Author Topic:  (Read 4695 times)

Offline Ruiner

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Staff Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
    • http://www.electronicneurosis.com
(No subject)
« on: August 05, 2004, 10:42:40 AM »
LOL great clip man!  gotta love it... quotes dont lie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Ruiner »
\"You can\'t pick up chicks in a tank\"

Offline IcePlatinumSky

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Colonel
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2004, 10:44:15 AM »
That is very interesting I however, never doubted Bush!!! Damb Democrates!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by IcePlatinumSky »

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2004, 11:01:20 AM »
no, the video didnt change my mind at all.  i still dont understand the point.  if bush lied, and managed with created evidence to convince some people of that lie (ie kerry) that means said convinced person was a dupe.  doesnt change the fact that it was a lie, and that bush knew it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline delta_echo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2004, 11:33:26 AM »
I don't want to argue with you, but from a political standpoint, to blatantly lie about something that you know can hold no water, especially two years before election is political suicide. As far as dupes, using your logic, who says Bush wasn't duped by the Intelligence agencies?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by delta_echo »

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2004, 11:38:57 AM »
delta, bush was given documents by the cia that stated that they have no evidence that iraq has reconstituted its wmd programs, was given briefings by colin that stated that firefox destroyed all capability they had, and reports from the nuclear regulatory commision (forget teh official name) that said that iraq has no nuclear capabilies, or the ability to create them.  all the info the bush admin recieved from intell stated that iraq has no wmd.  from this evidence, bushco decides that...  iraq has wmd.  go fig.

(all intell used to support the claim was old intel that had been , at the time of use, already found to be false.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline delta_echo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • First Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 473
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2004, 11:52:08 AM »
Hmmm . . . anyone know any good (reliable) sites on prewar itelligence? I'd like to see some of this. Dangit leakingpen, you just gave me something else I have to do now[:)].
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by delta_echo »

Offline Harley

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2004, 11:57:10 AM »
LP, what you stated is totally the opposite of what I've heard.  Bill O'Riley even stated on his show when he interviewed Michael Moore that Bush was given intel from several sources that solidified that WMD's were still in Iraq.  So if the President makes a descision based on information that was inaccurate how is that an outright lie?  Now Bill Clinton on the other hand did outright lie when he stated, "I never had sexual relations with Monica"!  There's the difference.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Harley »
\"Just because you\'re paranoid, doesn\'t mean they\'re not out to get you!\"

\"Have Gun - Will Travel\"

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2004, 12:00:01 PM »
harley, nope, as what clinton said was, according to the definition given me, i did not...

reffering to a piece of paper he had, when he asked for a definition of sexual relations.  guess what.  oral sex?  not on the definition.  therefore, not a lie.  which is why he was acquited in his impeachment trial.  and ill look it up.

(harley, orielly...  not a source to quote.  mr. "peabody" is not know for his honesty.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline Harley

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2004, 12:09:08 PM »
Oh jeez, now who's bending the truth?  It doesn't take a genius to know that oral sex is still sexual relations, and his "asking for definitions" just proves that he was looking for a way to beat the system.  

and Micheal Moore is known for his honesty???

Politics... got to laugh at all this BS.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Harley »
\"Just because you\'re paranoid, doesn\'t mean they\'re not out to get you!\"

\"Have Gun - Will Travel\"

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2004, 12:09:35 PM »
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/a ... knew_0802/

heres a big article.  heres some high points

In his first major address on the “Iraqi threatâ€￾ in October 2002, President Bush invoked fiery images of mushroom clouds and mayhem, saying, “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.â€￾

Yet, before that speech, the White House had intelligence calling this assertion into question. A 1997 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the agency whose purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation—stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future.

In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.â€￾ The report was so definitive that Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction


In the fall of 2002, the CIA told administration officials not to include this uranium assertion in presidential speeches. Specifically, the agency sent two memos to the White House and Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use the claim. While the warnings forced the White House to remove a uranium reference from an October 2002 presidential address, they did not stop the charge from being included in the 2003 State of the Union.


As the Washington Post later reported, Bush “ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the sourceâ€￾ of the 45-minute claim and, therefore, omitted it from its intelligence estimates. And Bush ignored the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency previously submitted a report to the administration finding “no reliable informationâ€￾ to prove Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. According to Newsweek, the conclusion was similar to the findings of a 1998 government commission on WMD chaired by Rumsfeld.

Bush also neglected to point out that in early October 2002, the administration's top military experts told the White House they “sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's Unmanned Aerial Vehicles were being designed as attack weapons.â€￾ Specifically, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center correctly showed the drones in question were too heavy to be used to deploy chemical/biological-weapons spray devices.

Regardless, the chemical/biological weapons claims from the administration continued to escalate. Powell told the United Nations on February 5, 2003, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.â€￾ As proof, he cited aerial images of a supposed decontamination vehicle circling a suspected weapons site.




theres more, and the linked article has links to all of it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2004, 12:18:56 PM »
actually harley, a 96 survey done by the journal of psychology showed that roughly 38 percent of americans dont consider oral sex to be "sex" in that they dont count it as a loss of virginity.  so its quite possible he didnt really think it was sex himself.  and yeah, he looked for a way to beat the system.  would you?  if in court for something completely unrelated, asked if you had sex with some random women you had sex with, with your wife 20 feet away staring at you, would you try to find a way around it?  and that still makes it NOT LYING.

and moore is known for strecthing the truth, and making assertions in a way that sounds like a stating of fact.  i dont like it.  i dont like moore.  but orielly lies baldface, knowning its a lie, and continues asserting it after being proven wrong.  the peabodies being just one of them, a minor one at that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline Harley

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Major General
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2004, 12:44:53 PM »
Yeah I know all about that survey, that's why today's young women don't think twice about giving a guy a goodbye blow job instead of a kiss at the end of a date.  Still doesn't make it morally right.  Come on now, are you that lame that you don't think it's wrong?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Harley »
\"Just because you\'re paranoid, doesn\'t mean they\'re not out to get you!\"

\"Have Gun - Will Travel\"

Offline leakingpen

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Master Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2004, 12:48:22 PM »
wrong, yes.  (although, while i do consider it sex, i honestly dont think of it as a loss of virginity)  he weaseled.  period.  he didnt lie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leakingpen »

Offline Paco

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1507
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2004, 12:48:26 PM »
Ask Hillary if she thinks oral sex is "sexual relations".  If your wife (assuming you're married) went and gave a BJ to some other guy, you're telling me that you wouldn't consider that to be that she had "sexual relations" with someone else?  How about your daughter?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
sexual relations

pl.n.

1 - Sexual intercourse.
2 - Sexual activity between individuals
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Oh, wait...  "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is," right?  :p


Now, getting back to the poll, I think that Saddam DEFINITELY had WMD's in vast amounts until we went into and were preparing to go into Iraq, at which time he de-weaponized what he could and/or put the rest in Syria.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by Paco »

Offline leadmagnet

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2004, 12:55:15 PM »
Paco, I dislike Clinton and I thought his responses were as big a farce as much as you do but when you are given a list of parameters in a court room environment and told to answer using those parameters, you do so.  Blow jobs weren't on the list.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 05:00:00 PM by leadmagnet »