I would like to ask you why you lie?

Question

Certain people come on this forum every day and tell lie after lie. Don't you have anything better to do? Don't you have any real ideas? You are making your party look stupid.

If this doesn't makes sense to you read my previous question below.

Chi Guy here is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Thats funny Paul so are yours. Not only that but I can't email you either.

RKO if you read my previous qustion you realize I concede the main stream idea is that none were found. That only points to bad Intel which has also been admitted.

Answer 1

To them Bush is the most evil thing that has be on this plant. To them Hitler was a saint next to Bush. So a lie to 2 is nothing.

Answer 2

Some do and some don't lie. Bush lied about Iraq purchasing Uranium in Niger. Yet those in denial want to accept British Intell over the US CIA. It is certain that if roles were reversed, and the CIA said it was true while the UK said it was invalid, those same people would then say US CIA is right and the UK is wrong.

No one has yet to explain why Bush pulled the "yellow-cake" statement from a speech 3 months earlier after the CIA told him to. Yet when the CIA told Bush to pull it from the STU, he refused. Bush's most infamous line of all related to the forged Uranium buy document: "...smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud".

Then Powell or Condi pushed the erroneous info that Iraq had aluminum tubes that could be used to produce fissionable material for a nuke. Turns out the IAEA proved the tubes could NOT be used for such purposes. Then they said Iraq was making long range missles which was also false.

There is no "lie" within these facts.

Answer 3

We don't lie. You don't want to hear the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A56336-2003Jul14¬Found=true

October 2002 President Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati. For that speech then CIA Director George Tenet called Condi Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley and advised him not to include the Niger Uranium passage because he wasn't sure it was credible. Hadley agrees and Rice is fully briefed on all of this.
This was 4 months BEFORE GW Bush's SOTU address in which Bush includes the Uranium story.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464457,00.html

Feb. 5, 2003: Colin Powell addresses the U.N. about the evidence for war with Iraq. He pointedly chooses to omit using the Uranium reference later saying that he didn't think it was solid enough "to present to the world."

What more proof do you want?

Bush was told the intelligence reports authenticity were in question by the CIA 4 MONTHS before his January State of the Union address!

Answer 4

JCamp: I never said any such thing. You deliberately misrepresent people's posts by twisting their words around and then engage in lowbrow tough guy wannabe posturing. If you're going to attack someone personally, back it up with some semblance of evidence. For instance, I say you're an antisemite based on the following question about "Jewish propaganda": http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmYc4yjazJ_5KUdXhN2XzlU4Agx.?qid=20070822080351AA2aQPV

Answer 5

I answered your previous question by suggesting that you 'Google' to find documentation that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Apparently you chose to assume that everyone lies to you instead of trying to come to any informed decision, perhaps because you can't handle the truth - you simply want to badger those whom you believe to be liars. So I went to 'Google' and in less than ten seconds found this segment from Slate Magazine by Fred Kaplan, dated May 23, 2003:
VANISHING AGENTS: DID IRAQ REALL HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Kaplan reported that Donald Rumsfeld appeared before a Security Council hearing and "made the usual excuses for why his team of biochem-weapons hunters hasn't found any [WMDs]." Kaplan went on to report that "if Iraq had been developing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, several - perhaps, all - of [the 26 former Iraqi officials who surrendered or were captured] would have known about it and told U.S. interrogators where to look. Is there no a single cad among them who would trade his loyalty to Saddam for a slice of Andalucian beach property?"
This is just one quick search documenting that Rumsfeld and Bush have BOTH admitted that no weapons of mass destruction were found.
No, I would challenge you to find ONE example of any credible, newsworthy incident where Rumsfeld or Bush admitted that they found WMDs in Iraq.
People don't lie.....it's just hard for some die-hard war mongers to accept the truth. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. This insane, unjustified, unconstitutional, illegal, immoral 'war' was started because Bush's family had a personal vendetta against Hussein, Cheneyw anted all of Iraq's OIL, and the giant U.S. military-industrial complex needed a 'new' war to boost its sagging profits (not to mention the two newcomers who bellied up to the government's war trough: the Carlyle Group and Halliburton BOTH had direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House). This was has been about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING from the very first day - it has never been about 'weapons of mass destruction'; defending America against 'terrorists' in an unknown 'evil empire'; establish peace in the Middle East, or bringing democracy to Iraq. You can support Bush all you want, but you can't defend his credibility because he has none. He is a liar, a mass murderer, an incompetent, and a bungling blunderhead without conscience, moral compass or integrity.
PROVE to me that Bush found 'weapons of mass destruction" - show me documented evidence that he or Rumsfeld have ever said so. -RKO- 08/25/07

Answer 6

Personally, I've found that many who pronounce what others say as 'lies' are typically pointing to their own refusal to consider facts. Ironic and hypocritical, don't you think?

Answer 7

Like david who says that hispanics never deface the flag and murderers are not respected in prison. He needs a ***** slap.

Answer 8

I lie because if I told the truth, it would defame President Bush and the online conservatives really bad.

Answer 9

*looks around for previous question*

Answer 10

why are your Q&A hidden Jeff? something to hide?