Political Punch

I just saw a web news broadcast on YAHOO where you were discussing where "NEW" first time voters were leaning in certain states. You said the figures were giving OBAMA 73% and McCAIN 26%, a "4 to 1 margin". To me that appears to be more of a "3 to 1...NOT 4 to 1" ratio !! I can see where your role in the media is trying to direct this election. Is this some type of NEW MATH ?

Hunter and Jeff,

Please check the following if you believe in it?

US Army giving Disease Ridden Blankets to Indians Conpsricy

Masons / Founding fathers conspircy

Lincoln Asssassination Conspircy

Pearl Harbor conspircy

Kennedy assassination Conspircy

John Lennon Assaination Conapircy

Roswell Conpsircy

Black Helicopters

UFO’s

TWA Flight 800 Conspircy

9-11 Conpsircy

Ghosts

Vanpires

Little green men

All the above

And any new conspircies please not mention Below!

Hunter, Jeff,

Food for rational thought....

We had far more justification to believe the prewar reasons to go into Iraq -- including WMD's -- than to believe your wacky "Bush Lied" conspiracy theory of what "really" went on.

That too should tell you something about the veracity of your politicized theory.

Only one of the 7 reasons turned out to be factually false in hindsight.

Yours hindsight conspiracies are blatantly false in nowsight.

"...fact" that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved with 9/11 actually proves your presumptive accusation that you KNOW Bush conflated facts..."

The NEWS MEDIA is at fault not President Bush. From the very beginning the Bush Administration has stated up front that Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11. BUT the Administration also pointed out that there have been long connections between Iraq and al Qaeda -- meetings in the Sudan and Afghanistan. And that al Qaeda was in northern Iraq with a training camp before we invaded Iraq. YET it has been the news media that continues, to this day, to say that Bush is linking Iraq to 9/11. Just the other day (July 24), President Bush stated that the al Qaeda that we are fighting in Iraq is the same group that attacked us on 9/11. YET, the New York Daily News headline read: "W. still ties Iraq, 9/11." THAT IS NOT WHAT BUSH DID! Bush only reiterated that the al Qaeda that we are currently fighting in Iraq IS the same organization that is controlled by Usama bin Laden. Bush has NEVER said -- either before or now -- that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.

Hunter: "Your engaging in the same tactics..."

Hunter, the only tactics I'm engaging in are quite obvious and straight forward: logic and the insistence that you actually prove your thesis without hand-waving.

Hunter: "I have proven he was lying, whether it be flat out lying or in inference"

You have done no such thing, and you know it.

Let's think a little here.

You're claim that the "fact" that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was involved with 9/11 actually proves your presumptive accusation that you KNOW Bush conflated facts, intentionally misleading people -- despite your inability to actually prove it.

Hunter, you must realize that this requires a HUGE leap of faith in your ability to read the President's "real intentions".

To show you the fallacy of your reasoning, let me ask this:

1. How many specific unique examples of Bush's supposedly conflated statements are there?

2. Now, what percentage of those people in that poll actually listened to every word of each of Bush's statements as compared to those who didn't (getting their "news" by another source)?

3. Finally, compare the effect upon the poll participants of Bush supposedly conflated statements, made a mere handful of times, with the same effect of the thousands of times Democrats asserted he said it or even said it themselves.

Do you see the obvious weakness in your argument\, don't you?

Hunter: "Well, bravo, you weren't part of the 70% who at one time did"

But, how can that be? I'm just an ignorant dead-ender.

Hunter: "Your engaging in the same tactics..."

Hunter, the only tactics I'm engaging in are quite obvious and straight forward: logic and the insistence that you actually prove your thesis without hand-waving.

We've been arguing this point for over 2 weeks now.

In the entire time, you have never once been able to prove even one -- just ONE -- itsy bitsy lie.

Instead, you've employed convoluted innuendo and unprovable claims that "it's obvious to everyone but dead-enders" and other ad hominem attacks on anyone who "smugly" expects you to factually prove your conspiracy theory.

The fact that you so frequently resort to this should tell you something about the veracity of your argument.

Hunter, face the facts.

Your arguments are fallacious.

You've utterly, completely and totally failed to prove Bush lied about anything.

This ignorant dead-ender has somehow caused you to crash your conspiracy theory headlong into a complete dead end.

Hunter, there is still one very important item that you, and Jeff, have yet do address! Why is it that President Bush lied when he said Iraq had WMDs, but Democrats DIDN'T lie when THEY SAID Iraq had WMDs and was an imminent threat during the debate leading up to the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Or when the Democrats SAID Iraq had WMDs and was an imminent threat during the debate leading up to passing the resolution giving President Bush the authorization to use force against Iraq?

Hunter, you wrote: "To conclude that he was there for uranium is an assumption only."

Actually, al Zawahie was one of the chief Iraqi ADVOCATES for Iraq's development of nuclear weapons. Why would Iraq send an advocate for the development of nuclear weapons to purchase "phosphates, livestock, coal, iron, etc?" Furthermore, Iraq had previously bought uranium from Niger back in the 1980s.

"Hunter you are talking about the French? Oh ok!"

Lovely. You aren't in any way being a predictable anti-French conservative.

Actuallly I am not, you infer that I am, without know ing the facts.. Be it know I come from Canadian-french ancestry amd I know when a french-canadian is lying!

I like to bring up some points:

“He (Bush) inferred it”

Because a person inferres somthing dosn’t mean he lied about it. My Daughter infers that our youngest hit her, Doesn’t mean she did it! In fact 90 percent of the time she is the one that causes the crime!

“If he truly believes in the lie, he is pathological.”

One of the first signs that a person is a Pathological lair is that: “He Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.” I met allot of people in this blog and other blogs that fit this qualification.

“People expect the president to be truthful” And you admit Bill Clinton was not, and so if Bill Clinton was lying then you think everyone that holds that office is lying?

“We know a lie when we see it.”

Sure but even Matlock A TV lawyer knows the difference.

“I have proven that he is lying, whether it be flat out lying or lying by inference”

Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows: The current way way your using the word is drawing a conclusion without knowing all the facts. ‘Inference‘ is the way your using it is a form of lying putting words in Bush”s Mouth that he didn’t say.
Ward Churchill former Professor of Colorado state by inference said that the US army in the 1830’s gave disease ridden blankets to Indians? Nothing proves that point. Ward Churchill did the dishonest thing by taking a inference and lying about it in a paper! We don’t have that with Bush, so to infer that Bush said anything like that is in itself lying!

“THAT is why I paraphrased Bush's quote!” That in itself is Lying! When Ward Churchill paraphrased a rumor then rewrites it, that to is dishonest and lying!

I find your argument a poor choose in words. Pardon my dyslexia!

Well, bravo, you weren't part of the 70% that at one time did.

"You keep paraphrasing what you claim Bush said. Please provide exact quotes and references to Bush claiming that Iraq trained Al Qaeda. Ensure you differentiate between that and Al Qaeda training camps being located within Iraq's northern regions."

No I have quoted him, though I replaced France and Chirac for Iraq and Saddam. Went right over your head I guess.

You people are engaging in the same tactics the Bush administration has used for years and Republicans have in general been using for much longer. Conflation and misrepresentation.

When you demand so smugly exact quotes on Bush's assertion that "Saddam was behind 9/11" and do a victory dance when no such quote exists you miss the entire reason behind why 70-79% of American believed Saddam was behind 9/11!!! Conflation and misrepresentation. THAT is why I paraphrased Bush's quote. If he had mentioned Brunei and Hassanal Bolkiah people would've been expecting us to invade Borneo! People expect the president to be truthful. And they expect he has intel from good sources. We want to believe that is he suggests Saddam is connected to 9/11 then he was! This conflation of Saddam and al Qaeda was purposeful and was a lie, even if it was a lie by inference.

So yes, technically, Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. He may be a simpleton but he knows what a lie is and what is a weaselly, lawyerly statement. But he inferred it. And you damn well know it.

Have you ever seen “Why We Fight”? Do you know the story of Wilton Sekzer? His son died in the WTC on 9/11. Afterwards he heard Bush talk about 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence time and time again. Because of Bush he came to believe Saddam played a role in, if not actually being behind, the attacks. He wanted Iraq to burn. He even got his son’s name written on a bomb dropped on Baghdad. Go talk to him about whether he thinks Bush lied. Then come back to me again and tell me that Bush didn’t lie.

""He (Bush) may be a simpleton but he knows what a lie is and what is a weaselly, lawyerly statement. But he inferred it. And you know it."

You still need to prove that Bush knew he was lying? Since you have not!"

The "I'm an idiot" defense will not work. He is the freakin' President. And he’s not THAT dumb. He knows he's lying, Rove, Cheney, everyone, the country, the world, knows he's lying except for the few remaining dead-enders like yourself. Correction, you all know he is lying you just refuse to admit it because doing so means you are supporting a liar and deceiver and those lies tricked many good people into supporting the Iraq invasion. It would leave you with few options in continuing to support him on this issue. See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

If he truly believes in the lie, he is pathological.

I just can't imagine what it would take for someone like you to lose faith in Bush.

I have proven that he is lying, whether it be flat out lying or lying by inference.

Do you think Clinton lied about Lewinsky? Before the whole Lewinsky mess became public a study on college aged people's attitudes on sex was released. The survey concluded that the majority of college students didn't think oral sex was "sex." Clinton cited that study to bolster his claim that he didn't lie. But of course it was a lie even if he had a technical weasely argument that he didn’t lie. None his lawyerly treatment of his denials convinced anyone that he wasn't lying.

It is no different with Bush. He was and is still lying about al Qaeda in Iraq, among other things.

If I may paraphrase former Justice Potter Stewart while opining on what is pornography: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of [lies and deceits of George Bush that] I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it”

Yes. We know a lie when we see it.

TP,

Still wondering if they can answer our questions?

1. Do you want to continue fighting terrorists?

2. If so, where can we do that without creating more terrorists?

3. You still need to prove that Bush knew he was lying?

"He (Bush) may be a simpleton but he knows what a lie is and what is a weaselly, lawyerly statement. But he inferred it. And you damn well know it."

You still need to prove that Bush knew he was lying? Since you have not!

"Their uranium mines are tightly controlled by French companies so any deal would've involved France at some point."

Hunter you are talking about the French? Oh ok!

Jeff, Hunter,

Both of you assert that our presence in Iraq must be abandoned because "we're creating more terrorists".

Well...

Answer these two simple questions:

1. Do you want to continue fighting terrorists?

2. If so, where can we do that without creating more terrorists?

Edit
So if we did what Jeff and Hunter want us to do, and that I assume would be pulling out our troops in the next year, what other type of policy would liberals and the democrats what us to do when it comes to the terrorist?

So would they compromise as Meville Chamberlin did so with Hitler when he nearly gave away the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia. To say that their is no comparisons

The Next President, if liberal, would and most likely annex the whole of Iraq to Bin Laden in the very same matter. He or she could condemn the people of Iraq to Genocide far worst than Saddam every thought of.

How would the Democrats keep the peace? What would it be a policy? Is peace or diplomacy more important than a aggressive Policy? This will be the questions that we all have to asked the future Liberals.

Since they have no policy to compare with Bush, then appeasement like the polices of Chamberlin is the only policy they can turn too.

If the liberal destablized it further than it already is now? Would the Democrats appease Iran when Iran walks in and takes Iraq or for that matter Saudi Arabia? Could Mahmoud Ahmadinejad become the next Hitler?

What is a Iraqi life worth has never been answered and if appeasement is in our future, how would that effect Israel? All of this seems to fly over the heads of our current lineral leadship, who currently is so proud of raising the mim. wage by seventy cents. That was earth shaking!

It doesn’t seem that Hunter and Jeff care?

Accordint tot he Washington Institute for Near East Policy | January 17, 2003: Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Iraqi Kurdistan since September 2001. In August 2001, leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq. Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created using $300,000 to $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, in addition to funds from Saudi Arabia.

Approximately 30 al-Qaeda members reportedly joined Ansar upon the group's inception in 2001; that number is now as high as 120. Armed with heavy machine guns, mortars, and antiaircraft weaponry, the group fulfills al-Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri's vision of a global jihad. Ansar's goal is to disrupt civil society and create a Taliban-like regime in northern Iraq.

Strange you didn't know this Jeff, since you know so much?

Honestly, Jeff, your arguments DO NOT MAKE SENSE! You wrote: "If they (North Korea) pose the same threat as Iraq supposedly did prewar, then why give diplomacy a chance to work there? The US should be going in guns a blazing and asking questions later, right?"

WE GAVE IRAQ 12 YEARS OF DIPLOMACY! It was quite clear that no more diplomacy was going to work. That is NOT the case with North Korea. Had we gone "guns a blazing and asking questions later" as you state, North Korea would certainly have invaded South Korea or worse...they might have nuked South Korea. But instead diplomacy has worked. North Korea has shut down their nuclear facility and we ARE MAKING PROGRESS! We WERE NEVER going to progress with Saddam Hussein.

Another difference between Iraq and North Korea is that Germany, France and Russia convinced Iraq that the United States would never invade. Therefore, Saddam Hussein had no incentive to comply. He was wrong!! China on the other hand warned North Korea that the embargo was only going to get worse if North Korea didn't comply. With China's leverage, North Korea finally agreed to comply.

You can't use the same formula for every country. Some countries will only respond to force. Others are much more willing to talk.

Jeff, WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS SEVERAL TIMES. I WILL REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME. Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before the invasion. READ Congress' Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq of October 2002! ONE CLAUSE STATES: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE KNOWN TO BE IN IRAQ;"

This resolution was passed by Congress (81 Democrats in the House and 29 Democrats in the Senate voting for the resolution) and signed by President Bush a full FIVE months before we invaded Iraq. NOTICE it states, "are known to be in Iraq."

“Again what is a Iraqi life worth? How many more people died in order for what you consider diplomacy worked. How long did the British sit and wait for dip[lomcay to work with Hitler. When Chamberlin came out of that aircraft and wave a piece of paper saying peace was in hand. How long do you let people sit and wait in to decide if diplomacy is going to wait?”

Again, comparing Hitler and Saddam is not the same. Hitler was aggressively attacking neighbors and allies of the US. At the time of the war, was Saddam attacking anyone? No, his military capabilities were limited to none.

“What about the fact that El Qeada was already in Iraq?”

Wrong!!! No fact at all. In fact many, many reports say that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist… well at least until after the war started. Remember what I said in my original post, no Iraq Al Qaeda 9/11 load because we all know that’s one of lies, or misrepresentations, the Bush administration has made.

“Reports then was saying that he was reconstituting his WMD’s.
“Then again diplomacy could have killed more people in both the US and Iraq. We did not know if he was reconsituting his program or not.”

Wrong again… one of the final UN meeting before the war says that they have been complying in declaring and destroying their weapons.

“SO concerned about the Iraqi people dieing, don’t you think we have done them a disservice by jumping the gun?”
“Not according to the Kurds whose lives have improve since the end of Saddam’s dictaorship!”
And how many Iraqi lives have not improved? I would bet that many more sects say the exact opposite.
Did you not have a comment on diplomacy prevailing in North Korea? Even though we KNEW for sure they have nuclear capability and in the US would be in striking distance to a attack from NK, yet we did not attack…Oh,oh, I know.. no oil. I think Kim Jong-il is just a crazy and ruthless as Saddam was. NK is number three on the Buhs’s “Axis of Evil”.
“North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.” Source Wikipedia. – Bush SOU 2002.
If they pose the same threat as Iraq supposedly did prewar, then why give diplomacy a chance to work there? The US should be going in guns a blazing and asking questions later, right?

Jeff, you wrote: "So what if diplomacy would have taken 3, 5, 7 more years?" NO AMOUNT OF DIPLOMACY WAS GOING TO WORK. Saddam Hussein continually defied the UN and he had no intentions of every complying. His oil-for-food scandal left millions of Iraqis starving while he reaped in billions. In addition, based on estimates from The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq and Human Rights Watch, between 70-125 Iraqis PER DAY were killed by Saddam Hussein and his sons while he was in power. They weren't just blown up by car bombs, IEDs or suicide bombers, they were raped and brutally tortured BEFORE being killed. Right Jeff, let's bring back the good ol' days.

Jeff, you also wrote: "Saddam was not a threat to the US." HOW MANY TIMES MUST I REPEAT THIS? Go back and read the statements from the Democrats in 1998. Many of them said Saddam Hussein was a threat to OUR national security. And some even said he was an "imminent threat" to the United States. That was not President Bush...it was two years before he became President.

But even more recently (and less than one month prior to the invasion of Iraq), on Feb, 28 2003, in an interview between Bill Moyers and former Amb. JOSEPH WILSON (yes, one and the same, from the Valerie Plame fiasco), Moyers asked Wilson: "President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. 'The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away.' You agree with that?" Wilson responded with, "I agree with that. Sure."

Moyers then followed up with: "'The danger must be confronted.' You agree with that? 'We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat.' You agree with that?" Wilson responded with: "I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true."

And then on Dec. 16, 2003, Sen. John Kerry stated: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

“you mention that Saddam was under 12 years of diplomacy, what is more important TIME or LIVES of the Iraqis and American soldiers? So what if diplomacy would have taken 3, 5, 7 more years? Does time outweigh people lives?”

Again what is a Iraqi life worth? How many more people died in order for what you consider diplomacy worked. How long did the British sit and wait for dip[lomcay to work with Hitler. When Chamberlin came out of that aircraft and wave a piece of paper saying peace was in hand. How long do you let people sit and wait in to decide if diplomacy is going to wait?

“what if the US would have waited and it took two years more of diplomacy, what harm would have it done?”

It would have prove to the world and the islamic community as a whole that we were a paper tiger, all talk. Dictators like Saddam and Hitler do not respect weaken leaders. What about the fact that El Qeada was already in Iraq?

“All reports say the Saddam was not reconstituting his WMD.”

Of course that is Hind site. Reports then was saying that he was reconsituting his WMD’s. We not sure he used then in the Iran-Iraq war and use then on the Kurds.

“The US would not be in the situation we are today”

Not the US could have had it worsem we could had Saddam and Bin Laden joining forces to promote more terrorism in the States. Perhaps a nuclear attack and

“SO concerned about the Iraqi people dieing, don’t you think we have done them a disservice by jumping the gun?”

Not according to the Kurds whose lives have improve since the end of Saddam’s dictaorship!

“You might say Saddam was being defiant and not letting UN inspectors in, so. Continued sanctions and continued diplomacy might have and most likely would have ended up with the truth coming out (no WMD) without the need for war and without the need for so many lives being ended prematurely, both Iraqis and Americans.”

Then again diplomacy could have killed more people in both the US and Iraq. We did not know if he was reconsituting his program or not.

Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but so are many other ruthless dictators around the world.

That is irrelevant how many dictatorships there are in the world currently. Of course there was allot of dictatorships durning Hitler’s day. But it was Hitler that was a major threat to Europe and later us.

No matter how many Dictators that exist in the world, the ones that threaten the most lives and the ones that could create the most havoc are the ones that get most attention.

Is lives more important than time and what is a Iraqi Life worth?

James – you mention that Saddam was under 12 years of diplomacy, what is more important TIME or LIVES of the Iraqis and American soldiers? So what if diplomacy would have taken 3, 5, 7 more years? Does time outweigh people lives? I would bet many parents that have had their kids KIA in Iraq might disagree. Saddam was not a threat to the US. And don’t even start to say Al Qaeda and Iraq and 9/11 load. I mean, what if the US would have waited and it took two years more of diplomacy, what harm would have it done? All reports say the Saddam was not reconstituting his WMD. The US would not be in the situation we are today. So back to the question of the blog, since the conservatives are SO concerned about the Iraqi people dieing, don’t you think we have done them a disservice by jumping the gun? You might say Saddam was being defiant and not letting UN inspectors in, so. Continued sanctions and continued diplomacy might have and most likely would have ended up with the truth coming out (no WMD) without the need for war and without the need for so many lives being ended prematurely, both Iraqis and Americans. Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but so are many other ruthless dictators around the world. North Korea kicked out UN inspectors when it was absolutely known that they have nuclear capability and if developed into weapons would have the capability of reaching the US. But, you know what? We did not strike and gave diplomacy a chance rather the need for military action. So what about the Iraqis and diplomacy? Is time more important than lives?

Jeff, now we're back to to the place we started.

I thought we were making such great progress when you started softening your claims with "oil is A reason".

However, we're back to it being the ONLY reason.

We're back to square one....

However, it's plainly obvious to all objective readers: you are completely unable to prove your point.

Simply repeating the same unprovable conspiracy theory won't make it true.

Jeff, I didn't discredit Clark, He did it to himself.

Hunter, a few post ago you said the Iraqi war ended with the Iraqi Army giving up. So if that is the case then you would agree with President Bush that major operations ended on May 1, 2003?

Another question, with all the troubles this has cause president why would anyone lie about the Iraqi situation? I mean what does Bush get out of this situation with a majority liberal press that hates him?

Seems to me it either a no win situation that he entered the situation with iraq or that it is totally a situation where he had the courage to buck the press and choose the right!

Hunter, you need to stop paraphrasing people and provide direct quotes. Sorry, it's something you just gotta do because you've already demonstrated that your paraphrases are not very accurate.

Hunter, now for the real, serious question (fundamental issue #2):

Do you feel comfortable with Jeff's statements that he will feel no guilt after causing the inevitable genocide after prematurely evacuating Iraq?

Jeff & Hunter: what is it about this concept that you don't get?

FACT: In order to establish a statement as a lie, you MUST prove that the author KNEW the statement to be false BEFORE making it!!!

This is Basic Lies 101 material.

I refuse to believe that someone purportedly possessing the "logic and reasoning" capabilities of one of the "WORLD'S brightest military researchers" can be so easily bamboozled.

Even I, an ignorant conservative dimwit, get it.

Put up or shut up: prove these were lies as defined above.

Hunter, your hand-waving "it depends upon what the definition of 'lies..." technicality BS" is ludicrous. Your entire post at 10:16:10 is nothing but supposition after conflation after generalization after accusation after... nonsense.

Sorry, that don't cut it.

This is a tacit admission that you KNOW that you have no case.

If you did, you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsensical arguments.

Hunter, I never came away with the impression that Bush claimed, even tangentially, that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Maybe I'm just too ignorant to have noticed.

You keep paraphrasing what you claim Bush said. Please provide exact quotes and references to Bush claiming that Iraq trained Al Qaeda. Ensure you differentiate between that and Al Qaeda training camps being located within Iraq's northern regions.

Hunter, your claim that Senator Craig's statements prove your conspiracy theory that the only reason for the invasion was to acquire oil rights is ludicrous.

It is perfectly congruous to consider the inevitable consequence of prematurely evacuating Iraq and the desire of Iran to wrest control of Iraq's oil from Iraqi democratic control. This WILL happen if we follow your lead, Is that what YOU want?

"He did that in the SOU re: the uraniumin Africa claim. He said 'British intelligence.' Even though WE knew the claim was bogus."

ONCE AGAIN YOU PERPETUATE A LIE! President Bush did not lie about the British intelligence report. That's because The British DID report that Saddam had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And they STILL stick by that report.

As I wrote previously: "Hunter, you claim that since Iraq has the second largest oil reserves that naturally that is why we went into Iraq. Then what about the undisputed fact that in 1999 an Iraqi offical (Wissam al Zawahie) went to Niger on a trade mission. Yet the only commodity that would be of interest to Iraq is Niger's uranium. Based on your logic that should be THE CONCLUSIVE proof that Iraq was, in fact, seeking to purchase uranium as late as 1999."

Iraq did make the ATTEMPT. Nothing came of it, but they made the attempt NONE THE LESS!

So did you laugh like I did when Bush said he would restore dignity and accountability to the government in 2000? That was a poke at Clinton lying about Lewinsky.

Puhleez, you know how this works. This is the most scripted administration ever. EVERTYHING they say derives from talking points and memos disseminated from the WH (Rove, Cheney etc.), and yes the President approves them. Maybe not EVERY word but the gist, the central theme of a speech or answer to a question in a press conference is managed ahead of time. And why do you think Bush never emails? He has said so - so that there is no record of the conversation, etc, to bite him later.

If he isn’t approving of talking points and he doesn’t know what’s being said so that makes him incompetent. Ask Ken Lay (figuratively speaking) about playing the ignoramus defense.

Hunter,
I wondering if a lie from a liberal is as important as a lie from a conservative. Think about the impeachment issue under B Clinton and his coverups from the time he left Little Rock and the so called Lies you think Bush did?

one more thing I forgot to add, Paul Wolfowitz said they had to use the WMD angle to make the war palatable. In other words, the public wouldn’t buy the crap we were selling if it wasn’t packaged just right.

Marketing. Sleight of hand. Call it what you want. It was a deceit. A lie if you will.

“And when we say Bush lied we mean his administration. Many of the lies were from Cheney or Rumsfeld or a whole bunch of other admin. officials.”

Oh my gosh the orgin of orginal sin... I started to laugh when i discovered that now Bush has to put words into his appointnees.

Rumsfled: Let me say this? But first I need to contact the President

Cheney: I need to contact the President before I say I can talk about that?

Tony Snow : Let me say this about that, I cannot say anything at all before I talk to the President

Please Hunter do you think Former president Clinton would have said: I did not have sex with that woman! or was he really thinking I did not have sex with that woman Hillay------!

So what you are saying is that negotiating with the country that spawned the majority of the 9/11 attackers and the plurality if not majority of foreign insurgents in Iraq is OK. But the country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 we invade.

Sure, "negotiations" with Saudi Arabia. We've been friendly with them for decades. Yet look what happened. You're right, negotiations don't work over night. Nor apparently over decades either. So long as they provide us with a steady stream of oil we can forgive some transgressions.

As for Iraq, Bush is the one who wouldn't let the weapons inspectors continue in Iraq. Why? Because he knew there was nothing there!!! Pull them out make a few bombastic statements about the Iraqi regime refusing to cooperate, invade. Then to the slobbering masses it appeared that Bush was the patient one.

If the inspectors had continued for another 2-3 months all the WMD lies, excuse me, deceits would have been made clear. Ergo, no invasion and no influence over thier energy reserves.

"This is Basic Lies 101 material."

Apparently Bush has a PhD in it.

You are getting stuck in technical BS. All leaders do it, surround themselves with plausible deniability to evade prosecution or blame. He did that in the SOU re: the uraniumin Africa claim. He said "British intelligence." Even though WE knew the claim was bogus. But he can always say "that's what I was told by the Brits." And when we say Bush lied we mean his administration. Many of the lies were from Cheney or Rumsfeld or a whole bunch of other admin. officials. But unfairly or not, as the President, when his appointed officials lie, that makes him part of the lie, especially since none ever get punished for it (e.g. outing Valerie Plame).

Maybe it is more accurate to decribe Bush's lies as deceits. Bush's claims about Iraq were deceitful. And so malisciously so, they can only be called a lie.

Saying he didn't "lie" in the strictest inane use of the word is in itself dishonest.

and speaking of what’s buried under their sand, it appears that Senator Craig from the great state of Idaho seems to agree with me. This he said on the Senate floor: “"What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil.”

Yep, he worked hard indeed. Duping the majority of Americans all at once about our presence in Iraq isn’t an easy task.

“first of all, President Bush was very clear...from the very beginning...that there was NO credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was in any way connected to, or responsible for, the attacks on 9/11.”

You are only getting by on a technicality! And you know it. It’s called conflation and he is still using this misleading and dishonest tactic even today. Why do you think that for the longest time poll after poll showed that the majority of people thought that Saddam played a role in 9/11? Because that was what Bush was suggesting!!!!!! What if instead of Iraq Bush said, “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between France and Chirac and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between France and al Qaeda."? If he had been saying that it would have been the Eiffel Tower that was pulled down instead of that giant statue of Saddam. And though you conservatives probably relish that thought, you know what I’m saying is true. Bush knew exactly what he was saying. He knew exactly that people would take it that he was saying that Saddam was behind 9/11 and support his stupid invasion. He was lying then as he is now.

But you are flat out wrong because Bush HAS said that Iraq trained al Qaeda fighters. There may have been an al Qaeda member in Iraq (I think there was one such example in Northern Iraq, which WASN’T under Saddam’s control) that may have learned some bomb making skills. This of course is not true any more than saying the United States trained al Qaeda to attack the WTC because Mohammed Atta learned how to fly planes in the United States!!!! Do you understand your cognitive dissonance here?

These questions remain: If Saddam had no role in 9/11 why did Bush continue to utter their names in the same sentences over and over again? Why didn’t he say King Abdullah and Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda? Or Mussharaf and Pakistan and al Qaeda, or any other combination? The only reasonable answer is buried under their sand.

Hunter: "...that he has done something about the Saudi's supporting terrorists groups?" Oh ye of little patience!!

So much of the turmoil in the Middle East derives from the Israeli-Palestinian issue. So the Bush Administration is working with Saudi Arabia on the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While it is a fine balancing act, the Bush Administration is ALSO trying to persuade the Saudis that it is in their best interest to end the flow of financing of terrorist organizations. While progress IS being made with respect to ending the flow of money to al Qaeda, it is very difficult to end the flow of money for other terrorist groups such as Hamas. That's because the Saudis don't consider Hamas as a terrorist organization. They are not alone. Even Russia does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

It is very interesting that you (like the rest of the Liberal Left) say we should have continued with diplomacy with Saddam Hussein. Twelve years wasn't enough! Yet, apparently you don't believe the same when it comes to Saudi Arabia; you want instant results. Well, NOTHING pertaining to the Middle East happens over night. It is a very tedious, methodical process that will take two steps back for every three steps forward.

"There is plenty of proof of Palestinian Bombers families being pay off by our friendly niegborhood Saddam.

Our President said that supporting terrosim is as bad as commiting it, I wonder would the Democrat Party or liberalism as a whole be considered supporting terrorism?"

So I'm assuming that since Bush is so keen and insightful that he can make such an obvious statement that he has done something about the Saudi's supporting terrorists groups? Oh but wait there's that whole Bandar Bush thing and their decades old ties to the kingdom giving us nice access to their oil. Right. And I'm sure Bush is doing all that he can to wean us off foreign oil because that supports terrorism too. And of course when we terrorize entire countries with our invasions, it's not really terrorism because we are the U.S. of A. Yes, Bush is a pillar of virtue. No hypocrisy there.

You really have to be a 25%-er to keep up with the canard that Dems/Libs support terrorism. The facts that this invasion of Iraq has actually increased terrorism worldwide are completely lost on you people. Supporting Bush is in fact supporting the proliferation of terrorism.

Jeff,
I wondering who do you think benefits from a country that will take a good ten or more years to bring up to full oil production?

Some information includes the fact:

The Energy Infrastructure Planning Group, concluded that although Iraq's stated production capacity was just over 3 million barrels per day, the system was only producing 2.1 million to 2.4 million barrels.

The "condition of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was not particularly good," the official said. "That would be evident to anybody who realized the country had been under U.N. sanctions for many years."

The United Nations produced reports on Iraq regularly from 1998 to 2001. The documents painted a picture of a troubled system and cited the need for improvements.

The worst case was no revenue for a few years, if there was "major sabotage and some significant battle damage.

So how was it for oil? No one imcluding the Iraqis are making any money off of oil!

Jeff,

"The only real reason for the Iraq war was for oil and to prevent OPEC from controlling price and supply!"

How Much currently do we import from Iraq? If we only get 1 to 10 percent from Iraq then you have to re evaluate you, we when to war fro oil idea!

Why did we go to war with Iraq? First and foremost, as I mentioned in my previous comment, the UN gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to prove he had no WMDs or face war. Since the UN wasn't about to follow through on its ultimatum, President Bush gave one of his own. And he acted upon it. Had Saddam Hussein done as the UN or President Bush demanded, WAR WOULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED.

Now as for the reasons for going to war, the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," of October 2002, lays it out point by point. Just Google it! You will see that "oil" is NEVER mentioned.

Jeff, which Richard Clarke was telling the truth? The one who on August 2002 gave a background briefing with Jim Angle of Fox News or the one who you cited?

Now you can't have it both ways. First you write:

"LIE: 'The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was . . . enriching uranium for a bomb.' (State of the Union)"

Then you write: "TRUTH: The IAEA found that Iraq’s nuclear capacity had been completely dismantled by 1998 and the current IAEA inspector reported to the UN Security Council in January 2003 'we have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990’s.' ”

DID YOU READ THESE, THEY ARE CONSISTENT. Bush said Saddam Hussein HAD a nuclear program in the 1990s and the IAEA said the program they HAD in the 1990s was dismantled by 1998. This testimony was given in January 2003. In February 2003 the UN gave Saddam Hussein a 1-month ultimatum to prove he no longer had WMDs or face war. Which Saddam Hussein failed to do. Then on March 17, 2003, President Bush gave Saddam Hussein 24 hours to leave Iraq to avoid a war. Saddam Hussein refused. As I have said many times before, President Bush says what he means and means what he says. President Bush followed through on his ultimatum. Unfortunately, the UN failed to follow through on its ultimatum, instead continued its usual talk no action policy. We might have avoided war had Germany, France and Russia not convinced Saddam Hussein that the United States wouldn't invade.

The only real reason for the Iraq war was for oil and to prevent OPEC from controlling price and supply. And to give the American oil companies more profits on the oil drilling side and the refinery side. Now, let’s say Exxon Mobil can drill the oil in Iraq, make a profit, and then they can ship the oil to the US and make profit on the refinery side.

A large majority of Iraqis—71%—say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less.
Support for a U.S. withdrawal appears to be derived from a widespread perception that the presence of U.S.-led forces is having a net negative effect on the situation in Iraq. Large numbers say that the United States' military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.” This view is held by 78 percent overall, and by 82 percent of Shias and a near-unanimous 97 percent of Sunnis.
More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the United States is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence. Views are especially negative among the Sunnis (96% negative), and the Shias (87% negative).

The majority of Iraqis don’t want the US there. So, what about those Iraqi’s? I guess their desire for self determination doesn’t matter to the US. The US will tell them what’s best for them and that’s the US taking their oil.

Oh, of course you discredit Clarke. However, if Clarke was saying the opposite you would be jumping around with pom-poms. You talk about wild conclusions, well what about you? “odds are it is Richard Clarke a very disgruntled former chief counter-terrorism adviser in the latter part of the Clinton Administration and the early part of the Bush Administration, who was very ticked off because he wasn't given more authority and direct access to President Bush.” WHATEVER, is this your new conspiracy theory?
Every time I provide reference for my quotes they get removed.
And the Senate Intelligence Committee report is irrelevant? Only because it backed up the claims for Saddam, that he did not have anything to hide. You ask me to think, you should probably do that for yourself, rather than believing everything that comes out the Bush’ cake hole, I know it’s hard have an intelligent thought after listening to Bush, but maybe you guys should be asking yourselves more questions than you do. If god himself, aka – Rush Limbaugh, came down and said that Bush lied, you still wouldn’t believe it.
As for the plane simulation - What? Evidence? You want the computer program to specifically to identify the WTC on 9/11? Come on. They had knowledge and they were running a scenario to find out the result if it actually did happen. Come on, does everything have to spelled out for you guys. I guess you guys specifically need to have Bush say the exact words to draw a conclusion, kind of like my son, “Your room is dirty” you need “Go clean your room.” You need to be told everything by Bush rather than stepping out and thinking for yourselves.
By the way, you have failed to give seven reasons for the war, you have given sever excuses for the war, but the real reason is oil. A two year could figure that out.

Here’s another conservative – CBSNEWS
Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.
In particular, Buckley views the three-and-a-half-year Iraq War as a failure.
"IF YOU HAD A EUROPEAN PRIME MINISTER WHO EXPERIENCED WHAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IT WOULD BE EXPECTED THAT HE WOULD RETIRE OR RESIGN," BUCKLEY SAYS.
Asked if the Bush administration has been distracted by Iraq, Buckley says "I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq... The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

You want some Bush lies:
LIE: Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. (Presidential Debate)
Truth: HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO GIVE OUT.
LIE: “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was . . . enriching uranium for a bomb.” (State of the Union)
Truth: The IAEA found that Iraq’s nuclear capacity had been completely dismantled by 1998 and the current IAEA inspector reported to the UN Security Council in January 2003 “we have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990’s.” A former Iraqi scientist who participated in the nuclear program and now lives in Canada said that Iraq lacks the expertise and hardware to produce a nuclear bomb.
Of coarse these are all in hindsight, yeah, how do you find out someone is lying if you don’t look back?
Clearly, Bush could tell you guys the sky is green and the sun revolves around the earth and you guys would believe them!

Did you get a good look last night at the America’s future president on CNN’s Youtube debate? I did!

Bush- 18 more months – good riddance and out with the garbage.

EDIT
Hunter, I have finally found a area where you and President Bush would agree and in some ways I think you should now thing about supportiong the President

. On May 1, 2003, President Bush's speech was aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq. and since Liberals have been critizing the adminsiration for years on this very subject becasue of th banner,

Perhaps it time for you to defend the adminsration for it, since you claim that “Calling it a "war" is not accurate. We are no longer at war with the Country of Iraq!”

So if major operations are over according to Hunter, and we are now in a stage of reconstruction of the country of Iraq!

Since that is the case, removing the troops would really unecceassary since this is just simple local strife with a occasional IED place by El Qaeda!

Now since El Qaeda is in Iraq and we are in Iraq, doesn't it make sense o stay? I mean if El Qaeda isn't in Norway are they?

Hunter, I hav finally found a area where you and President Bush agree and in some ways I think you should now thing about supportiong him. On May 1, 2003, President Bush's speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq. and since Liberals have been critzing the adminsiration for years on this very subject, now becasue of that banner, perhaps it time for you to defend the adminsiration for it, since you claim that “Calling it a "war" is not accurate. We are no longer at war with the Country of Iraq!”
So major operations are over according to Hunter, and we are now in a stage of reconstruction of the country of Iraq! Since that is the case, removing the troops would really unecceassary since this is just simple local strife with a occasional IUD place by El Qeada!

Yeah, James. I know. I also know who it was, when it was said and why he intentionally withheld the name.

I just want to flush him out.

But, now we've spoiled it.

It was said by a the always honest and infinitely nobel and without agenda Richard Clarke while he was running for President in 2004, which is why Jeff knowingly withheld the discrediting specifics. ("60 Minutes" interview).

Bzzt, Jeff.

Try again.

T.P., odds are it is Richard Clarke a very disgruntled former chief counter-terrorism adviser in the latter part of the Clinton Administration and the early part of the Bush Administration, who was very ticked off because he wasn't given more authority and direct access to President Bush.

Jeff, the Senate Intelligence Committed report is completely irrelevant to our discussion. We're not talking about hindsight. We're talking about the level of our knowledge and belief before the invasion, which brings us to your extensive quote by "a former Bush counter terrorism expert", as discussed below.