An example of outright lies being accepted as facts? (Ron Paul, suspect, conspiracy)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

So it was ok for Bush to bomb a country, an action that could have started a war, without UN approval, without Congressional approval, with absolutely no ones approval but what he wants?

Will you ever learn the difference between "could have" and "did"?

Originally Posted by pghquest

Is there a liberal handbook or website that you go to for this garbage or do you make it up as you go along?

Looking at the lack of planning for Iraq after Saddam's fall I'd say it's your little cowboy who exhibits a tendency to make things up as he goes along.

I rely on odd logic, like when you're attacked spending the time to find your attacker rather than just hitting the most convenient target.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I know it must be difficult for you to follow the thread, especially when I tell you exactly who I'm speaking of.. Here, let me put it in BOLD for you..

Since you seem to be a little slow today, that or I didnt realise we had more then one first ladies, who is currently a Senator..

What's really difficult to follow is attempts at making actions that occured years ago and long before a heinous attack on the US relevant to an invasion/occupation of a country posing no imminent threat in 2003.

[skoro]

Originally Posted by pghquest

First, President Bill Clinton used it as an excuse to change the official US Policy from tolerating Iraq, to the otherthrow of Iraq.
Second, President Bill Clinton did use it as an excuse to bomb Iraq.
Third, Senator Hillary Clinton did use it as an excuse to justify her vote for the invasion.
Fourth, The Taliban entered Iraq with the intent to oppose Saddam Hussein, but through several meetings that took place, they choose to allow each other to operate so that they could each focus on their common enemy (USA).

Trying to shift blame for Bush's Iraq fiasco to Clinton just indicates the depth of your desperation to justify your continuing support of Bush.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

yes, I seen that, but I alo note you failed to include the charts that disagree with your argument. Why cant liberals post a fair posting without trying to slant data.... here, let me help

So, you seen (sic) that, but didn't bother to include any mention of it in your post. Apparently only small portions of these surveys are actually able to meet your strict right-wing cherry-picking standards. Here are some Iraqi responses to the absolute, rather than to the relative, questions...

Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days?
Very Good = 8% ... Very Bad = 26%

What is your expectation for how things overall in your life will be in a year from now?
Much Better = 6% ... Much Worse = 16%

Now thinking about how things are going, not for you personally, but for Iraq as a whole, how would you say things are going in our country overall these days?
Very Good = 3% ... Very Bad = 38%

What is your expectation for how things will be for Iraq as a country overall a year from now?
Much Better = 4% ... Much Worse = 17%

From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong, or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in spring 2003?
Absolutely Right = 12% ... Absolutely Wrong = 35%

Those who are interested in a glimpse of how great Iraqi's think things are going these days can review the entire survey results here...

Iraq Poll - Septemebr 2007

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

Will you ever learn the difference between "could have" and "did"?

Looking at the lack of planning for Iraq after Saddam's fall I'd say it's your little cowboy who exhibits a tendency to make things up as he goes along.

I rely on odd logic, like when you're attacked spending the time to find your attacker rather than just hitting the most convenient target.

I note you failed to answer the question.. I'll take that as a yes..

You obviously seem to fail to understand that us bombing another country could be considered an act of war, and Iraq would have been perfectly within their rights to attack us.

As for attacking you, not once did I attack you, I attacked your ideas, and your thoughts that its pefectly acceptable for you to first say that its ok for President Clinton to bomb Iraq locations that "possible" hold WMD's.. and then in the same sentence, criticize Bush for using "possible" as rationality.

I also attack your ideas that you think its ok that Senator Clinton to vote for the war, using the same intelligence, but then try to blame Bush for taking her vote (along with hundreds of other votes) as permission to act upon the authority they gave him.

For heaves sake man, if your going to criticize the war and the intelligence, I'm fine with that, but can you at least be consistant about it.. Excusing one party, while blaming the other (or more particularly one individual) is laughable.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by skoro

Trying to shift blame for Bush's Iraq fiasco to Clinton just indicates the depth of your desperation to justify your continuing support of Bush.

Sorry but please point out where I tried to "SHIFT" blame.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

So, you seen (sic) that, but didn't bother to include any mention of it in your post. Apparently only small portions of these surveys are actually able to meet your strict right-wing cherry-picking standards. Here are some Iraqi responses to the absolute, rather than to the relative, questions...

Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days?
Very Good = 8% ... Very Bad = 26%

What is your expectation for how things overall in your life will be in a year from now?
Much Better = 6% ... Much Worse = 16%

Now thinking about how things are going, not for you personally, but for Iraq as a whole, how would you say things are going in our country overall these days?
Very Good = 3% ... Very Bad = 38%

What is your expectation for how things will be for Iraq as a country overall a year from now?
Much Better = 4% ... Much Worse = 17%

From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong, or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in spring 2003?
Absolutely Right = 12% ... Absolutely Wrong = 35%

Those who are interested in a glimpse of how great Iraqi's think things are going these days can review the entire survey results here...

Iraq Poll - Septemebr 2007

You do realise that the Poll your using is 8 months ago, the one I pointed out, by the BBC, a group that opposed the war, is only 1.. Try to use current data if your going to make an argument about current events

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I note you failed to answer the question.. I'll take that as a yes..

You obviously seem to fail to understand that us bombing another country could be considered an act of war, and Iraq would have been perfectly within their rights to attack us.

As for attacking you, not once did I attack you, I attacked your ideas, and your thoughts that its pefectly acceptable for you to first say that its ok for President Clinton to bomb Iraq locations that "possible" hold WMD's.. and then in the same sentence, criticize Bush for using "possible" as rationality.

You have a very bad habit of reading things that aren't there. I never said you attacked me, I really don't care.

Apples and oranges. As far as I'm concerned IF we had 100% known to be accurate intel that OBL was in Paris I think any president would be justified in calling Sarkozy and telling him he had 2 hours to have OBL in custody or an air strike would on its way. Bombing a known threat is simply not the same as invading/occupying a sovereign nation.

Originally Posted by pghquest

I also attack your ideas that you think its ok that Senator Clinton to vote for the war, using the same intelligence, but then try to blame Bush for taking her vote (along with hundreds of other votes) and permission to act upon the permission they gave him.

Do you know for a FACT that every member of Congress is given EVERY bit of intel the CinC has access to?

And I don't care how you spin it or how often, the FINAL go/no go decison comes from the White House. And even if it was justified in 2003 which is dubious at best his leadership in bringing it to an end FIVE YEARS after the end of major combat has been abyssmal.

Originally Posted by pghquest

For heaves sake man, if your going to criticize the war and the intelligence, I'm fine with that, but can you at least be consistant about it.. Excusing one party, while blaming the other (or more particularly one individual) is laughable.

It IS one individual. It's COMMANDER, NOT COMMANDERS in Chief.

If you want to talk the talk you'd best be ready for the heat if you don't walk the walk.

HE has claimed to be the decider and I believe many of his decisions have been wrong.

I challenge you to show where I've ever been anything but consistent.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

It IS one individual. It's COMMANDER, NOT COMMANDERS in Chief.

If you want to talk the talk you'd best be ready for the heat if you don't walk the walk.

HE has claimed to be the decider and I believe many of his decisions have been wrong.

I challenge you to show where I've ever been anything but consistent.

So again, its ok for Clinton to attack places that "might" have WMD's, who did so without anyones permission... but not Bush, who did so with everyones permission.

Never did I stand up for his decisions, I am standing up for why he made those decisions, and pointing out the consistancies in why he made those decisions, and why previous "Commanders in Chief" made the exact same conclusions.

Yes, their actions were different but its totally laughable to see liberals blame Bush, for the very same intelligence that liberals relied on to make similar arguments, and then watch them post items on a message board as fact, (like you accusing him of "lying")..

Bush was lying, Clinton was confused I guess.. Whatever helps you sleep at night..

[migee]

I don't know what to compare the reactions (on this thread) to?

Perhaps it can be compared to when you tell someone that their spouse has been cheating on them - Some people just go into denial and start tyring to turn it around to make accusations against the person telling them the simple truth...

No matter how you look at it, the Democrats are the party taking money from big business.

And it just breaks the liberal mantra bubble that the Republican Party is the one supported by big business.

I guess this shows why, even with the Democrats in the majority, the liberals pet agendas aren't occuring.

The funniest thing is now denying that anyone ever implied that big business was behind the Republicans.

"Hello!!..What have we been hearing all these years?"

Just face the reality folks...All politicians simply have one concern - their survival and what benefits them (financially). There really is no difference betrween the parties - both are owned and operated by special interests...And those interests have one goal - Money.