Preemptive war may not have been an issue to you in 2004 but it was to me. You do understand that there is a difference between me saying preemptive war was an issue for me in 2004 and you lying about me saying WMD'S were an issue for me in 2004. I have no idea if you are doing it intentionally or are mistaken like GWB. 
Originally Posted by WTF
No, I don't understand that. It is an invalid statement. Your way of stating it doesn't change the validity.
You've repeatedly made the argument that Bush lied and those that voted for him supported that lie. You do realize that a major issue on the minds of Americans in 2004 was terrorism and what we were going to do about it not the failure to find WMDs? You do understand the majority of Americans felt that Iraq was an existential threat for us and our allies in the middle east and Israel and there were many other issues on the ballot at that time not just the war in Iraq? You do understand that a majority of American feel that Iran and ISIS are existential threats as well? You do realize that the agencies that are tasked with keepiing America safe are concerned with terrorism moving onto our shores? Statements to that fact were made as recently today. Our governmental agencies make these determinations based on the best intelligence they have available to them. Those agencies are far removed from the Bush administration and under the direction of Barak "Neville Chamerlain" Obama and continue to deliver the same basic assessments. What intelligence do you have?
Now is the point at which you find an out from your previous ridiculous arguments, call me a war monger and say that I am afraid of threats that don't exist. Lightening and snake bites and such. Before you go there understand I am not telling you what I think, I'm telling you what the intelligence community thinks. That happens to shape policy.
What did Bush lie about that was an issue in the 2004 election in regards to the war in Iraq that you knew about but none of the rest of the country or world for that matter knew?
When you are called on your 2004 WMD argument you spin your story to the preemptive argument. When you are presented with obvious evidence that preemptive war was supported by the majority of Americans and Congress based on the intelligence we had at the time you want to start arguing semantics and what a fucking lie is. Your argument gets weaker and weaker as you are shown that you are wrong yet you double down on the stupid premises. At what point do you finally realize that your arguments are convincing no one and that not even the liberals on this board who are Bush haters are willing to support you?
You seem to revel in being the loner, the martyr willing to take on your cause at any and all costs. It would be an admirable trait if you could make a convincing argument.
A lie is an intentional deception. I don't care how you spin it, it is what it is. It takes both to make a lie, deception and intent. Now you could argue that any deception is intentional and I wouldn't argue with that. However, you will never convince me that a person can tell a lie unintentionally but go ahead give it your best shot. You may believe there is a different definition of a lie but that would simply make you wrong, not a liar.
You do understand that being wrong is not intentional deception it is simply being wrong based on what you think you know?
