You'd think he got a blowjob or something, instead of lying to start a war, torturing people at black sites, and outing CIA offiers..
Well, since Bush didn't lie to go to war, I think this is stillborn.
That said, Conyers is a partisan hack with no credibility outside his district. He is more of an agitator, and I suspect this won't have much currency.
Seriously Harris, are you bored or something? This shit has been argued and debunked so many times it's rediculas. In case you forgot:
Here's the Dems real strategy, throw so many bullshit closed session meetings and censure motions at this administration as to slow it down and render it ineffective. And at the same time doing the country a disservice by attacking the curent administrations innitiatives without any innitiatives of it's own. The leftists in this country are becoming more of a jaoke every day.
Someone once said that the greatest threat to America are liberals when the libs are out of power. That's when they really go batshit crazy. This post, the article, and the senate dems are proof positive of that.
Keep riding that one trick pony 'round the circus ring.
I also find this hilarious in the context that Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader of the Democrats, formally announced that the Democratic Party will have no unified position on the Iraq war.
Might be difficult to get a censure pushed through when the Democrats don't even think about Iraq with one mind.
Nothing has been "debunked." You and the rest of the republicans have just vomited up the FauxNews talking points and declared victory.
And--who was the genius behind that quote?
Didn't Conyers support a motion to bring back the draft? I seem to remember that, but can't remember where I read it.
Maybe "debunked" was a poor choice of verbage. "More intelligently argued in favor of" would possibly be a better choice. I believe my fellow republicans and I have made a strong enough contention that yes the intelligence was bad.....for everybody!. It wasn't simply bad for the senate. It wasn't just bad for the POTUS. It was bad for the whole nation and many other nations as well. The left just chooses to ignore these points of fact in their charge on the right.
But I digress into points already well made. (You were a good boy and reread the appropriate posts right?)
You suggesting that all I do is "vomit up Faux news talking points" is funny at best since this tactic is exactly what your silly post with accomponying story has accomplished. The left is showing themselves to be hate filled hacks without vision.
"Bush lied!, Bush lied!. "We were duped!. "Bush is evil!, Cheney is the devil"!
At least you guys are good for a laugh.
Does it matter? It's spot on.
The fact that you happen to agree with a viewpoint does not make it better argued...
There are many burning issues that are smoldering underneath a blanket of talking points. When the fresh air of new information arrives they will blaze up again for a while.
You're right. However, neither the post nor the article provided any such new information. It was the same leftist regurgitation without anything new to back it up.
Another post from Harris that say's nothing more than "I hate GW really really bad!".
I vanish for a while, and people are arguing this, I come back and people are arguing this.
Again there is no proof that he lied, and in fact the proof is in the opposite. Especially with Russian President Putin publicly announcing that he told Bush Iraq had WMD's.
Then you have the intelligence that said they had WMD's.
Again, as I have said before, to prove Bush lied, you have to prove that Iraq had no weapons at the time of his speech, not after, but when he said they did.
Second you have to prove Bush had knowledge that Iraq had no WMD's. Not just that he was incorrect but had the knowledge of this, and this is only assuming the first instance is correct.
Also being incorrect does not make a person a liar, even though I have heard a lot of people try to make that connection. Interestingly these same people would never call their own children liars for being incorrect on a test.
I realize the Democrats are trying to get back into power, but they need to get off this idea that the only way is to destroy Bush. They actually need to come up with a decent policy that doesn?t involve hate.
And again lets discuss the issues, not the man. I don't agree with everything he has done, and thought he was an idiot for waiting this long to respond to his critics. (Although he waited for a good time.) But does anybody actually have anything of substance to talk about instead of all this crap?
Being against the war is one thing, there are justifiable reasons to be against war. It is another to make crazy accusations without proof for the sole purpose of destroying a person to make another party more powerful.
Until you can prove the two conditions, that Iraq did not have WMD's when Bush said he did, and that Bush knew about it at the time he said it, then you cannot make the statement that he lied. And until you can prove those two things, you are the liar because you are knowingly spreading a falsehood.