Nobody to match Bush

[hapaboy]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, we are all aware of hapaboy and his imagination that he actually wins internet debates.

Heh-heh, again, typical Optional. Unlike you I'm not obsessed with the need to debate, but it is fact that I revealed you to be a cowardly liar and whimpering girlie-man on the Capital Punishment thread....obviously you haven't gotten over it.

Yes, those are the reasons, but ...

Ah, here we see you admit that those were the key reasons, yet you make no acceptance of the fact that you were completely wrong to label them as being mine and mine alone....again, typical Optional.

Still waiting for proof of those claims.

Agreed. It has not yet been proven for those particular claims to be correct. Nor have they been proven yet to be mistaken.

What did Bush lie about?

I have no fact that he did or did not lie.

Do you?

However, I do have doubts, and look for clarification of those doubts, do you? Or do you swallow party line hook, sinker and worm.]

You seem to be avoiding the sentence Bush used in his SOTU speech like a plague, which is the crux of this entire affair. As has been repeated ad nauseum, he stated that the British intelligence services reported that Iraq had "sought" uranium from Niger. HE DID NOT LIE! Again, all you are left is to imagine that he lied about, oh, let's see, you can't say what it is, but hey, there has to be SOMETHING he lied about it, huh?

And let's be honest: you do not "look for clarification." You strive for obfuscation in order to stir up more debate.

The military did its job. The president acted with the power of congress.

Thank you. Exactly. Process and system of government was followed. What else do you want? A personal Optional777 feed to our Commander-in-Chief 24/7?

However, if Bush did in fact deceive congress and the American people, that is a problem, isn't it?

Yes it is. If Laura Bush is in fact a Russian mole, that's a problem too. If he is in fact a pedophile, I'd have to say that would not be good at all for the presidency either. If he subscribes to numerous porn sites and has the Secret Service provide him with willing and able female companionship, that may be a cause of concern as well. If Saddam Hussein is in fact "Sid" Bush, Dubya's middle brother separated at birth by JR Ewing and rushed to Iraq in order to provide a plan B domicile if Bobby ever ran him out of Ewing oil, that too would be problematic.

You are left with nothing but endless "IFs". That's a heck of a strong hand, you've got there Op.

Whether or not God is willing the USA to win a war is your opinion, and has no place in a secular government's business or decision making.

I never said it did. My inference was blatantly obvious to normal people to be a personal opinion.

Ridiculous and outlandish conjecture are you opinions, nothing more.

Okay. Grasping for endless "IFs" is an entirely rational means of debating this and every other subject. I see.

Opinion, not fact in evidence.

Nah, it's pretty plain to see that Kymar thoroughly wipes the floor with you. That you refuse to admit this is de rigeur for our dear Optional. What else can be expected of our resident debater who snatches conjecture out of thin air?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from hapaboy:

Heh-heh, again, typical Optional. Unlike you I'm not obsessed with the need to debate, but it is fact that I revealed you to be a cowardly liar and whimpering girlie-man on the Capital Punishment thread....obviously you haven't gotten over it.

Opinion.

Ah, here we see you admit that those were the key reasons, yet you make no acceptance of the fact that you were completely wrong to label them as being mine and mine alone....again, typical Optional.

Non sequitur. They were never labeled as yours and your alone. The key reason for immediacy of war I stated were the WMD that Bush and company said existed.

Agreed. It has not yet been proven for those particular claims to be correct. Nor have they been proven yet to be mistaken.

You seem to be avoiding the sentence Bush used in his SOTU speech like a plague, which is the crux of this entire affair. As has been repeated ad nauseum, he stated that the British intelligence services reported that Iraq had "sought" uranium from Niger. HE DID NOT LIE! Again, all you are left is to imagine that he lied about, oh, let's see, you can't say what it is, but hey, there has to be SOMETHING he lied about it, huh?

Do you have proof that he did not know the information to be non factual? Do you know that he did not in fact lie?

I have doubt, you have none, so what?

And let's be honest: you do not "look for clarification." You strive for obfuscation in order to stir up more debate.

Your opinion, I don't agree.

Thank you. Exactly. Process and system of government was followed. What else do you want? A personal Optional777 feed to our Commander-in-Chief 24/7?

I simply want proof of the claims Bush and company made in the case they made for immediate war.

Why some people think this is too much to ask for is a mystery to me.

Yes it is. If Laura Bush is in fact a Russian mole, that's a problem too. If he is in fact a pedophile, I'd have to say that would not be good at all for the presidency either. If he subscribes to numerous porn sites and has the Secret Service provide him with willing and able female companionship, that may be a cause of concern as well. If Saddam Hussein is in fact "Sid" Bush, Dubya's middle brother separated at birth by JR Ewing and rushed to Iraq in order to provide a plan B domicile if Bobby ever ran him out of Ewing oil, that too would be problematic.

There is precedent for presidents, both republican and democrat lying.

There is no harm in doubt, nor is their a harm in holding public officials to back up their claims with evidence.

Still waiting for the evidence.

You are left with nothing but endless "IFs". That's a heck of a strong hand, you've got there Op.

We were sold a bunch of if's as a reason to go to war.

I never said it did. My inference was blatantly obvious to normal people to be a personal opinion.

Just my opinion, but I would not classify you in a league to speak knowingly on the topic of what is blatantly obvious to normal people. That appears to me to be outside of your working jurisdiction.

Okay. Grasping for endless "IFs" is an entirely rational means of debating this and every other subject. I see.

Endless pronouncements of WMD and immediate threat to national security were made, just waiting for evidence to support the veracity of those claims.

Nah, it's pretty plain to see that Kymar thoroughly wipes the floor with you. That you refuse to admit this is de rigeur for our dear Optional. What else can be expected of our resident debater who snatches conjecture out of thin air?

Opinion.

We can flame war if you like. That seems to be what you view as your strength as it is the method you use most often.

 

[AMT4SWA]

After reading many of these treads, I have just thought of a name to describe some of the people on ET....."arguementalist"

***** argueMENTAList *****

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Quote from hapaboy:

Ah, here we see you admit that those were the key reasons, yet you make no acceptance of the fact that you were completely wrong to label them as being mine and mine alone....again, typical Optional.

Non sequitur. They were never labeled as yours and your alone.

Good grief, you clearly said they were my reasons:

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You list a number of reasons why you believe a war was justified, and I imagine you could care less if Bush did in fact lie to the American people as long as the job got done.

Do you have proof that he did not know the information to be non factual? Do you know that he did not in fact lie?

No, I do not have proof. I also do not have proof that he doesn't change into a werewolf during a full-moon, that Kobe Bryant is a serial rapist, and that the Pope is in fact an alien.

I have doubt, you have none, so what?

I simply want proof of the claims Bush and company made in the case they made for immediate war.

Why some people think this is too much to ask for is a mystery to me.

And how is the President supposed to "prove" that he did what every President does: rely on the information provided to him by those whose job it is and whom the structure of our government delegates the responsibility of providing him with that information?!? The CIA has taken the blame. There are those who say Rice should have caught the error herself. In any case, do you propose that every Commander-in-Chief second guess each and every detail of information that is conveyed to him?!? Absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic.

As far as the other claims for the case of war, there is no doubting Saddam's pursuit/manufacture/usage of WMD in the past, his invading two neighbors, IAEA and global assessments of Iraq's pre-war nuclear program, Saddam's 12 years of lies and deceits regarding the UN weapons inspections and sanctions, his support of terrorism, etc, etc.

There is precedent for presidents, both republican and democrat lying.

There is no harm in doubt, nor is their a harm in holding public officials to back up their claims with evidence.

Still waiting for the evidence.

Again, what kind of evidence do you require? Maybe you need to contact Harry Potter and ask for the curriculum vitae of various mind readers.

We were sold a bunch of if's as a reason to go to war.

Hardly. Surgery is performed to prevent a malignant tumor from spreading. You were advised first of the factual nature of the cancer that was Saddam Hussein and his regime, and of the very real necessity of removing a threat to our national security, which, left unchecked, could result in catastrophic consequences for you and your fellow citizens. Our President decided to remove the tumor, and Congress authorized him to do so.

Just my opinion, but I would not classify you in a league to speak knowingly on the topic of what is blatantly obvious to normal people. That appears to me to be outside of your working jurisdiction.

If you are unable to decipher the context of a very simple sentence, well, it is never too late to go back to school.

We can flame war if you like. That seems to be what you view as your strength as it is the method you use most often.

I learned a long time ago that parrying your debates with logic and reason only results in your resorting to slander and cowardous retreat. I'm sure you will follow the same modus operandi here as it not in your nature to do otherwise.

 

[KymarFye]

Quote from hapaboy:

And how is the President supposed to "prove" that he did what every President does: rely on the information provided to him by those whose job it is and whom the structure of our government delegates the responsibility of providing him with that information?!? The CIA has taken the blame. There are those who say Rice should have caught the error herself. In any case, do you propose that every Commander-in-Chief second guess each and every detail of information that is conveyed to him?!? Absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic.

Bush To Personally Verify Future CIA Reports
(2003-07-11) -- In an effort to make sure all of his public statements are accurate, U.S. President George Bush said today that he will personally verify all CIA reports before using them publicly.

"I regret that I didn't go to Niger to check out that uranium sale to Iraq story," said the President. "Today I deputized myself as an agent in the CIA. I'll go on deep-cover missions, onto foreign soil, sometimes behind enemy lines to verify all crucial information."

An unnamed Democrat Congressman praised the President for his decision.

"It's important that the President speak only when he has first-hand knowledge," the source said. "He needs to emulate the impeccable record of Congress in this regard."

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001046.html#001046

 

[KymarFye]

Withheld Iraq report blamed on French

By Michael Smith
LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH

LONDON — The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow Britain's MI6 to give the United States "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, U.S. intelligence sources said yesterday.
Britain's Secret Intelligence Service had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission.
U.S. intelligence sources believe the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony, and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission.
A factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the U.S. administration's willingness to publicize intelligence would lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed.
U.S. sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence.
British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a dispute between MI6 and the CIA on the issue. But they acknowledged to being surprised that George J. Tenet, the CIA director, had apologized to President Bush for allowing him to cite the British government and its claim that Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech in January.
The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Agency's dismissal of documents given to it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as forgeries.
Those documents have been widely identified with September's British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an unnamed country in Africa.
British officials acknowledged that the country was Niger, but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.
They dismissed a report from a former U.S. diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them.
"He seems to have asked a few people if it was true, and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment."
The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes, these officials said.
There had been a number of reports, in the United States in particular, suggesting that the fake documents — which came from another intelligence source — were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true.
"What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20030713-114149-3172r.htm

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from KymarFye:

Bush To Personally Verify Future CIA Reports
(2003-07-11) -- In an effort to make sure all of his public statements are accurate, U.S. President George Bush said today that he will personally verify all CIA reports before using them publicly.

"I regret that I didn't go to Niger to check out that uranium sale to Iraq story," said the President. "Today I deputized myself as an agent in the CIA. I'll go on deep-cover missions, onto foreign soil, sometimes behind enemy lines to verify all crucial information."

An unnamed Democrat Congressman praised the President for his decision.

"It's important that the President speak only when he has first-hand knowledge," the source said. "He needs to emulate the impeccable record of Congress in this regard."

Probably not good enough for the Bush haters, I'm afraid. At the very least, the President will need to be accompanied by Dan Blather or, better yet, Peter Arnett, on these covert ops. For, you know, credibility.

 

[Trader5287]

Spose there's anyway Americans just blow off the WMD issue?
For the above reason or something like it? Just thinking out loud that stranger things have happened in politics...

Geo.

 

[FasterPussycat]

Intelligence is gosh "darn good".

If he only had any..

BWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20030714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_intelligence

 

[hapaboy]

Too much catnip, puddytat.