Why Do the Libtards Keep Lying About Bush?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Wrong thread, dumb-ass.


Or were you referring to the "I never had sexual relations with that woman..." lie?

That one only lasted about six months before it was debunked.

sorry my rely was too simplistic for you to grasp.

[Yssup Rider]

HYeah, that Monica Lewinsky lie was deadly. UN Inspectors took no time finding her pussy.

You fellas are SO used to whining and crying I'm astounded when you post anything else.

Except of course, stupid shit like goofy juice and the boundaries of a certain Austin neighborhood. Even then, it's done in anger.

Lighten the fuck up, girls!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons.

.

Aren't some of you numbnuts still arguing that there were WMD'S in Iraq?

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

sorry my rely was too simplistic for you to grasp.

Is that even english???

[Yssup Rider]

I'm sure you could reveal something about that gfe(forbidden topic)

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

You do realize that the Iraq war was preemptive. You see that in the constitution next to state rights? Bush had a choice to go to war in Iraq. If you think that was the correct choice so be it....i did not then nor do I now think it the proper choice.

You do realize your brain needs oxygen?

You're reaching for a fight that isn't there. Better yet you are doing it incoherently. At least It appears you are. Can't quite tell for sure. Maybe your responses were meant for someone else. I said nothing about state's rights nor either Bush Presidency.

Step away from the keyboard and breathe so some oxygen can get to your brain.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Same reason the right blames all their woes on Clinton.

There is a lot you can blame them for. Bill and Hillary are the " Bonnie and Clyde" of modern day politics.


Jim

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

There is a lot you can blame them for. Bill and Hillary are the " Bonnie and Clyde" of modern day politics.


Jim

Like the Bush and Cheney gang?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

^^^^^^^^^ That's the only other response they have.

You do realize I had quite a difference response? One in which the author of the OP even agreed was worthy.

In fact my contention has always been that Bush was wrong. Lying or not he was wrong and this country paid for it in blood and money and some of you doubled down and voted for Bush a second time.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Of course Bush is a liar. But he is long gone and we have Obama who took the hand off from Bush and hasn't looked back. We still have Americans dying in Afghanistan. It's impossible to shake a finger at Bush when Obama is keeping up the same pace as Bush. This link below will illustrate that.

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush

Jim

Did you vote for Bush in 2004? If not who?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did you vote for Bush in 2004? If not who?

Nader.


Jim

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Nader.


Jim

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Try this link on for size!

http://commondreams.org/views03/0730-06.htm

Your link (which you cited 3 times) is from a virulently left-wing anti-Bush blogsite. The authors are the kind of people Judge Silberman is complaining about. Like Ron Fournier, they are constantly trying to rewrite and distort history. They have no interest in being objective or pursuing facts and truth.

But let's cut to the chase. If you insist Bush lied about WMD, then you have to prove he and his advisers knew the intelligence was wrong before they invaded Iraq. Your linked article calls this Lie #2:

"The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the U.S., a belief supported by available intelligence evidence."

Yet after calling it a lie, the authors fail to prove anything! All they do is complain about the way the Bush team collected and presented the WMD intelligence, instead of proving that a reasonable person should have known the intelligence was wrong from the get-go. They insinuate there may have been some dissenters at the CIA and the DIA. Really? Who are they? Where are they? Why didn't they step forward like good little whistle-blowers, go on 60 Minutes afterwards saying I told you so, write books and become overnight liberal sensations?

In contrast to the weasels writing for your blogsite, Judge Silberman cited the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate's finding with a near unprecedented “90% level of confidence” that Saddam possessed WMD. That is what GWB relied on as his primary casus belli.

Big Tampon and his fellow libtards prefer to label this massive intelligence failure a knowing, intentional lie by Bush. That's the real lie, and repeating it endlessly as “fact” is not only an affront to history but dangerous for our future.

.

[Yssup Rider]

I guess some citation is better than none at all, eh, Junior?

What does Breitbart have to say about this, or TheBlaze, or Therighscoop, or powerlineblog, or TheWashingtonTimes, or... Well, I think we know that you and you're ideals are living in a glass house built of extremely thin panes.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Lying or not he was wrong and this country paid for it in blood and money and some of you doubled down and voted for Bush a second time.

I'm not even sure that it was definitive that the intelligence upon which the invasion was predicated was wrong at that point. The WMD commission was established 9 months before the general election and didn't report it's findings until 2008. Your statement above is simply not accurate.

As I've said many times, a vote is cast sometimes for the lesser of two evils.
At the time of the election we had two choices. Keep the guy that started it and give him a chance to finish or put the war in John Kerry's lap who, BTW also supported the invasion based on faulty intelligence. So he was wrong too. How would he have been a better alternative if being wrong disqualifies someone?

Based on the fact that Kerry, just a couple of days ago, told our Marines in Yemen to hand over their weapons to Yemenis, official or terrorists hasn't been determined yet (against the rifleman's oath that is ingrained in every Marine) and walk away, I don't think we would have been better off with him in the White House in 2004. In fact, if Kerry had been elected there is a good chance the liberal savior, Obama, would not have been elected in 2008.

Was Bush the best president? Maybe not, but he was the better choice in 2004.