Cindy Sheehan Quits..."Dems caved in to Bush"

[The Dog]

Hillary mentioned the inspectors a few times tonight during the debate....i guess shes just making it up too right?   

[sandman]

please provide links. it should be easy if all the major outlets reported it. i want to see proof that bush lied.

and before you call me lazy, i've tried to find proof that bush actually lied. i'm not necessarily arguing that he didn't lie, but i can't find proof of it. and therefore bush backers can legitmately say he didn't lie.

I already have posted links for you to read, on that very subject, including video links with the actual interview, here numerous times. You are either being dishonest, lazy, a sociopath, or totally stupid.

The second lie I speak of is well documented. Bush claims the inspectors were kicked out (documented-do your homework) while the truth is Bush kicked out the inspectors (also well documented.) This has also been posted her several times.

You are just like Charity Case. No matter how often I source info, you come back and pretend nobody said it.

more insults from the punk. shocking. you're like a spoiled 5-year-old who acts out when things don't go his way. but hey, not much has gone your way lately. even the Dems let you down when they finally take congress. so much for bush losing all his political capital.

a link from someone ripping bush is hardly proof. maybe they are disgruntled? how can we measure their credibility? there are people from the inside that say bush did not lie. so that's just he said she said bullshit. even hillary mentioned tonight that she had all the CIA intel. edwards was on the intel committee. why did they vote for the war? i don't think it's fair to say they were lying about their intel.

[SLCPUNK]

a link from someone ripping bush is hardly proof. maybe they are disgruntled? how can we measure their credibility? there are people from the inside that say bush did not lie. so that's just he said she said bullshit. even hillary mentioned tonight that she had all the CIA intel. edwards was on the intel committee. why did they vote for the war? i don't think it's fair to say they were lying about their intel.

There you go lying again.

Lazy lie number one: Top level CIA officials have come forward to tell us that the intel they had was not to be trusted,. Not "Someone ripping Bush." They instructed Bush not to use this intel, stating specifically that it was not credible (I've sourced this several times, but not surprisingly somebody who isn't able to find a front page news article on Cindy Sheehan probably has a hard time remembering this.) Bush used that intel anyway to sell the country on the war.

Lazy lie number two: (Just like I have always said) Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to go to war after all avenues were exhausted. Going on the intel she had at the time is accurate, but you are using it to be dishonest. Most importantly it does not mean she voted "for the war based on the intel". Bush took the authority granted, then kicked the inspectors out (see Bush lie number two earlier in this thread) and waged war on Iraq.

[sandman]

a link from someone ripping bush is hardly proof. maybe they are disgruntled? how can we measure their credibility? there are people from the inside that say bush did not lie. so that's just he said she said bullshit. even hillary mentioned tonight that she had all the CIA intel. edwards was on the intel committee. why did they vote for the war? i don't think it's fair to say they were lying about their intel.

There you go lying again.

Lazy lie number one: Top level CIA officials have come forward to tell us that the intel they had was not to be trusted,. Not "Someone ripping Bush." They instructed Bush not to use this intel, stating specifically that it was not credible (I've sourced this several times, but not surprisingly somebody who isn't able to find a front page news article on Cindy Sheehan probably has a hard time remembering this.) Bush used that intel anyway to sell the country on the war.

Lazy lie number two: (Just like I have always said) Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to go to war after all avenues were exhausted. Going on the intel she had at the time is accurate, but you are using it to be dishonest. Most importantly it does not mean she voted "for the war based on the intel". Bush took the authority granted, then kicked the inspectors out (see Bush lie number two earlier in this thread) and waged war on Iraq.

LL1: bush chose to use that intel. he believed in it (as did all the dems - they even mentioned it during the debates). not proof of a lie.

LL2: that's bullshit and you know it. edwards recent comments prove that they knew what they were voting for. why vote for the authority if you weren't prepared to go to war ASAP? they could always vote to give authority again later when they felt war was necessary. the answer is obvious...they felt war may be necessary very soon. or like i said, no need to give him the authority. "i didn't know bush would abuse it and go too soon" is a total crock of shit.

[SLCPUNK]

LL1: bush chose to use that intel. he believed in it (as did all the dems - they even mentioned it during the debates). not proof of a lie.

LL2: that's bullshit and you know it. edwards recent comments prove that they knew what they were voting for. why vote for the authority if you weren't prepared to go to war ASAP? they could always vote to give authority again later when they felt war was necessary. the answer is obvious...they felt war may be necessary very soon. or like i said, no need to give him the authority. "i didn't know bush would abuse it and go too soon" is a total crock of shit.

These have been answered for you several times now.

You are willfully ignorant, nobody can be this stupid.

[Gordon Gekko]

We all know the threat of terrorism is real, what we differ in is our approach to handling it. For instance, some people think the best idea is to attack the actual terrorists who perpetrated 9-11 where ever they are, and kill them. Others think terrorism is better fought by murdering women and children in Iraq. Such a conundrum. Such a difficult choice.

It is sad that the rightwing has lost the struggle with logic and reason, and it's stooges are now reduced to posting bullshit threads with strawman arguments meant for the consumption of those whose thinking does not go much beyond nodding yes to Rush Limbaugh. Fucking whores.

[sandman]

typical brilliant replies from the brain trust.

when actually challenged to prove anything, the temper tantrums begin.

all i'm asking for is some reasonable proof that bush lied.

[SLCPUNK]

all i'm asking for is some reasonable proof that bush lied.

I gave it to you several times, and you ignored it.

Pathetic.

[TAP]

all i'm asking for is some reasonable proof that bush lied.

His lips moved.

[Gordon Gekko]

a link from someone ripping bush is hardly proof. maybe they are disgruntled? how can we measure their credibility? there are people from the inside that say bush did not lie. so that's just he said she said bullshit.

So the CIA had an ax to grind, is that it? It was just a disgruntled agent?

So was the book 'Fiasco'?

And Woodward's book?

And the book 'Cobra II'?

And the book 'Hubris'?

And the retired generals?

And the former CPA employees?

And the Halliburton guy with the camera?

And the Marine who leaked the report on Anbar?

Everybody is lying accept Bush? Get real!

[sandman]

the CIA??? the head of the CIA said it was a "slam dunk".

you mean to tell me you're referencing a book you didn't even read???

wow. maybe you should stick to watching "wall street" on AMC.

[SLCPUNK]

the CIA??? the head of the CIA said it was a "slam dunk".

you mean to tell me you're referencing a book you didn't even read???

wow. maybe you should stick to watching "wall street" on AMC.

Do you even know what you are blabbing about?

Lets get this straight...I provide you with an interview from a top CIA official who says he told Bush the intel was not to be trusted and not to use it. Bush used the "intel" anyway, after essentially being told it was bogus. 1) I've told you this about 7 times now, posting the video link to the interview maybe 3 times over a 12-18 month time frame. (You also deftly avoid Bush lie number two where he claimed Saddam kicked him out, thus pushing us towards an unnecessary war.)

Your reply is that it's a "he said, she said" type of thing and that somebody who has a beef with Bush does not count as credible evidence against the man. That it is "hardly proof" the man lied.

Gekko comes forward to point out that by using your logic, endless people must also have an ax to grind. Eventually an intelligent person would realize that Bush has been dishonest. Your reply (classic) is that the CIA said it was a slam dunk. Just man up and admit you are a blind follower of your boy Bush, that he can do no wrong, and that there is a vast left wing (and now right wing) conspiracy against your leader to make him look bad.  Are Rush sound bites and cheap slogans all you have left here? That's all you have to defend your guy?

[sandman]

A. you're assuming i read all of your posts. (just a heads up, i do not).

B. the head of the CIA said it was a slam dunk. there are others who said bush did not lie (including democrats).

what's next, we count how many people say he did or he didn't lie? sounds like that's what you're implying. again, immature he said she said bullshit. not surprising.

also, one thing you're failing to understand is that the intel was not clear cut factual or non-factual. it needed to be interpreted. and yes, there were disagreements. not proof anyone lied.

[SLCPUNK]

I'm beginning to think that English is not your first language.

[Gordon Gekko]

This is one of the oddest exchanges I've ever read. Perhaps it would help if Punk start posting in braille for you-know-who.

[fuckin crazy]

I was going to post some links to interviews and articles by Lawrence Wilkerson , Richard Clarke , and Scott Miller , however I have a sneaking suspicion it would be an exercise in futility . It appears that some people prefer to bury their heads in the sand .

[sandman]

wow - three straight posts containing nothing of value to the discussion.

just more insults.

brilliant, guys. 

i've read Cobra II. you guys should check it out. it's a great read, and is based on far more factual evidence that any of us could ever get our hands on. 

[fuckin crazy]

wow - three straight posts containing nothing of value to the discussion.

just more insults.

brilliant, guys.

i've read Cobra II. you guys should check it out. it's a great read, and is based on far more factual evidence that any of us could ever get our hands on

The fact that you assumed that my previous post was refering to you , indicates that you are familiar with the work in question ; so tell me sir , how do you so readily dismiss it .

[sandman]

wow - three straight posts containing nothing of value to the discussion.

just more insults.

brilliant, guys.

i've read Cobra II. you guys should check it out. it's a great read, and is based on far more factual evidence that any of us could ever get our hands on

The fact that you assumed that my previous post was refering to you , indicates that you are familiar with the work in question ; so tell me sir , how do you so readily dismiss it .

not sure how my post indicates that.

but yes, i'm familiar with some of the interviews you mention.

please, feel free to post Wilkerson's speech. i think it lends more credence to my belief that bush did not lie. 

[fuckin crazy]

wow - three straight posts containing nothing of value to the discussion.

just more insults.

brilliant, guys.

i've read Cobra II. you guys should check it out. it's a great read, and is based on far more factual evidence that any of us could ever get our hands on

The fact that you assumed that my previous post was refering to you , indicates that you are familiar with the work in question ; so tell me sir , how do you so readily dismiss it .

not sure how my post indicates that.

The implication is obvious .