Will BuSh ever tell the truth?

[Vitas]

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life up until the last election.

Do doubt, you feel a personal loss.

 

[MonsterMark]

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life up until the last election.

And you chose to vote for a traitor and PROVEN liar.:Bang This was the 'Man with a Plan'. LOL. Good choice.

 

[TheDude]

And you chose to vote for a traitor and PROVEN liar.:Bang This was the 'Man with a Plan'. LOL. Good choice.

Traitor? How so? PROVEN liar? Again how so?

As I recall, at least he actually went to Vietnam and didn’t use his daddy to bail him out. I’m not certain, but draft dodging is a crime? As far as the 3 purple hearts or whatever it was, well, that's just political BS and strutting around, they ALL do it and it is wrong

I didn't love Kerry and thought he was fairly weak, but when you see the country in a tailspin headed for a crash, you'll take any parachute you're giving.

 

[fossten]

Bryan,

Very subtle, yet masterful way to prove a very powerful point. The libs like DeVille accuse Bush of lying, yet when challenged, produce no proof, while continuing to assert that Bush lied because THEY THINK HE DID.

However, when one of their own is accused of lying, they immediately say, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF???

A very effective trap exposing typical lib hypocrisy, and DeVille waltzed right into it.

He will no doubt say that he did no such thing, but the evidence will show otherwise on this forum.
*owned*

 

[TheDude]

Bryan,

Very subtle, yet masterful way to prove a very powerful point. The libs like DeVille accuse Bush of lying, yet when challenged, produce no proof, while continuing to assert that Bush lied because THEY THINK HE DID.

However, when one of their own is accused of lying, they immediately say, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF???

A very effective trap exposing typical lib hypocrisy, and DeVille waltzed right into it.

He will no doubt say that he did no such thing, but the evidence will show otherwise on this forum.
*owned*

Oh no, you got me!. Again, this isn't Salem relax. Typical Lib hypocrisy you say, maybe, here's some typical Conserv Hypocrisy. Ken Star spends 60 million to investigate Clinton, Conservatives cheer and call for blood. 750 thousand is spent on the CIA leak, Conservatives cry foul and call it a waste of money. Now you tell me what's more important, investigating a lie based a B-job or investigating a lie about national security?

Produced no proof? We're still waiting on the proof from the right. Chew on these for a bit.

1)ZERO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND. (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical)

2)THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE ACCUSER.

Happy?

........................................................................

Brian, I await your response if you would like to give it.

Traitor? How so? PROVEN liar? Again how so?

 

[fossten]

Oh no, you got me!. Again, this isn't Salem relax. Typical Lib hypocrisy you say, maybe[NO, DEFINITELY], here's some typical Conserv Hypocrisy. Ken Star spends 60 million to investigate Clinton, Conservatives cheer and call for blood. 750 thousand is spent on the CIA leak, Conservatives cry foul and call it a waste of money. Now you tell me what's more important, investigating a lie based a B-job or investigating a lie about national security?

Produced no proof? We're still waiting on the proof from the right. Chew on these for a bit.

1)ZERO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND. (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical)

2)THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE ACCUSER.

Happy?

........................................................................

Brian, I await your response if you would like to give it.

Traitor? How so? PROVEN liar? Again how so?

You will recall that Ken Starr, who was appointed BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JANET RENO, to investigate the Jones/Lewinsky lawsuit scandal, was REVILED by the Democrats AND the Mainstream Media. He was called lots of names, including a sex pervert. Yet I challenge you to produce ONE QUOTE from the last two years from any Republican calling Fitzgerald any name or criticizing him personally in any way.

By the way, Clinton was FOUND in CONTEMPT OF COURT by a judge, not only for perjury, but for submitting a false affidavit. You will note that Libby has not been found guilty of any crime, although to hear the Dems and the Lib press, he's already going to jail for 30 years.

Finally, Fitzgerald himself CLEARLY STATED that there was no evidence of outing a CIA agent, (ref your comment 'CIA leak'), and nobody on either side was to infer any such thing from his indictment of Libby.

These facts have been hashed and rehashed already on this site, so it appears clear that you liberals CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, so you and your cronies in the MSM are just making it up as you go, setting the template for what you want to happen, and proceeding with false reality when it doesn't pan out for you.

By the way, Mister ZERO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND, evidence of Saddam's attempts to build nukes WAS found back in 2004. It was reported in the New York Times, to which even you should give credibility.

See here:

US reveals Iraq nuclear operation
US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham
Abraham called the operation a "major achievement"

The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.

It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.

'Dirty bomb'?

The explosion of a so-called "dirty bomb" in a city by a terrorist group is a major concern of Western intelligence agencies.

Rather than causing a nuclear explosion, a "dirty bomb" would see radioactive material combined with a conventional explosive - probably causing widespread panic and requiring a large clean-up operation.

US troops look down on the facility at al Tuwaitha
Iraq's biggest nuclear complex was the Tuwaitha site south of Baghdad

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

Mr Abraham added that the operation had also prevented the material falling into the hands "of countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons".

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Bryan Wilkes said much of the material was "in powdered form, which is easily dispersed".

The IAEA has been among organisations which have warned that many countries have lost track of radioactive material.

 

[TheDude]

You will recall that Ken Starr, who was appointed BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JANET RENO, to investigate the Jones/Lewinsky lawsuit scandal, was REVILED by the Democrats AND the Mainstream Media. He was called lots of names, including a sex pervert. Yet I challenge you to produce ONE QUOTE from the last two years from any Republican calling Fitzgerald any name or criticizing him personally in any way.

Huh? So we shouldn't investigate solely based on the fact that the right hasn't called him any cruel names? What does that have to do with anything.

By the way, Clinton was FOUND in CONTEMPT OF COURT by a judge, not only for perjury, but for submitting a false affidavit. You will note that Libby has not been found guilty of any crime, although to hear the Dems and the Lib press, he's already going to jail for 30 years.

The investigation isn't completely closed yet, so we have to wait who and on what anyone will be found guilty of. Also, if we where allowed to spend the 60million that Star was allowed, maybe more would be revealed. I can't say with 100% certainty that anyone 'leaked' national security, but there is just cause to investigate and not do a 'half-assed brush it under the carpet' deal the repub's like to when it concern's one or more of there own. This simplest way this could be resolved would be for Bush to call everyone in, close the door and order the person or person's responsible to confess. It would save tax dollars and put an end to it. Why hasn't he done that?

Finally, Fitzgerald himself CLEARLY STATED that there was no evidence of outing a CIA agent, (ref your comment 'CIA leak'), and nobody on either side was to infer any such thing from his indictment of Libby.

These facts have been hashed and rehashed already on this site, so it appears clear that you liberals CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, so you and your cronies in the MSM are just making it up as you go, setting the template for what you want to happen, and proceeding with false reality when it doesn't pan out for you.

Funny you say 'make it up as you go' I (I’m sure not the only one) find the reasons the Bush admin uses why we're in Iraq follow the same pattern.

By the way, Mister ZERO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND, evidence of Saddam's attempts to build nukes WAS found back in 2004. It was reported in the New York Times, to which even you should give credibility.

Ah, you've proven my pervious statement, "Make it up as you go". Now we're there because he was 'going' to make weapons, not because he actually had the nuclear, biological or chemical weapons that the Bush admin said he had and showed surveillance footage of. Since you liked my movie reference so much, here's another one that comes to mind "Show me the money!" That's all I ask.

You're studying to be a lawyer right? Would this chase hold in court? Remember, the burden of proof falls squarely on the prosecutors shoulders. I'm not a lawyer, so I actually am interested on the point of view from one studing law on how it relates to this.

 

[TheDude]

I forgot to add Fossten, please do not quote me then edit in your own thoughts. I'd appreciate it.

 

[fossten]

Let me get this straight - I have to prove what? Actually, I don't have to prove anything, nor do I have to make Fitzgerald's case for him. Neither do I have to PROVE A NEGATIVE, which is what you are demanding when you insist that I show you how Bush didn't lie.

You liberals fuss about Bush lying and Plame being outed, yet produce NO PROOF. So far all you've been able to come up with is a bunch of 'maybe' and 'I can't say with 100% certainty' statements. To quote you, "The burden of proof falls squarely on the prosecutor's shoulders." Well, prove it then. Otherwise quit your whining.

By the way, I note how you say, "...if we where allowed to spend the 60million that Star was allowed, maybe more would be revealed." Wow. How much more partisan could one be? That shows whose side you're on. You aren't interested in the truth, you only want Bush taken down.

The facts are out in the open already. If you want a thorough investigation of EVERYBODY who asserted Saddam had WMDs, I'm on the record right now as being all for it. I know we've got nothing to hide. Let's get it on. But I promise you that you won't like the results, because they won't fit your bash-Bush template.

 

[TheDude]

Let me get this straight - I have to prove what? Actually, I don't have to prove anything, nor do I have to make Fitzgerald's case for him. Neither do I have to PROVE A NEGATIVE, which is what you are demanding when you insist that I show you how Bush didn't lie.

You liberals fuss about Bush lying and Plame being outed, yet produce NO PROOF. So far all you've been able to come up with is a bunch of 'maybe' and 'I can't say with 100% certainty' statements. To quote you, "The burden of proof falls squarely on the prosecutor's shoulders." Well, prove it then. Otherwise quit your whining.

By the way, I note how you say, "...if we where allowed to spend the 60million that Star was allowed, maybe more would be revealed." Wow. How much more partisan could one be? That shows whose side you're on. You aren't interested in the truth, you only want Bush taken down.

The facts are out in the open already. If you want a thorough investigation of EVERYBODY who asserted Saddam had WMDs, I'm on the record right now as being all for it. I know we've got nothing to hide. Let's get it on. But I promise you that you won't like the results, because they won't fit your bash-Bush template.

Again, not a straight answer and all you can do is call me a 'Bush-Hater' and try to derail me... Are you going to use the 'you must hate America' line next? Oh well.

Not interested in the truth? Actually, that's why I don't want a half-ass investigation. If nothing wrongful went on and it can clearly be proven so, I'll press no further. I wonder how un-partisan you were during the Clinton investigation. Lol.

Again, I'm not overly worried about anyone outside the Admin who said Saddam had weapons. Bush and his admin where the one's who wrongfully used (I think) that info to go to war. Remember by gun analogy? Bush and his admin are the ones in power and they are the one's who pulled the trigger.