What about the Iraqis?

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?