Why Do the Libtards Keep Lying About Bush?

What does Breitbart have to say about this, or TheBlaze, or Therightscoop, or powerlineblog, or TheWashingtonTimes, or... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Listen dipshit, anytime you want to expose a lie or a myth or a gross distortion of history that is pedaled by ANY publication - right or left - I will be happy to call it out for what it is.

Now why don't you add something to the discussion at hand? Go back and read Judge Silberman's essay, then read the so-called Lie #2 in Tampon's link, and then tell us which would be accepted by an honest historian?

Oh wait, I am treating you as if you were an adult capable of engaging in intelligent debate.... Ooops, my bad!

Was Bush the best president? Maybe not, but he was the better choice in 2004. Originally Posted by boardman

That is all you got. Pitiful.

Listen dipshit, anytime you want to expose a lie or a myth or a gross distortion of history that is pedaled by ANY publication - right or left - I will be happy to call it out for what it is.

Now why don't you add something to the discussion at hand? Go back and read Judge Silberman's essay, then read the so-called Lie #2 in Tampon's link, and then tell us which would be accepted by an honest historian?

Oh wait, I am treating you as if you were an adult capable of engaging in intelligent debate.... Ooops, my bad! Originally Posted by lustylad

Did you even read your own link? This is like Ted Bundy supporters wanting to discuss whether he had a law degree. Who cares? Bush started a unprovoked war with another nation. He constantly linked Saddam with 9/11. That you and other's want to justify your 2004 vote for Bush is laughable imho.

That is all you got. Pitiful. Originally Posted by WTF

I thought it was better than "That is all you got" which seems to be your recent go to response when someone offers up an argument you can't counter.

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that I think most of the time people vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils. I know that's how I usually feel when I go to vote, especially in national elections. It doesn't stop me from voting and when someone else openly admits that they feel the same I don't go looking to bash them by making irrational arguments about who they did vote for which seems to be your MO.
I don't even know whether you vote or not. You don't offer up any opinions of your own, you just criticize other opinions. Maybe you don't have one. Maybe that's why your BS in this forum is pretty much ignored by everyone else but me. With that said, I'm even pretty much done with explaining myself to someone who really doesn't care to engage with real opinions.

I have a hard time voting for Libertarian candidates because they can't win even though that's the way I tend to lean. A vote for a Libertarian generally helps the liberal candidate because those votes usually would otherwise go to the conservative one. Again it's a choice not for the best candidate but for the least evil one according to my personal perception. My other option is to not vote at all. That's not a choice I'm going to make.

Is there another option that I'm missing?

Typical Republican; if it's written down or on Faux News, it must be true.
You give Bush way too much credit. He wasn't smart enough to lie.

In fact my contention has always been that Bush was wrong. Lying or not he was wrong and this country paid for it in blood and money and some of you doubled down and voted for Bush a second time. Originally Posted by WTF

no your contention has always been that bush lied, not that he was wrong

now you are seemingly making a babystep in the right direction

as to your implied charge that Iraq was a total waste, well its the easiest thing ever to deal with something in a static matter. It takes no thought or imagination or dedication to truth to say "because of this then that".

surely all of what isis is today would be here and more so if there had been no Iraq, maybe just a tad more underground or maybe not due to obama, but Afghanistan would have been there regardless after 9/11 and that would have been more than enough. and who really knows where we would be today sans Iraq.

however, if bush hadn't gone to iraq, its likely we wouldn't have had Obama

and because we did and are saddled with Obama and his Libya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq withdrawal debacles and resets- well right there is the worst aspect of the outcome of bush's Iraq adventure, namely obama, and his failures both domestically and in foreign affairs

^^^^^^^^^ That's the only other response they have. Originally Posted by boardman

This is my counter... which is all you deserved after your above response.

no your contention has always been that bush lied, not that he was wrong

now you are seemingly making a babystep in the right direction
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

These are not baby steps on my part. You are either an idiot or liar , possibly both.

My contention has always been exactly as I have said. I have not voted nor will I ever vote for politicians who supported the Iraq invasion. That includes Hillary Clinton.

I have no tolerance for fools that try and justify their vote for folks that supported that war.

Politicians had one chance to get that right. Voters have had and will continue to have numerous chances to rectify their support of politicians who supported the Iraq war.

You are either an idiot or liar , possibly both.
Originally Posted by WTF

and you sir, are a jackanapes

Did you even read your own link? This is like Ted Bundy supporters wanting to discuss whether he had a law degree. Who cares? Bush started a unprovoked war with another nation. He constantly linked Saddam with 9/11. Originally Posted by WTF

Stop being an idiot. If you falsely call me a liar on something, you lose your credibility in trying to call out other alleged lies. If you are honest enough to admit Bush didn't "lie" about WMD (his primary casus belli) then maybe we can talk about the other anti-Saddam evidence.

These are not baby steps on my part. You are either an idiot or liar , possibly both.

My contention has always been exactly as I have said. I have not voted nor will I ever vote for politicians who supported the Iraq invasion. That includes Hillary Clinton.

I have no tolerance for fools that try and justify their vote for folks that supported that war.

Politicians had one chance to get that right. Voters have had and will continue to have numerous chances to rectify their support of politicians who supported the Iraq war. Originally Posted by WTF

So who did you vote for in 2004? Anyone? Ralph Nader? With a two party system it isn't likely that there is going to be a one issue candidate or only one issue to vote for. More was at stake in 2004.

As a side note, the issue of whether or not the invasion was justified was not even a consideration in the 2004 elections. It's a strawman argument to make that case. You'd have a stronger argument pointing to those who voted for McCain in 2008.

What was at issue about the war was the U.N.'s role and building a coalition of the willing.
Other major and probably more hotly debated issues at the time were, Homeland Security and The Patriot Act, Partial birth abortion, Immigration, Healthcare, Defining Marriage, Job growth, Energy, Environment and No Child Left behind which was probably one of the major criticisms of Bush's first term.

Stop being an idiot. If you falsely call me a liar on something, you lose your credibility in trying to call out other alleged lies. If you are honest enough to admit Bush didn't "lie" about WMD (his primary casus belli) then maybe we can talk about the other anti-Saddam evidence. Originally Posted by lustylad

If you think you have a 12 inch pecker but you really only have a 3 inch pecker but you tell everyone you have a 12 incher ....did you or did you not tell a lie?

Just because everybody wanted to please you and tell you you have a foot long pecker don't make it so.

Those of us in the real world had problems invading Iraq when most of the terrorists were Saudi.

If any of you Bush apologists want to make the case that the Iraq was fought over Saddam switching to the Euro and we fought to basically keep the world on petroleum dollars...you'd at least have my attention.

Can't do it, can you fagboy? You take so much pleasure in calling Bush a liar that you can't be honest and admit what was NOT a lie. I never said you can't have problems with the invasion of Iraq, especially in hindsight. If you want to make the case that it was strategically misconceived or flawed in its execution or whatever, be my guest. But first you have to admit it is a lie to say Bush lied about WMD.

As Judge Silberman reminds us:

"...no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media."


By the way, your analogy sucks. Bush never claimed he had a 12 inch pecker. He only said Saddam claims he still has a 12 inch pecker and the intelligence community agrees with him.

Can't do it, can you fagboy? You take so much pleasure in calling Bush a liar that you can't be honest and admit what was NOT a lie. I never said you can't have problems with the invasion of Iraq, especially in hindsight. If you want to make the case that it was strategically misconceived or flawed in its execution or whatever, be my guest. But first you have to admit it is a lie to say Bush lied about WMD.

As Judge Silberman reminds us:

"...no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media."


By the way, your analogy sucks. Bush never claimed he had a 12 inch pecker. He only said Saddam claims he still has a 12 inch pecker and the intelligence community agrees with him. Originally Posted by lustylad

I think you missed where he casually flip flopped from opposing Bush in 2004 because Bush lied about WMD's to opposing Bush in 2004 because the Iraqis were not terrorists and did not support terrorists. Or maybe he opposed Bush in 2004 because of big peckers...Fuck, I don't really know what his argument is at this point. I'm not sure he does either other than to unintentionally prove the fact that even his hindsight is not 20/20.

I think you missed where he casually flip flopped Originally Posted by boardman

he did flip flop

he said bush was wrong and added, "lying or not" he was wrong
so he was equivocating on the lie aspect


heretofore, bush accepting counsel, in almost complete world unanimity fashion, from those who should know, and acting on that counsel was solidly and doggedly and staunchly deemed lying by him

I pointed out he was doing baby steps in the right direction and he attacked me most vituperously.

I cut him slack on his assailment of me because he cannot follow argument and is prone to deny that which was never claimed and defend that which was never attacked, and I knew well his shortcomings