Why Do the Libtards Keep Lying About Bush?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

If you think a full grown lion is going to be mistaken for a house cat you're more delusional than I thought.

Rather than using some unrealistic hypothetical try this instead.

Go tell this longshoreman he is lying about something...



and then try to talk your way out of it with your bullshit definition.

And if you think we would gather troops in mass along a nation who supposedly had WMD's , you'd believe a Lion was a house cat if GWB told you so!


I doubt a longshoreman would be a Bush apologist.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Your comment about how raw intel picks up "spin" as it moves up the bureaucratic ladder may be helpful in explaining what happened with some of the other rationales for invading Iraq, but not the WMD rationale .

Have you lost your fucking mind? Did it drown in man cum? If you ask a flunky to bring you certain results, they bring you those results. They filter out anything that is contrary to wtf you asked for. It is called plausible deniability. SOP since Nixon.

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are basically correct. And the credibility of Saddam's statements (and a few other people's) is where a lot of the spin was added. The career Intel analysts would state things more like, "Saddam has been stating...... We have not been able to confirm......."

The appointee would focus on the front piece and leave off the second as they "condensed" the assessment on the way up the chain.

You are absolutely correct that too many in the US still do not understand the Middle East mind--or the Korean, or Chinese, or.....

Let us frame the discussion like this : If the appointee was charged with finding information to Go To War, isn't it natural for him to dismiss information that might say otherwise, in other words the administration used a filter to give them plausible deniability.

That is what many people believe. The Bush admin was looking for a reason to go to war. I do not think anyone can deny that with a straight face.

What I find kinda funny is that these same folks defending Bush , now use say the Global Warming problem and say scientist and this administration are doing much the same thing. That they are cherry picking information to get the results they want. They say it is not near the problem or that there isn't anything that can be done....which was what many , many folks said about Iraq.

Below is for LexieLiar

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is what many people believe. The Bush admin was looking for a reason to go to war. I do not think anyone can deny that with a straight face.

At the time of the invasion that is not what many people believed. Americans 3:1 believed it was not a mistake. Even now with the benefit of hindsight Americans aren't as convinced that it was a mistake. It's roughly 2:1. Even when he left office and his approval rating was less than 30% more people than that still didn't think he lied.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx


In addition: In 2003 Americans didn't believe that Bush lied by a 2:1 margin. A month after Bush left office a majority did believe he lied but the margin was 11%. In other words 42% would deny that with a straight face.

Gallup basically stopped asking the question after 2008 because, guess what? Bush was no longer President. The best you Obama apologists can do to defend his bad presidency is point to Bush's bad presidency.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

. In other words 42% would deny that with a straight face.

.

Of course you would , all while having Tea with Sara Palin in her backyard while keeping an eye on the Commies!

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course you would , all while having Tea with Sara Palin in her backyard while keeping an eye on the Commies!

Your argument is deteriorating.

Keep going...

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is what many people believe. The Bush admin was looking for a reason to go to war. I do not think anyone can deny that with a straight face.

Originally Posted by WTF

Of course you would , all while having Tea with Sara Palin in her backyard while keeping an eye on the Commies!

The second quote would seem to be an admission that the first quote is wrong. Was that a result of misinformation or did you lie?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Have you lost your fucking mind? Did it drown in man cum? If you ask a flunky to bring you certain results, they bring you those results. They filter out anything that is contrary to wtf you asked for. It is called plausible deniability. SOP since Nixon.

Your inability to comprehend the simple truth that some intelligence is more solid (and less amenable to "spinning") than other intel makes it obvious that you are the stupid moron whose brain is addled with "man cum". Nuances are completely lost on a simpleton like you. You don't know how to digest or process into your stubbornly settled mindset what we learned from Saddam about why he didn't come clean on WMD. So you filter it out because it is contrary to the story line you want to believe. Sounds like you are the flunky, fagboy.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by bigtex

HAREBRAIN!

FTFY. No charge.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Airborne!

Yes!

And do you "think" they needed "airspace privileges"?

I don't.

Nor did the guys riding horseback out of the North.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by boardman

At the time of the invasion that is not what many people believed. Americans 3:1 believed it was not a mistake. Even now with the benefit of hindsight Americans aren't as convinced that it was a mistake. It's roughly 2:1. Even when he left office and his approval rating was less than 30% more people than that still didn't think he lied.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx


In addition: In 2003 Americans didn't believe that Bush lied by a 2:1 margin. A month after Bush left office a majority did believe he lied but the margin was 11%. In other words 42% would deny that with a straight face.

Gallup basically stopped asking the question after 2008 because, guess what? Bush was no longer President. The best you Obama apologists can do to defend his bad presidency is point to Bush's bad presidency.

That just proves the hoi polloi are stupid. Hell, three quarters of the country believe in a magical sky daddy. I wouldn't use the majority as a reason for believing anything.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

... three quarters of the country believe in a magical sky daddy. I wouldn't use the majority as a reason for believing anything.

.. I guess I'm in the other 25% ...

.. Can't believe in something when I don't know what it is!

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. I guess I'm in the other 25% ...

.. Can't believe in something when I don't know what it is!

I think he is referencing God.
American's belief in God is down from 90% just a few years ago to around 75% today.

[I B Hankering]

And the prophet said:

There is one problem with science.....in order to believe that science is the beginning and the end, one must have to believe that science created something from nothing at some point.......welcome to your religion!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

I think he is referencing God.
American's belief in God is down from 90% just a few years ago to around 75% today.

15% increase in belief in Allah?

I'm mixed with how that plays .... it raises my belief in one respect when I see "underconstruction" post, because I realize God must be compassionate to overlook some of the things he posts .... but on the other hand his posts could support the notion that mutations through the natural selection process do occur and procreate to increase the defective condition.

I guess "the jury" is still out in my mind.....at times. Perhaps it's not whether God exists, but more in terms of God's "role" in affecting life in specific situations.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And the prophet said:

At least "God" has a sense of humor ...