I mean if Bush et. all were wiling to lie about 911 to start a war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 911, though they said it did, then they said it didn't then it didn't when they said it did, but it did when they said it didn't.....uhhhg
if they were willing to lie about all that, do you think they were willing to lie about a lesser issue regarding Valerie Plame? or is that just too little a issue to lie about? And were honest regarding leaking her name?
"There was one problem. It was not true."
"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff, and the president himself."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/cia.leak.mcclellan/index.html
2007-11-20
17:47:43
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
ok cookie monster. run along now. reality is too tough for you to handle. go on and play with your friends in their rubber rooms and white coats.
obviously reality is a tough one to swallow huh?
2007-11-20
17:56:21 ·
update #1
HA HA Hannah, you reference Sadam as a legit source? hahahahaa
see what sadam had to say--- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/sitroom.02.html
2007-11-20
17:59:27 ·
update #2
HA HA Hannah, you reference Sadam as a legit source? hahahahaa
see what sadam had to say--- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/13/sitroom.02.html
"Saddam eventually admitted in the interviews that he was bluffing about WMD, he was afraid of Iran, he wanted them to think that he had WMD."
2007-11-20
18:00:29 ·
update #3
Bush did not lie about 911.
2007-11-20 17:53:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
Wow... yet another fool that uses the same arguments she can't prove.
No one ever said Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
It's funny how you Libs can't let that go... because your Bush Derangement Syndrome makes you so desperate to blame him for anything that happens that you're unwilling to admit that this entire argument is based on the LIE that anyone ever said Saddam was behind 9/11.
Now, your info on the WMDs is also inaccurate as there was documented evidence of them existing... and being moved prior to the invasion. In fact, some of those SCUDS have been SEEN since... because Hezbollah used them against Israel.
If someone isn't facing facts here, it's you...
I'd suggest you revisit the evidence, not the democratic lies, but the evidence... and show ONE time that ANYONE in the administration said Saddam was behind 9/11.
I know you won't actually DO that, because you KNOW what you'll find...
and while you're at it, you might question Hillary Clinton about the WMDs... since she knows they were there as well. That's a convenient omission on your part... that it wasn't Bush's people that she consulted about this... but her husband's!
Funny... I guess Bush paid them off to lie to her? Must be.
Only way you can blame Bush.
You do realize that anyone who actually knows what happened finds the entire Liberal twisting of the truth to be ludicrous, right?
2007-11-21 02:36:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bryan~ Unapologetic Conservative 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
You might want to do a little research before your go flying off the handle accusing the President of lying about the war or the reasons for going to war.
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/?gclid=CLWC1Obx7Y8CFQOSHgod8WlGFA
Then look at the Clinton record:
Whitewatergate
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
IRS Tax auditgate
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
Willeygate
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
Illegal Funds for Advertisementsgate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandalgate
Lootergate
Pardongate
Porngate
Tainted Arkansas Prison Bloodgate
2007-11-20 23:01:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
So this is where the ignorant trolls of Y! message boards came.
Someone said Bush didn't lie about 911? ROFL
Good grief, I can't believe we're still talking about these things.
I already won all these arguments a year ago, and 2 years ago, and 3 years ago...
Here's me from October 06:
< Previous | Next > [ First | Last | Msg List ] Msg #: Reply Post
Recommend this Post Ignore this User | Email this Posting | Report Abuse
Re: The war isn't 'illegal'
by: ruling_class_clown 10/24/06 10:46 am
Msg: 829 of 2009
4 recommendations
These clowns only listen to Fox and Rush, they've never heard of the Downing Street Memos or the forged Nigerian Yellow Cake documents.
Here's why the war is illegal.
http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm
"Bush was required by law to meet the conditions of the War Powers Act before going to war with Iraq. He did not. The words "clearly" and “imminent” are repeatedly used in the War Powers Act to describe situations where U.S. military force is lawfully permitted."
2007-11-20 20:40:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by doug4jets 7
·
2⤊
4⤋
Greetings. Would they lie? Certainly. that is what they do. It seems so many people are concerned about if the president lied or not. We expect our leaders to be honest. If they are not honest and instead of protecting our best interests sell us out and lie to us for their own enrichment, then they are to be disposed of. Constitution 101. The government is criminal, but we are the guilty. We did not dispose of the criminals in charge so in fact we empowered them to continue to corrupt our nation. It is falling apart, and still the sheep of America sit by and argue about things like which clone of the same litter should be the next president to betray us. Should it be female? Or black? should it be Republican or Democrat that is the next traitor in line to suck our blood? When the question should be "When are we going to stand up and say. No. No more." the war on drugs has one good saying. "Just say no." that is what we need to do and throw all of the slime out of office and preferably out of our world for good. Stand up and fight back, not cower in the dark in fear of the leaders and their police. This nation was born in a revolution against injustice. it needs to do so once again. this time correctly.
2007-11-20 21:16:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Rich M 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
You are living in a fantasy world built up by propagandists. They are not even good propagandists because it is all so easy to research to find out that it is all a lie. Bush never said he was going to war against Iraq because they had something to do with 9/11 and in fact said exactly the opposite. Plame was outed by that pathetic dimwit Armatage. Libby actually defended the guy years early for free but Armatage let him twist in the wind. Wilson is a liar of the first order. He put his wifes name in a national magazine and all they want is fame. He said that the Iraqis were in Niger to buy product. The only product that existed is yellow cake or uranium ore. He totally confirmed it and he confirmed it in the senate testimony. He then lied to the press and ignoramus people just soak it in because it feels good. Great evil has been done because people don't care about facts and just believe whatever garbage the party tells them.
2007-11-20 17:57:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by bravozulu 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
Funny how you felt the need to start this question with the word "if". The truth is Bush didn't lie about Iraq and you are repeating lies told by your liberal masters. The idea that Plame was under cover is a joke. She had her own personal parking space at CIA headquarters, a CIA parking sticker on her car, and her husband introduced her at parties as his "CIA wife". Thanks for the laugh. You liberals are so funny...
2007-11-21 02:18:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
You don't have a clue do you? Explain then in detail and I know you can't about ALL the others that agreed to the war from All over the world and how ALL fell for the same lie. Especially when it was said from the former administration and Saddam himself they had WMDs!
2007-11-20 17:55:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Brianne 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
they might smash out with this because of the fact most of the yank public is punctiliously ignorant, and none of them be responsive to that Iran and the Taliban surprisingly much went to conflict interior the 1990's after the Taliban grabbed and achieved 14 Iranian diplomats. of course, to the fundamental conservative all one thousand million Muslims of in spite of nationality or ethnic team are each and each of an identical to them because of the fact they have in no way paid interest to any u . s . outdoors the U. S..
2016-10-17 14:25:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not only probably would they lie, they did lie.
That is what happens when you let republican get into governing positions, they lie and steal and do not take care of any governing responsibilities. The USA infrastructure is falling apart and the treasury is being pilfered by the occupants of the White House.
2007-11-20 20:51:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mario Savio 6
·
1⤊
2⤋