Thanks Paul that was awesome.

First you send them to public schools then you sit them down watching all those mindless sit com have them watch endless THE SIMPSONS reruns and have them join groups like PETA,SIERRA CLUB,GREENPEACE,ENVROMENTAL DEFENSE,WORLD WILDLIFE FUND,NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,BRADY CAMPAMAIN,and have them elect HILLARY CLINTON

Is there a problem? Have you any facts, figures
or videos which would refute? Who is being stupid here?

Most of us were stupid before we knew the truth,
some insist on remaining stupid.

It certainly isn't adult behavior we're observing here Paul. But that's consistent.

Paul, I am not ever shocked about the illogical ranting of the left. The problem is THEY KNOW the truth, but their hatred of GW Bush, that goes back to 2000, overwhelms them. They are actually obsessed with hating anything that concerns GW and anyone who supports GW. I have said it many times on this site, I cannot trust anyone that is motivated by hate. It IS a sickness. ww

I had a long comment ready for that thread, and finally, I just deleted it. What amuses me is the outrage over being fooled, and they weren't even fooled.
================================

I thought giving the trolls their own page at wizbang was supposed to make them more responsible. At what point do the creatos of wizbang have an editorial responsibility to ensure the posts over there comport with the facts?

The sad truth is that the majority of Democrats are against anything, ANYTHING, thathas the possibility of making the Republican case stronger.

ASk you favorite liberal this question: Imagine a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda had a nuclear weapon. Which ending would you prefer: American Law Enforcemnt publically captures the weapon before detonation on the basis of Bush era determined intelligence assets, and enhancing his image. Or the bomb goes off and along with killing hundreds of thousands or even millions in the long run, allows you to righteously demand his, and VP Cheney's resignation. Which they do.

So would you trade 2-3 million American lives for your political fantasy?

PS I will answer your hypotheticals after you answer mine in the same fashion.

WW

I think hate put them in motion, but their tactics are remarkably Stalinist and that was a machine that just plowed over lives without regard for anything, accept maintaing its own power. "Fortunately", the only thing these dhimmi wits can kill is reality and a few trillion brain cells. Unfortunately, if you have a loved one who succumbs to their hate based tripe, it must be as painful as it was for some poor Russian who had to live with the fact that his kid was sniffing out "enemies of the state" back when Walt Durante and the NY Crimes were getting awards for praising mass murderers.
Almost makes you wonder how much longer the truth can hold out. Personally, I'd like to see W go all Abe Lincoln on their asses and start the deportation process. Problem is, who the hell would want most of these lying bastards ?

Of course the whole thing is predictably devoid of any reason or thought. No mention of the various times Bill Clinton and a plethora of Democrats said Saddam had WMD

Since you saved me 7 minutes of my life, I'm assuming there was no mention either that Clinton bombed Iraq four days in a row attacking suspected WMD sites.

Coincidentally this action took place a mere 12 hours before impeachment proceedings began. The Democrats then used their podium time to denounce the impeachment of a "war time president". (That makes you wonder how long Clinton would have sustained that action if they could sway others with that argument of holding off impeachment until hostilities were over)

This action also pissed off ALL of the permanent members of the Security Council except Great Britain. Gee, a Democrat pissing off the world by unilateral actions against the sovereign nation of Iraq. (That's just another lesson of hypocrisy from the left)

Three days later Saddam Hussein gave a speech in which he appealed to all Islamists to rise up in Jihad against Americans and the British.

Osama Bin Laden then issued another call for Jihad against the Americans and their allies-specifically citing the Clinton attacks on Iraq as a reason for the Jihad.

Then attack after attack against our interests continued leading up to 9-11.

About half of the lefties out there like to play stupid when they know these things happened, while the other half are just plain stupid and will goose-step just to stay in good graces with the others.

Pathetic but true.

In a nutshell, with all the stupidity that abounds from lefties......we're doomed.

I saw Moore on television (I'm sure it was by accident) talking about "Bush Lied." I don't remember who he was talking to but the interviewer asked him flat out, "Is it a lie if, at the time, you believe it is the truth."

Moore said absolutely it was a lie even if you thought you were right when you said it. And he said something about 7 year olds knowing that.

Is it that people really don't understand the difference between lying and being mistaken? Maybe they really don't. Maybe that explains stuff like the "fake but true" garbage where people apparently *know* something is fake but don't think it matters because it's some underlying truth that matters.

Turn that around and thinking that information is accurate doesn't matter because of the underlying falseness. Not-fake but a lie?

To me a *lie* requires an element of purpose to deceive. That's what the word means. "Lie" means dishonesty. If someone is being honest but is wrong, it's obviously not a lie.

I don't want to believe that people really and honestly don't know the difference because that would be frightening.

So I think they are deliberately lying about it when they say that "lying" is saying what you believe is true. That no one can be wrong or mistaken, they can just be a liar.

Other people *will* learn this lesson though, and you can bet that any mistake a Democrat makes is going to be called a lie and the person a liar. This is the standard we've learned.

Sort of how Democrats are getting called racist for the things they call Republicans racist for. Imagine that.

Cleo, go read Joe Wilson's op-ed in the 2/6/03 LATimes, about a 'Big Cat'. In it he argued that we shouldn't attack Saddam for fear he would use his Weapons of Mass Destruction on our troops. In the light of subsequent events, that editorial marks him, and by extension most similar anti-war people, as either cowards or traitors.

Furthermore, if we made mistakes because of poor intelligence, and I don't think deposing Saddam was a mistake, the CIA unit at which Val Plame hung her shingle was the poor performer.
=============================

What amazes me is the "vast" number of comments that show up on each post over at blue (lee ward, steve cri,p.ham larkie,lee ward, steve, p., ham,). After awhile you end up talking to yourself.

Again, there only motivation for the foundation for the belief system is they hate GW. Just look at the absence of the lefty commenters. They know they cannot debate this issue on the merits and/or facts. So, they cannot comments. Should a lefty show up, watch how soon he/she labels someone, calls someone a name, etc. There playbook is old. ww

This is precisely why I hate gameshows and tests. Anyone that gives a wrong answer is apparently not mistaken, they're just lying.

Sorry, I don't think the intel was wrong; I think we failed to find the WMD was because it was moved within the vacuum of time between the wind-up to war and actually punching the "go" button.

You see, I have teenagers and when they act guilty they usually are. Okay, this level of evidence won't get you on a court docket. And, the Left would just shout you down for making the point that not finding something doesn't mean it wasn't there in the first place (like the car keys that my wife playfully moved on me). But if you are going to make the argument that the WMD weren't there then it would seem incumbent upon the arguer to present some plausible rational for why Hussein would embark on a suicidal military adventure for nothing. Especially when you imagine the "egg on the face" guided tour he could have led the UN inspectors on just days before the coalition was to pounce.

In fact, I think that the missing WMD was the canard chosen by the Left in the inevitable deconstruction of the war effort. Perhaps it was a multiple choice thing and this WMD issue is just the one that won the vote of: "which talking point will most help us achieve our twin goals of getting revenge for the impeachment of OUR president and extracting ourselves from our unfortunate (and unnatural) involvement in a war to advance American interests?"

Even if Bush didn't lie, which I don't think he did, being "mistaken" about the pretext of a now 4.5 year war is simply not good enough. The fact that a war was launched when there was a possibility that we could be wrong about such a thing is shameful. We were told the case was iron-clad and that war was the only option left. Being "mistaken" is just doesn't cut it and it sickens me that so many Americans would rather take up the role of apologists rather that voice their concern that so many American lives and so much American treasure is being wasted because someone was "mistaken".

The only reason I would venture back to Wizbangblue was for comic relief. But each time I did, there could be no such relief as I was always reminded that too many people actually believe that clap-trap, and that tends to take all the fun out of it.

I agree, Bob. We should have waited until he used it on us so we could be absolutely sure.

Rob, not Bob.

Where are my glasses?

Synova,

I agree, Bob. We should have waited until he used it on us so we could be absolutely sure.

Yes, but then it would have been Bush's fault for not knowing it was coming. It's conveneient, if you're not omnipresent you're pretty much a liar. Unless you're a Democrat.

~

Rob,

so many American lives and so much American treasure is being wasted because someone was "mistaken".

That's what it comes down to though, either your wrong or your right. What you're saying is that only the latter is ever acceptable or understandable. Unless your a Democrat.

You know, the positive side of thinking like this is that everyone we've ever tortured either provided useful information, or was lying because they didn't know the useful information.

Oh, the lefty asserted the old "apologists" argument. Meaning we, as conservatives, continue to apologize for GW and the war in Iraq. I do not aplogize for myself or him. Simply put, GW is doing the right thing and I have done the right thing supporting him. GW never based the war on WMD only. To think so would make you ignorant or stupid. When we were bombed on US soil and 3000+ citizens were murdered in a most inhumane way not counting the 100,000's of people traumatized, I wanted to take the fight to them. I needed to take the fight to them. They started this war. They decided to get us into it. Now they are reaping the consequences. What is really happening is the left are apoligists for the terrorists. Now lefties, prove me wrong. What have you done to not promote what the terrorists want? ww

There are at least two logical errors on which the whole 'Bush lied' is prop'd:

(1) If the WMDs aren't there now, they never were.
(2) If someone states something that proves to be false, it's a lie.

On (1) if you were to go my home now, my car is not there. It doesn't mean it wasn't there this morning. Whether it's there now or was there previously are completely independent events...

On (2), the distinction between a lie and a false statement is that a lie includes intent. Using the word 'lie' as some 'Liberals' do, meteorologists (aka weathermen) are the biggest bunch 'liars' to ever walk the earth.
Given that large number of politicians that were claiming Saddam had WMDs (even prior to '00), the logical conclusion is that the claims were based on intelligence estimates. The difference in Presidents Bush and Clinton wasn't the estimate of Saddam's threat, it was the manner in which it should be handled. Given these facts, no reasoning person would conclude that the most likely scenario was that Bush lied.

Paul, your analysis of this Wizbang Blue feature is indeed an inch deep and very shallow. There were of course no real weapons of mass destruction ever found in Iraq since this new war unless you consider the evidence of one single mustard gas shell left over from the war with Iran in the 1980's and an old expended sarin shell casing discovered since the 2003 war. General Georges Sada of the Iraqi Air Force had written in a book that chemical warfare agents, which were mainly only peticide based agents, were sold to Syria in 50 gallon metal drums in passenger aircraft with the seats removed long before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Do you have any more evidence of this very meager Iraqi WMDs to share that I did not include? Nothing that was found in Iraq constituted a significant threat. And the U.N. efforts to destroy any longer range Iraqi missiles seemed to certainly work, along with years of economic sanctions and a military equipment embargo to Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War until the 2003 invasion.

When George Bush ran for office in 2000, he publicly claimed that he opposed "nation building" on the campaign trail and during a televised debate with Al Gore, yet as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claimed, this new White House was completely obsessed with invading Iraq under some pretext since day one after their January 2001 inauguration.

The new 2001 Bush White House involved 43 members associated with the oil industry such as former CEO's, executives, major stockholders and others, and also 33 members with similiar interests to defense contractors. All of this helped to fuel a new foreign policy doctrine where a corporate expansionist drive to seek to gain some control over the vast oil reserves in Iraq would become a central cornerstone of the Bush foreign policy as well as one in which military contractors would seek to profit by the creation of a new war created solely to create a vast new market for their war and defense goods. Cheney's former company Halliburton profited from huge no-bid contracts from the Pentagon for reconstruction of buildings that other American defense contractor companies profited that sold $1 million dollar cruise missiles profited from by destroying. And the American public has paid the $2 billion a week bill for this war in taxes rather than using the money for their own families and paying for this corporate war with the deaths of over 3,600 Americans and more than 20,000 more wounded, often seriously.

Certainly Saddam Hussein was not a very nice guy, etc. and all the other laundry list of White House explanations and evolving reasons to invade Iraq that can be paraded out. But it seems wise to continue to question this entire foreign policy so that the nation can attempt to learn something from it. Entering a nation like Iraq with a history of a failed British occupation that lasted from 1922 to 1958 to control due to centuries of sectarian fighting didn't seem wise. Even the first George Bush drew a line against occupation in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War specifically because of this long history of sectarian warfare. But neither the Bush White House or the American public even debated this important issue during the 2003 run-up to the latest Iraq War.

Lack of an educated public debate on Iraq, ignorance of the long bloody history of this region, and many other factors only served to set this up as one America's biggest foreign policy mistakes to be made in recent times. And the aggravation of terrorism created by this war radicalizing many Muslims who are now opposed to what they see as the Mideast occupation of Islamic territory by both Israel and now the U.S., will only threaten American security for years and years to come as well. Looking for any real positives to counter the huge negatives created by this Iraq War are difficult to find. The U.S. oil companies were not able to secure more oil as they had hoped due to the security nightmare, but defense contractors have done very well, but little more has been achieved in Iraq so far. A Shiite sectarian religious government is in power now, that only promises to be a real thorn in the side of the U.S. as it cements strong relations with Iran. Little real good has come from this Iraq War.

To paraphrase a famous quote in modern English: Those that don't learn anything new from an understanding of history are only doomed to repeat those mistakes. Future Iraq situations can only be avoided if we continue to examine how we got involved there and what went wrong with that invasion. Otherwise, the U.S. will only get involved in more of these situations.

...the video opens with that well known political scientist Jon Stewart.

As opposed to Nobel-prize-winner Rush Limbaugh?

...it comes down to Bush "lied" about weapons of mass destruction because we did not find them.

YOu mean, because he and his administration said it was a **fact*** - a certain, locked-down, non-assertion, with no doubt - and then it turned out that it ***wasn't*** a fact, because none were found?

Please explain how, exactly, that is not deception.

No mention of the various times Bill Clinton and a plethora of Democrats said Saddam had WMD...

Probably because Clinton didn't invade Iraq, using WMD as his rationale. Oh, and neither did Bush Sr.

No mention that the governments of France, Israel, Russia, Australia and the U.N. itself all said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Sure - because they said that at one time in the 1990s. After the UN Weapons Inspections in 2002 and 2003, these nations and the UN no longer believed Saddam had the WMD.

Why do those current statements not count?

If someone said something that later turned out to be incorrect then they had to be lying.

If I say I know something for a ***fact***, and that I have ***evidence***, and then it later turns to ***not**** be a fact and I have ***no*** evidence, then that's lying.

Please explain how that's ***not*** lying.

The intelligence couldn't have been simply wrong.

The problem is, the intelligence was **right*** - there was no evidence that Saddam still had WMD. But the Bush administration didn't want to believe this.

I can provide all the evidence you need for this, if yuo're really interested.

Of course Bush knew -better than the combined intelligence services of the entire planet- that Saddam had no weapons but he lied. We know because we have a poorly cut video.

You mean, because it looks at what Bush said?

I mean, wow.

Why do you guys continue to support this President? What's it going to take? Seriously.

When is something Bush does, actualyl going to be Bush's fault? Ever?

I get the feeling that if Bush were caught screwing a young boy, the first question would be "Well, was the boy a Democrat?"

Paul Hoosen could observe a demolition derby and interpret it as an evil plot by General Motors to take perfectly good cars out of the market to increase sales.

I can provide all the evidence you need for this, if yuo're really interested

Whatever, most moonbat truthers have plenty of archived "evidence". The only thing you fail to mention and it was pointed out clearly is the fact that "DEMOCRATS" said the same exact things to include the previous CiC.

The reason there will never be impeachment for President Bush is because too many witnesses for the defense are Democrats that would have to justify their own words and their votes for H.J.Res. 114.

Impeachment is merely a lefty chant meant to keep the nutroots sending in their milk money.

Trust me, if the left thought for one second they had a impeachable offense it would be brought up by now by the Democratic leadership. You don't have squat and neither do your lefty masters that spoon feed you your reguritated propaganda.

Whatever, most moonbat truthers have plenty of archived "evidence". The only thing you fail to mention and it was pointed out clearly is the fact that "DEMOCRATS" said the same exact things to include the previous CiC.

The only thing you and others fail to mention,and which I already pointed in my previous comment, is that:

a) this was said ****before**** the weapons inspections of 2001-2003, which proved there were no longer WMD's - after which Bush invaded anyway,

b) this was said as a reason to keep an eye on Saddam Hussein - NOT to invade Iraq.

Please respond to those two points.

Also, in addition, members of Congress and the Senate said they thought that Saddam had WMD's, after Bush told them the evidence indicated there was. And most importantly, Bush withheld ***all*** information from Congress and the Senate that indicated there were ***not*** WMD's.

Impeachment is merely a lefty chant meant to keep the nutroots sending in their milk money.

Let's say for a second that's true.

If it turns out that Bush ***did*** lie to the American people, do you think he ***should*** be impeached?

If not, what do you think constitutes an impeachable offense?

I really should not be surprised by the lack of critical thinking skills by the folks on the left.

I'll add that a leftist with critical thinking skills can only exists in a temporary state. Eventually, either the leftist dogma will rot their critical thinking skills (as we have adequate demonstrations of above) or their critical thinking skills with rid them of their leftist beliefs. So, the leftist that remain are immune to reason and logic... their dogma has cemented an is impervious to reason. To wit, jim.

If not, what do you think constitutes an impeachable offense?

I know this one! Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

What is the lefty obsession with impeachment? It boils down to this. We couldn't beat GW in 2 elections, so we will have an 8 year temper tantrum about it. Get over it. In 16 months there will be a new president. When did an impeachable offense becaome the president does something we don't agree with. If making a bad judgement call was an impeachable offense, most president's would have a short tenure in office.
And you people on the left can spare me the concern about what is going on in Iraq, it's not like you know anyone over there or could be bothered to ever serve your country anyway. You are safe on the sidelines wallowing in your snark knowing that in the end if some soldiers get blown up the only mind you will pay it is as a rhetorical club to beat the president with. Well played!

"YOu mean, because he and his administration said it was a **fact*** - a certain, locked-down, non-assertion, with no doubt - and then it turned out that it ***wasn't*** a fact, because none were found?

Please explain how, exactly, that is not deception.

Gee, I don't know. Why don't you ask Hillary and all those Democrats that agreed wholeheartly, went on the lecture circuit and affirmed it