Harris County grand jury indicts pair behind Planned Parenthood videos

LexusLover's Avatar
LL...my definition of lying that i gave DSK applies to Bush. Bush did not make a prediction, he took is to war under the lie that Iraq had WMD's.

How about you quit lying. Originally Posted by WTF
How about you quit lying!

For starters: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

Then enlighten yourself with this: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

Then peruse this:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil.../hjres114/text

The basis for the authorization:

"Joint Resolution

"To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

"Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

"Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

"Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

"Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

"Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

"Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

"Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

"Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

"Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

"Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

"Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

"Now, therefore, be it ...."


Then compare that to this: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Hillary's Husband and Hillary agreed with the Resolution above.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.


WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 01-31-2016, 04:11 PM
There were no WMD's. Bush saying there were was a lie. Everybody saying there were , were lying. That includes Clinton. I'm not voting for her btw.

So continue posting all the red herring you want...it will not change the fact that Bush lied. We can debate whether it was intentional or not but it lied about there being WMD's because in fact there were not.

Unlike you LL a lie is a lie , no matter who tells it. In this case these two loons were lying about PPH. Just like folks lie about sex trafficking to try and shut down all prostitution.
LexusLover's Avatar
There were no WMD's. Bush saying there were was a lie. Everybody saying there were , were lying. That includes Clinton. I'm not voting for her btw. Originally Posted by WTF
The world according to WTF! That just about sums it up.

According to your world you lied about Zimmerman being convicted for the death of Martin.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 01-31-2016, 04:54 PM
The world according to WTF! That just about sums it up.

According to your world you lied about Zimmerman being convicted for the death of Martin. Originally Posted by LexusLover
I said I thoughthe would be convicted. I was not willing to bet 4500 of our soldiers on it. Do you see that difference?
  • DSK
  • 01-31-2016, 10:22 PM
There were no WMD's. Bush saying there were was a lie. Everybody saying there were , were lying. That includes Clinton. I'm not voting for her btw.

So continue posting all the red herring you want...it will not change the fact that Bush lied. We can debate whether it was intentional or not but it lied about there being WMD's because in fact there were not.

Unlike you LL a lie is a lie , no matter who tells it. In this case these two loons were lying about PPH. Just like folks lie about sex trafficking to try and shut down all prostitution. Originally Posted by WTF
Your words contradict you!!
You said
"If you make a prediction and it turns out wrong....that is not lying. If you later lie about what you predicted, that is a lie.

Not telling the truth is lying. There are many different degrees. Like killing another. There are different degrees of culpability. LL is a serial murder of the truth!

Some folks incorrectly believe in something and then lie unintentionally.

Others know the truth yet try and distort it with lies. They intentionally lie to win their point.


That IMHO appears this two nuts jobs have done with PPH. Which is what LexusLiar does all the time ... COGay does it too but not as much. Still a faux Libertarian needs to be shot....nothing worse. Blame everyone and never take any responsibility themselves!"
LexusLover's Avatar
I said I thoughthe would be convicted. Originally Posted by WTF
I never saw the word "thought" .... was that some "implied" hedge of yours?

Now you are lying to cover up your lie.....by your definition.

"Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist"
06-28-2013, 07:07 AM Post #60

WTF: “Nothing I have heard has changed my mind that Zimmerman will be convicted of a lesser crime.”

Even during the trial you lied!!!! While listening to the reports of the testimony!!!!!
Yssup Rider's Avatar
I never saw the word "thought" .... was that some "implied" hedge of yours?

Now you are lying to cover up your lie.....by your definition.

"Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist"
06-28-2013, 07:07 AM Post #60

WTF: “Nothing I have heard has changed my mind that Zimmerman will be convicted of a lesser crime.”

Even during the trial you lied!!!! While listening to the reports of the testimony!!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover
You're a worthless piece of shit.

In fact, how fucking immature is this argument? Quibbling over whose definition of lying is a lie?

Such meaningful discourse.

Like I said, worthless piece of shit.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 02-01-2016, 07:55 AM
I never saw the word "thought" .... was that some "implied" hedge of yours?

Now you are lying to cover up your lie.....by your definition.

"Witness testifies Trayvon was a racist"
06-28-2013, 07:07 AM Post #60

WTF: “Nothing I have heard has changed my mind that Zimmerman will be convicted of a lesser crime.”

Even during the trial you lied!!!! While listening to the reports of the testimony!!!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover
LL, we were making predictions whether Zimmer would be convicted or not. So yes when I made a statement that I continued to believe that Zimmerman would be convicted right up until he wasn't.....I was not lying. What you are doing is distorting by taking one phrase and not the whole conversation for context. Is that why you would not provide a link?

Again, I was not willing to bet 4500 soldiers lives on Zimmerman being convicted as Bush was that there were WMD's in Iraq and you were so gullibly led in to believe.
So yes when I made a statement that I continued to believe that Zimmerman would be convicted right up until he wasn't.....I was not lying. Originally Posted by WTF
aren't you the buffoon who has a idiotic definition of what a lie is and who claimed bush lied because even though he believed there were wmd's, there weren't? (even though it was later shown there were)
LexusLover's Avatar
LL, we were making predictions whether Zimmer would be convicted or not. So yes when I made a statement that I continued to believe that Zimmerman would be convicted right up until he wasn't.....I was not lying. What you are doing is distorting by taking one phrase and not the whole conversation for context. Is that why you would not provide a link?

Again, I was not willing to bet 4500 soldiers lives on Zimmerman being convicted as Bush was that there were WMD's in Iraq and you were so gullibly led in to believe. Originally Posted by WTF
Blah, blah, blah!

Liars always have problems lying out of their lies, don't they? Especially those who are intellectually challenged like you! Obaminable is worse than you, so that should make you feel somewhat better. The difference is ... he actually believes his lies ... and you know better!

Oh, another lie of yours: "willing to bet 4500 soldiers lives"

Bush didn't "bet 4500 soldiers lives" on finding WMD's in Iraq.


You keep up your stupid shit I may change my assessment of whether "you know better"!!!
LexusLover's Avatar
aren't you the buffoon who has a idiotic definition of what a lie is and who claimed bush lied because even though he believed there were wmd's, there weren't? (even though it was later shown there were) Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
You are "right on"!!!!!

He actually believes that 6 months later no one will remember!

Just because he doesn't remember his own bullshit, doesn't mean others don't!
  • DSK
  • 02-01-2016, 09:32 AM
You're a worthless piece of shit.

In fact, how fucking immature is this argument? Quibbling over whose definition of lying is a lie?

Such meaningful discourse.

Like I said, worthless piece of shit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Your needless insults that are way out of proportion to the original discussion are just one out of many reasons that you are the most hated man on this forum.

The definition of a lie in this case is important because WTF has made a statement that contradicts his definition of a lie, hence he has made a statement against his interest and the definition of the lie is construed against him.

[superfluous and incendiary insult here]
LexusLover's Avatar
Your needless insults that are way out of proportion to the original discussion are just one out of many reasons that you are the most hated man on this forum.

The definition of a lie in this case is important because WTF has made a statement that contradicts his definition of a lie, hence he has made a statement against his interest and the definition of the lie is construed against him.

[superfluous and incendiary insult here] Originally Posted by DSK
I don't "hate" him any more than I "hate" maggots. They both serve a useful purpose.

But I would compare YouRong to



although I suspect the little buggers in the jar are more effective.

Actually, I think he's just an angry worthless, dumbass. No substance, just hot, stinky air.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 02-02-2016, 12:09 AM
aren't you the buffoon who has a idiotic definition of what a lie is and who claimed bush lied because even though he believed there were wmd's, there weren't? (even though it was later shown there were) Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Was he lying when he said there were WMD's or when he said there weren't any WMD's? Just because you believe something to be true don't make it so. You think you have a brain, turns out you don't.



http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I square it, because — imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.



You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just — just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.



REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?



PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?



REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?



PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.



Munchmasterman's Avatar
Was he lying when he said there were WMD's or when he said there weren't any WMD's? Just because you believe something to be true don't make it so. You think you have a brain, turns out you don't.



http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I square it, because — imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.




You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just — just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.




REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?




PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?




REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?




PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.




Originally Posted by WTF
I don't count predictions or guesses as lies but when predictions and guesses morph into or are seen as facts, facts that aren't facts, the passing them on when they are proven lies, then a person is lying.
So does being wrong involve lying or is it a case of incorrect analysis using the same facts?
,