Jump to content

chalabi


Recommended Posts

Wow! You really don't know, do you? Do you even care, or are you just hoping he was mislead so its not his fault or something?

 

No I don't know and neither do you so answer the question and back it up with proof.

 

Did Bush and company lie or were they mislead? That was the question I asked.

ah, the return of the dualist thinking. it doesn't necessarily need to be "either/or". it can be both.

 

Then prove it was both. Prove the lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No I don't know and neither do you so answer the question and back it up with proof.

 

Did Bush and company lie or were they mislead? That was the question I asked.

 

Then prove it was both. Prove the lie.

Sure, you want us to write for hours, waste a bunch of time to educate you. No thanks

 

Bush lied

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, you want us to write for hours, waste a bunch of time to educate you. No thanks

 

Bush lied

and then when you make a statement that black is actually black, he'll say it's not or "prove it". it's futile and juvenile. but so are most right wingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Prove it. Shouldn't be too hard. You know internet and all.

How old are you?

and then when you make a statement that black is actually black, he'll say it's not or "prove it". it's futile and juvenile. but so are most right wingers.

Yes! So true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes. another hand wave dismissal with no substantial argument. fully predictable.

 

Says the guy who has run away from the argument regarding Bush and Co. lying and being mislead. I'll wait until you either provide proof (and I'm not saying there is not, I've just not seen any) or admit that you think we were lied to but have no proof to back up that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Says the guy who has run away from the argument regarding Bush and Co. lying and being mislead. I'll wait until you either provide proof (and I'm not saying there is not, I've just not seen any) or admit that you think we were lied to but have no proof to back up that statement.

there's plenty of proof, not that any amount will be deemed acceptable to you. for those with active minds there are arguments and evidence such as those documented here: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/

 

They even earned a mention in George W. Bush’s now infamous 2003 state of the union address:

This was all wrong. And they knew at the time that the intelligence regarding those tubes was nowhere near as strong as they made it out to be. A number of intelligence agencies believed that the tubes were, in fact, made for uranium enrichment. There were, however, a number of dissenting views, including from the State Department and the intelligence arm of the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for maintaining the United States’ nuclear arsenal (i.e. the people who actually know this stuff). DOE determined that the tubes were completely impractical for use in uranium enrichment, and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. The State Department came to a similar conclusion.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's plenty of proof, not that any amount will be deemed acceptable to you. for those with active minds there are arguments and evidence such as those documented here: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/

 

They even earned a mention in George W. Bush’s now infamous 2003 state of the union address:

This was all wrong. And they knew at the time that the intelligence regarding those tubes was nowhere near as strong as they made it out to be. A number of intelligence agencies believed that the tubes were, in fact, made for uranium enrichment. There were, however, a number of dissenting views, including from the State Department and the intelligence arm of the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for maintaining the United States’ nuclear arsenal (i.e. the people who actually know this stuff). DOE determined that the tubes were completely impractical for use in uranium enrichment, and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. The State Department came to a similar conclusion.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

 

I'm still not buying it. By lying you have to admit that Bush knew for a fact that there were zero, none, nada WMD's in Iraq at the time but went ahead with the invasion anyway. There is nothing that says that. He had conflicting information. Some that said there were and some that said there wasn't. He went with the intel that said their was and I'm not sure it's ever been proven definitively that there were in fact zero WMD's in Iraq at the time.

 

So unless you can't point to any information that Bush and Co. knew for a fact that there were NO WMD's I will concede but so far you've yet to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm still not buying it. By lying you have to admit that Bush knew for a fact that there were zero, none, nada WMD's in Iraq at the time but went ahead with the invasion anyway. There is nothing that says that. He had conflicting information. Some that said there were and some that said there wasn't. He went with the intel that said their was and I'm not sure it's ever been proven definitively that there were in fact zero WMD's in Iraq at the time.

 

So unless you can't point to any information that Bush and Co. knew for a fact that there were NO WMD's I will concede but so far you've yet to do that.

I'm shocked. hell, you don't even admit when you are caught red handed lying. why would this time be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...