There's much more proof of Moore being a liar than Bush. But the angry left likes Moore's lies more so they are taken as fact, uncritically.
While this question is debatable, I'm not going to get into it with you. That's not the point of this thread. The point is that Bush and his cronies lied to start a war and that's been proven. The movie hasn't come out yet, so we can't judge the truth of it.
There's much more proof of Moore being a liar than Bush. But the angry left likes Moore's lies more so they are taken as fact, uncritically.
You forgot one thing that makes this different Scott
( as usual ). Moore isn't president! As for Bush being a liar......well as Sherlock Holmes said : " Eliminate all other possibilities and what you're left with however how improbable must be the truth. "
What did Bush lie about? Get your facts straight before you reply.
He lied about there being a threat to the US from Iraq as justification for starting a war. I also believe he's lying about Iraq being the front line in terrorism so he can get more money ( and more distraction ) out of us.
If you swallow that " It's all the CIA's fault you're either naive or refusing to see the truth.
By the way where's those WOMD?
Before the war started proponents were just sure we'd find a big cache of very dangerous weapons. Well........it's been how long now? And we haven't found a thing! If he had a an arsenal ( how would he deploy it ? ) that was dangerous enough to threaten the U S we would have found it by now.
We really don't need to go into details he wanted support for this war at any cost and was willing to thumb his nose at the UN to get it.
Why are you still asking stupid questions? This is old news now.
He lied about there being a threat to the US from Iraq as justification for starting a war. I also believe he's lying about Iraq being the front line in terrorism so he can get more money ( and more distraction ) out of us.
Well that's your opinion and Bush's. Someone else with more information that you may feel differently about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
If you swallow that " It's all the CIA's fault you're either naive or refusing to see the truth.
I assume that you are talking about Bush's statements wrt Iraq and getting uranium from South Africa? What Bush said was and still is true. It's your pure ignorance and bias that don't allow you to analyze the situation clearly.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
By the way where's those WOMD?
Good question. Saddam either has them hidden away or maybe he got rid of them. If he got rid of them he sure wanted everyone to think he had them. A bluff that didn't fall in line with UN mandate.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Before the war started proponents were just sure we'd find a big cache of very dangerous weapons. Well........it's been how long now? And we haven't found a thing! If he had a an arsenal ( how would he deploy it ? ) that was dangerous enough to threaten the U S we would have found it by now.
That may be true. Regardless Saddam was to comply with the UN and he didn't. He played a dangerous game and lost. After 9-11 the US can't sand by half hearted threats to boisterous dictators. You either comply or face "serious consequence" and that does not mean a dottering old man from Europe wandering around in the desert.
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
We really don't need to go into details he wanted support for this war at any cost and was willing to thumb his nose at the UN to get it.
I think we do because you don't seem to have a grasp of them. The UN never intended to followthrough but the US did. So why did they vote for it? Who's thumbing the nose at whom?
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Why are you still asking stupid questions? This is old news now.
If they are so stupid why can't you answer them? It's old only news to those to biased and blind to look at things objectively, e.g. the angry left. Tell telling yourself your lies. When Moore's movie comes out pull the blinders on get a popcorn and a soda and enjoy bliss.
Hahahahah! I can't believe you're actually serious! Hahahaha.
This is what Bush said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
He knew this to be untrue when he said it. Or he was stupid enough to have forgotten that a mere three months prior to this statement his own intelligence sources had asked him to remove such a reference from another speech because its veracity was questionable.
You completely have your facts wrong and you are showing your total ignorance. You are too dumb to seek the truth because you have already collected the lies you want to believe. The Brits stand by that claim. It has always been true and still is today. They claimed that to be true and stand by that claim today. Why is that so hard? They say their information comes from a third party that refuses to be identified. This is basic knowledge. Get your facts straight and stop posting out of ignorance.
Part 2 of the interview I quoted earlier... with former Ambassador to Iraw from the US ... who was sent to Niger to find out about it's Uranium business and the likelyhood of Iraq getting uranium from them.
The facts are that Iraq would need TONS of uranium refined down to make a bomb... and they had no refinery. And all sales of Uranium from Niger are PUBLIC... and come from a French held consortium... there's no way in 99 that anyone would approve it... and on top of that... Iraq NEVER even asked them. It never got that far.
WILSON: This is when he was talking to me. He said, "Gee, maybe he would have wanted to talk about uranium." Now, I reported all of that because it seemed to me that I'd been asked to report on everything I'd found out, and that this was just sort of one of these other little tidbits. It never constituted in my mind--it was even thinner gruel than what I had found out about how the process could work. The fact that there was a meeting or a visit in which uranium was not discussed does not translate into purchased a significant quantities of uranium. The fact that there was a meeting that was not taken, that was not held, but had it been held, one of the participants opines that perhaps uranium might have been one of the things that this guy might have wanted to discuss, does not suggest uranium sales or significant quantities of uranium from Niger to Iraq. So, those were both--I thought those were both really red herrings. Again, it comes down to, the question was, Could Iraq purchase significant quantities--a quantity, 500 tons--of uranium from Niger without anybody knowing about it? Was it feasible? I came back and said, the business side of it says no and the government side of it says, because people told me--not because people told me but because this is the way that the procedure is--the government side suggests that, if there was going to be a memorandum of sale, that document would have to have the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Prime Minister's signature on it. If that document did not have those signatures, then that document could not be authentic.
TPM: So this is--that's the report you bring back, you report to the CIA.
WILSON: Yeah, I report it. Look, before I left, when I went out there, I saw the ambassador before I did anything. First of all, I went over to see the State Department to make sure it was OK with them. Make sure that the ambassador was informed, the ambassador agreed. I went out there, I talked to the ambassador, and he said, "Look. I've heard this report, I thought that I had debunked it already, I've already talked to the President and with the government." And I said, "That's fine, my value added is I can talk to people who I know better than you know because they were in government, they were out of government before you got here. I can talk to the old government." I did it, I came back, I reported to her, she said--I said, "Well, this essentially confirms what you knew," and I also reported to somebody else on the mission staff, and then submitted--should have submitted--a separate report, or at least would have been aware of it.
Whatever. I tried. Facts and reason have no place in your lives. Moore is god. Genuflect with the "Bush Lied" mantra. Ignore all else.
I'm confused. I've never read any of Moore's books, or seen any of his films, but it's blindingly obvious to me that George Bush lied through his teeth.
This is based on my observation of the facts on the ground rather than Special Reports broadcast from the anus of the POTUS to which I am not privy, unlike Scott.
I'm confused. I've never read any of Moore's books, or seen any of his films, but it's blindingly obvious to me that George Bush lied through his teeth.
I too am confused because I've never read any of Moore's books or seen any of his films either.
Straight from the man who was AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ under Bush 1.
You're the one with preconceived ideas and dogma. Just like the Bush administration... they had a plan they were going to stick to... no matter what anyone told them.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Just keep repeating [Bush's] lies. Ignorance is bliss.
note: editorial liberty exercised.
Originally posted by Scott
There's much more proof of Moore being a liar than Bush. But the angry left likes Moore's lies more so they are taken as fact, uncritically.
While this question is debatable, I'm not going to get into it with you. That's not the point of this thread. The point is that Bush and his cronies lied to start a war and that's been proven. The movie hasn't come out yet, so we can't judge the truth of it.
Originally posted by Scott
There's much more proof of Moore being a liar than Bush. But the angry left likes Moore's lies more so they are taken as fact, uncritically.
You forgot one thing that makes this different Scott
( as usual ). Moore isn't president! As for Bush being a liar......well as Sherlock Holmes said : " Eliminate all other possibilities and what you're left with however how improbable must be the truth. "
Originally posted by Scott
What did Bush lie about? Get your facts straight before you reply.
He lied about there being a threat to the US from Iraq as justification for starting a war. I also believe he's lying about Iraq being the front line in terrorism so he can get more money ( and more distraction ) out of us.
If you swallow that " It's all the CIA's fault you're either naive or refusing to see the truth.
By the way where's those WOMD?
Before the war started proponents were just sure we'd find a big cache of very dangerous weapons. Well........it's been how long now? And we haven't found a thing! If he had a an arsenal ( how would he deploy it ? ) that was dangerous enough to threaten the U S we would have found it by now.
We really don't need to go into details he wanted support for this war at any cost and was willing to thumb his nose at the UN to get it.
Why are you still asking stupid questions? This is old news now.
"By far the vast-majority of my tax cut goes to the bottom half of tax-payers."
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Here's a lie...
"By far the vast-majority of my tax cut goes to the bottom half of tax-payers."
Originally posted by jimmac
He lied about there being a threat to the US from Iraq as justification for starting a war. I also believe he's lying about Iraq being the front line in terrorism so he can get more money ( and more distraction ) out of us.
Well that's your opinion and Bush's. Someone else with more information that you may feel differently about it.
Originally posted by jimmac
If you swallow that " It's all the CIA's fault you're either naive or refusing to see the truth.
I assume that you are talking about Bush's statements wrt Iraq and getting uranium from South Africa? What Bush said was and still is true. It's your pure ignorance and bias that don't allow you to analyze the situation clearly.
Originally posted by jimmac
By the way where's those WOMD?
Good question. Saddam either has them hidden away or maybe he got rid of them. If he got rid of them he sure wanted everyone to think he had them. A bluff that didn't fall in line with UN mandate.
Originally posted by jimmac
Before the war started proponents were just sure we'd find a big cache of very dangerous weapons. Well........it's been how long now? And we haven't found a thing! If he had a an arsenal ( how would he deploy it ? ) that was dangerous enough to threaten the U S we would have found it by now.
That may be true. Regardless Saddam was to comply with the UN and he didn't. He played a dangerous game and lost. After 9-11 the US can't sand by half hearted threats to boisterous dictators. You either comply or face "serious consequence" and that does not mean a dottering old man from Europe wandering around in the desert.
Originally posted by jimmac
We really don't need to go into details he wanted support for this war at any cost and was willing to thumb his nose at the UN to get it.
I think we do because you don't seem to have a grasp of them. The UN never intended to followthrough but the US did. So why did they vote for it? Who's thumbing the nose at whom?
Originally posted by jimmac
Why are you still asking stupid questions? This is old news now.
If they are so stupid why can't you answer them? It's old only news to those to biased and blind to look at things objectively, e.g. the angry left. Tell telling yourself your lies. When Moore's movie comes out pull the blinders on get a popcorn and a soda and enjoy bliss.
Don't
feed
the
trolls
....
Originally posted by tonton
...
Hahahahah!
This is what Bush said:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
He knew this to be untrue when he said it. Or he was stupid enough to have forgotten that a mere three months prior to this statement his own intelligence sources had asked him to remove such a reference from another speech because its veracity was questionable.
You completely have your facts wrong and you are showing your total ignorance. You are too dumb to seek the truth because you have already collected the lies you want to believe. The Brits stand by that claim. It has always been true and still is today. They claimed that to be true and stand by that claim today. Why is that so hard?
Don't
feed
the
trolls
...
Part 2 of the interview I quoted earlier... with former Ambassador to Iraw from the US ... who was sent to Niger to find out about it's Uranium business and the likelyhood of Iraq getting uranium from them.
The facts are that Iraq would need TONS of uranium refined down to make a bomb... and they had no refinery. And all sales of Uranium from Niger are PUBLIC... and come from a French held consortium... there's no way in 99 that anyone would approve it... and on top of that... Iraq NEVER even asked them. It never got that far.
from:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
WILSON: This is when he was talking to me. He said, "Gee, maybe he would have wanted to talk about uranium." Now, I reported all of that because it seemed to me that I'd been asked to report on everything I'd found out, and that this was just sort of one of these other little tidbits. It never constituted in my mind--it was even thinner gruel than what I had found out about how the process could work. The fact that there was a meeting or a visit in which uranium was not discussed does not translate into purchased a significant quantities of uranium. The fact that there was a meeting that was not taken, that was not held, but had it been held, one of the participants opines that perhaps uranium might have been one of the things that this guy might have wanted to discuss, does not suggest uranium sales or significant quantities of uranium from Niger to Iraq. So, those were both--I thought those were both really red herrings. Again, it comes down to, the question was, Could Iraq purchase significant quantities--a quantity, 500 tons--of uranium from Niger without anybody knowing about it? Was it feasible? I came back and said, the business side of it says no and the government side of it says, because people told me--not because people told me but because this is the way that the procedure is--the government side suggests that, if there was going to be a memorandum of sale, that document would have to have the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Prime Minister's signature on it. If that document did not have those signatures, then that document could not be authentic.
TPM: So this is--that's the report you bring back, you report to the CIA.
WILSON: Yeah, I report it. Look, before I left, when I went out there, I saw the ambassador before I did anything. First of all, I went over to see the State Department to make sure it was OK with them. Make sure that the ambassador was informed, the ambassador agreed. I went out there, I talked to the ambassador, and he said, "Look. I've heard this report, I thought that I had debunked it already, I've already talked to the President and with the government." And I said, "That's fine, my value added is I can talk to people who I know better than you know because they were in government, they were out of government before you got here. I can talk to the old government." I did it, I came back, I reported to her, she said--I said, "Well, this essentially confirms what you knew," and I also reported to somebody else on the mission staff, and then submitted--should have submitted--a separate report, or at least would have been aware of it.
Originally posted by Scott
Whatever. I tried. Facts and reason have no place in your lives. Moore is god. Genuflect with the "Bush Lied" mantra. Ignore all else.
I'm confused. I've never read any of Moore's books, or seen any of his films, but it's blindingly obvious to me that George Bush lied through his teeth.
This is based on my observation of the facts on the ground rather than Special Reports broadcast from the anus of the POTUS to which I am not privy, unlike Scott.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm confused. I've never read any of Moore's books, or seen any of his films, but it's blindingly obvious to me that George Bush lied through his teeth.
I too am confused because I've never read any of Moore's books or seen any of his films either.
I wonder if Scott will even read the interview. It doesn't tell him anything he wants to hear... so...
It's the Man who WENT TO NIGER and got the FACTS.
Straight from the man who was AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ under Bush 1.
You're the one with preconceived ideas and dogma. Just like the Bush administration... they had a plan they were going to stick to... no matter what anyone told them.