There is no proof because these people have mastered the arts of 'perception', 'deception' and 'suggestion'...

See my Hitler thread for more details... Then read my sig... ;)

Deception? (A knowing deception is a lie.) Show me an example. Robert has not been able to.

A listener's misperception does not make the speaker's statement a lie.

Suggestions have their place in public political discourse. Suggestions are not lies either. You suggest that the administration lied about many things (presently we are talking about Saddam's involvement in 911). Back up your suggestion or admit you are wrong.

The name of this thread is "Lies Lies Lies". It begins by accusing the current administration of lying. You and Robert can backtrack all you want, but neither of you have show any actual lies.

• On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
  
• In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
  
• In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
  
• On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  
• On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
  
• On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
  

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh, Es99. You're so cute when you get all riled up.

The name of this thread is "Lies Lies Lies", not "False Statements False Statements False Statements". Yet, you never will admit that none of your statements, which eventually were shown to be untrue, are lies.

Your post, like your point of view, is simple minded, slanted and irrelevant.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Deception? (A knowing deception is a lie.) Show me an example.

That would be the 'definition'...

So I will now vow to lie through my teeth until the day that I die...

Because of course, until you can read my mind, you will never know what I really knew at the time...

How C O N V E N I E N T... For the immoral... ;)

(BTW - I've never said anything about lies. These people aren't that smart. They are possessed, and those who are not, have resigned.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Deception? (A knowing deception is a lie.) Show me an example.

That would be the 'definition'...

So I will now vow to lie through my teeth until the day that I die...

Because of course, until you can read my mind, you will never know what I really knew at the time...

How C O N V E N I E N T... For the immoral... ;)

(BTW - I've never said anything about lies. These people aren't that smart. They are possessed, and those who are not, have resigned.)

That's fair. And that is why the political pundits and talking heads are constantly asking what did "they" know and when did "they" know it.

The thing is, relying on intelligence sources is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. In hindsight, when we know those sources were wrong (and those sources start covering), it's easy to blame whichever person or party we never liked in the first place.

[Edit]: And that's what this thread is really about.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945

OK Qui-Gon...it appears that you don't read anything offered to you or the claim that I've given no proof wouldn't have been made. Here's the link from my original post. It's active this time, so it should be real easy for you.

You've taken a rather aggressive line of defense in your backing of the war criminal which does not include anything substantial, rather a familiar sounding personal attack with nothing to back it up.
Whatever you think of me doesn't matter one pinch of squat to me.

Why don't you try going through this again before accusing me of offering no evidence of lies.

Oh I forgot...If it doesn't come from the foul mouths of Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh, it isn't true.

If you have any more questions and feel you can ask them in a civil manner, please do so.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945

OK Qui-Gon...it appears that you don't read anything offered to you or the claim that I've given no proof wouldn't have been made. Here's the link from my original post. It's active this time, so it should be real easy for you.

You've taken a rather aggressive line of defense in your backing of the war criminal which does not include anything substantial, rather a familiar sounding personal attack with nothing to back it up.
Whatever you think of me doesn't matter one pinch of squat to me.

Why don't you try going through this again before accusing me of offering no evidence of lies.

Oh I forgot...If it doesn't come from the foul mouths of Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh, it isn't true.

If you have any more questions and feel you can ask them in a civil manner, please do so.

Civil? You clearly don't know the meaning of the word. You accuse me of not reading your crap websites (wrong), then you defame anyone who you don't agree with.

Nor do you know the meaning of the word "lie". You can go sit on a tack. Your bias is not worthy of further response.

[Edit]: By the way, my posts were not questions, so much as they were simply an effective way of destroying your the worthless statements you have spewed.

it's easy to blame whichever person or party we never liked in the first place.

I've never said that I didn't like Mr Bush, nor have I ever favored any political party over another... In fact, I do my best to avoid politics... But unfortunately, politics has ventured into my realm, which is religion... My perspective is purely religious, and it's hard for me to present my points with people who are not religious or are only semi-religious, which is why I leave the debating to others...

As an example: (I'm only doing this to make my point)

Qur'an 58:18
One day will Allah raise them all up (for Judgment): then will they swear to Him as they swear to you: And they think that they have something (to stand upon). No, indeed! they are but liars!

While the verse is kinda harsh, as most are, it clearly tells me that the 'unrighteous' will claim to be the 'righteous' all the way up to and including the day of judgement... So in my mind, all the debates in the world will never change this simple truth... Non-religious people may not understand my 'sources', but I think at this point, we can all see the 'spiritual battle' that is happening all around us...

Bottom line: I think that Mr Bush is in need of an 'exorcism', or he has been listening to others who are in need of an 'exorcism'... To put it in worldly terms, I think this administration has been hijacked by a force that is beyond comprehension by the average jane and joe... Of course, if my point of view is wrong, then maybe I'm the one in need of an 'exorcism'... But the overall message is very clear, both sides will continue to uphold their claim on righteousness... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

When Dittoheads find themselves having to try to explain their stance in a manner needing more than one sentence, they often resort to angry frustrated name calling.

Since we seem to have reached that level and there seems to be nothing further of a constructive nature coming from Qui-Gon, I think I'll not bother arguing with him anymore.
It has become quite apparant that I am in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Whenever I come across other sites that support my original post, I'll stick them in here for the information of those able to conceive of other alternatives to the funny little right-wing world they live in.

I'll let Qui-Gon's hero explain it as only he can...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-harm.htm

When Dittoheads find themselves having to try to explain their stance in a manner needing more than one sentence, they often resort to angry frustrated name calling.

Hmmmmm . . .

(I say that your president is a war criminal, no different than Hitler invading Poland with nothing to support his actions but lies).

If you need to post items of this sort find a web site in Canada that will agree with you. Regardless of any facts that you suggest from various sources at least we have a President that takes action. Thank the good lord he is not another Chamberlain who upon his arrival back in England in 1938 stated to the England's people "Peace in our time" after the European Nations signed a treaty with Hitler allowing him to take over a European country and a few months later started World War II.

---

http://boinc.mundayweb.com/teamStats.php?userID=14824

at least we have a President that takes action.

Lots of people 'take action'... That doesn't necessarily mean that those actions are right...

Hitler 'took action'... He and his Nazi party also thought that what they were doing was right...

If you remember, there were people who helped hide the Jews because they knew Hitler was wrong...

Harboring Jewish 'terrorists'? I'm sure Hitler and his Nazis weren't very happy about that... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

If you need to post items of this sort find a web site in Canada that will agree with you. Regardless of any facts that you suggest from various sources at least we have a President that takes action.

You don't seem concerned about what action to take, all you want is an action.

I suggest that if your action taking president had run naked down Pennsylvania Avenue with lit sparklers in his bum while making noises with his hand under his armpit, it would indeed have been an action.

Would this have pleased all the action seekers or do you think an appropriate action was more in order?

Qui-Gon,

I admire your tenacity and perseverance during this thread, but have to realize by now that the people you’re arguing with suffer from a disease. It called liberalism. Their minds are so open their brains have fallen out.

---

U.S.Air Force

Qui-Gon,

I admire your tenacity and perseverance during this thread, but have to realize by now that the people you’re arguing with suffer from a disease. It called liberalism. Their minds are so open their brains have fallen out.

Ahh..it must be cliché time.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Qui-Gon,

I admire your tenacity and perseverance during this thread, but have to realize by now that the people you’re arguing with suffer from a disease. It called liberalism. Their minds are so open their brains have fallen out.

Ahh..it must be cliché time.

No, I just get tired of this liberal crap.

If we were in a room full of people and you have your hand in your pocket, saying that you have a gun and are threatening my family and I take out my gun and kill you did I do anything wrong? I think not.

Saddam did everything in his power to make the world believe he still had WMD, and threaten the world. The world called his bluff now he’s dead.

The person who lied was Saddam

And don't forget France, Russia and China lied as well. They were all taking bribes from Saddam under the oil for food program. Why doesn't Robert mention that??

---

U.S.Air Force

If we were in a room full of people and you have your hand in your pocket, saying that you have a gun and are threatening my family and I take out my gun and kill you did I do anything wrong? I think not.

I think you would be prosecuted for manslaughter...

Even law enforcement officers can not fire until fired upon...

Are you above the law? I think not... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

If we were in a room full of people and you have your hand in your pocket, saying that you have a gun and are threatening my family and I take out my gun and kill you did I do anything wrong? I think not.

I think you would be prosecuted for manslaughter...

Even law enforcement officers can not fire until fired upon...

Are you above the law? I think not... ;)

No jury would ever convict and I wouldn't be called a liar if at the time I said he had a gun. Everyone in the room heard the person say he had a gun. The entire world heard Saddam "say" he still had WMD. Because the world belived him it dosen't make the world liars. So the statement should be Saddam lied and people died.

So what about the true liar's, Metterand, Putin and Zhu?? You didn't address those facts.

---

U.S.Air Force

Even law enforcement officers can not fire until fired upon...




Your statement above Jeffrey shows how much you check your supposed facts. That is not true and never has been true since before my time, during my time with law enforcement (21 years) and now after my time.

---

http://boinc.mundayweb.com/teamStats.php?userID=14824