidence for you to ignore after all:

OK Thekla, ignore away.
I’ll tell you what; you don’t write my part and I won’t write your part. And I apologize if you have felt ignored by me. I will try to do better.

So far, I’m not all that impressed by what I’ve read because most of this is a matter of interpretation … but I’m working on it. If there’s something in the last two that you’d like to highlight, it would be helpful.
 
40.png
Thekla:
I simply said that it was proof that people believe that he lied. Continue on.
Which, in the end, demonstrates nothing substantive.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
estesbob:
First Wikepedia is not much of a source for anything as it is filled with whatever garbage any poster wantsto add to it. Try using it as a surce in a paper of any credible university and youll get a resounding “F”

Second citing americanprogress.org is like quoting Pravda’s opinion of Ronald Reagan

Third I dont Blame the incumbent Presdident or Clinton-I blame the terrorists. I am pleased, however, that when we were attacked when Bush was Presdident he called in the Marines rather than the Clinton preferred method of fighting terrorism-call in the Lawyers.
Firstly Wikipedia is a very good source, I use it constantly and (significantly) follow up sources.My experience is that you have to treat it like any data source, critically.

Secondly, I took the first hits. I am aware, however, that I have come across these facts before, from multiple sources. Beyond contention is that Bush was president, it happened on his watch, and no failure can be ascribed to Clinton here. Likewise, anti-terrorists funding was cut under Bush. Bush also resisted all enquiries. Bush also had that report ('bin laden determined to strike… not a shot across the bow, a specific warning)

Thirdly, we are not discussing BL or AQ obvious guilt, but the actions of the president. Clearly blame goes to the hijackers (I hesitate about ultimate blame…that is another issue). So yes, I concur, but the point is out of context.

Finally, remind me how many Iraqis were on the hijacked plane? As I recall, it was exactly zero. So how come Iraq got bombed?

Answers on a (forged) 100 dollar bill to the usual address.
 
40.png
Thekla:
I appreciate the effort, but let’s be accurate when speaking for me. I never said that the opinion polls that show 57% of Americans saying that the administration misled the nation for war were proof that Mr. Bush lied.

I simply said that it was proof that people believe that he lied. Continue on.
As long as the media keeps saying Bush lied, whether he did or not, a big percentage of the population will believe it. And, as I have said before, you can get any result you want when you design a poll.
 
40.png
Digger71:
…no failure can be ascribed to Clinton. Likewise, anti-terrirts funding was cut under Bush. Bush also reissted all enquiries. Bush also had that report ('bin laden determined to strike…)
Please see my recent posts to Thekla for proof from RELIABLE sources of how completely wrong these statements are. There is plenty of blame to go around but more failure can be ascribed to Clinton than to Bush. Clinton cut the spending, Clinton’s administration was warned about Atta and his cohorts by name and they blocked their arrest, Clinton ignored repeated offers from Sudan to turn Bin Laden over to us, etc, etc.
Finally, remind me how many Iraqis were on the hijacked plane? As I recall, it was exactly zero. So how come Iraq got bombed?
This again? No one ever said the Iraq war was because they were directly responsible for 9/11 although there is undeniable proof that they were involved with Al Quida. PLEASE do some research before posting the same old long-discredited arguments.
 
40.png
mlchance:
For those unaware of even the most basic of facts pertaining to Iraq:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

– Mark L. Chance.
How kind. But are those the basic facts?

My mind wanders to the fact Bush snr was an assassination target from Saddam, and the Project For A New America…and that man who said WMD were chosen as a reason for legalistic reasons, oh and that general who said Iraq was ‘doable’. Oh, and the US withdrawal from Saudi, and the fact Saddam was going to be ask that oil revenues be paid in Euros…

Basic facts…yes, basic facts…
 
40.png
Thekla:
So far, I’m not all that impressed by what I’ve read because most of this is a matter of interpretation … but I’m working on it. If there’s something in the last two that you’d like to highlight, it would be helpful.
Did I call this one or what? Interpretation? So clearly stated factual information is a matter of interpretation but polls are solid proof? It seems to me that this argument is over.
 
40.png
mlchance:
40.png
Digger71:
But are those the basic facts?

You asked why Iraq was attacked. Here’s the answer:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
– Mark L. Chance.

Mark,
Do you ever get the feeling that this is a waste of time when people just refuse to face facts and are obviously going to believe what ever they want to no matter how many of us prove them wrong? What is that old saying? Oh yes. “Never try to teach a pig to sing…it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
 
40.png
Digger71:
Firstly Wikipedia is a very good source,
No, it’s not. By their own admission,m anyone, qualified/credentialed or not, contributes to that site. It’s an interesting web community but as a source is no more valid a source than any other internet community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top