White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack!

[hnumpah]

Why?

Pretty much every time I come in here I see you guys giving XO hell. To be honest, I can't understand why he even bothers to stick around and put up with it. So, pray tell, why should I have any mercy on you guys? All you ever do is post partisan pieces that try to make mountains out of molehills and, from what I see, generally only tell part of the story, leaving out anything that doesn't reflect well on your candidate, or even outright half truths and lies from your candidate. I know, I know, Obama does the same thing, but I do enjoy dropping in once in a while to point out that there's plenty of dung to be flung on both sides. Mercy, since I don't see it when I do occasionally drop by to read a few posts, does not enter into my equation.

By the way, neither you nor Sirs has proven anything about what I've said in this thread. Go back and read through it for content, not what you wish it said. I do read, write, speak and understand English very well, and I am very careful about explaining my answers. Whether you accept my explanation or not is your choice, but rest assured what I told you about Bushco was the truth. I have referred to Bush several times as an individual, usually as Dubya, but when I refer to him and his cronies, it is Bushco. I admit, I have called him stupid and probably quite a few other names along that line, but I honestly don't recall ever saying he, personally, lied us into the war in Iraq.

[sirs]

Why?  Pretty much every time I come in here I see you guys giving XO hell.

So, factually demonstrating when someone is wrong is "giving them hell"??  Is that how it works??  Providing facts, that might come from some "partisan source" is just beyond the pale??  And all the frequent criticisms of "our guy" or "our party" are ignored, so you can focus on the parts we don't agree with you on, and that somehow makes this all about partisanship

I asked a simple question, that required a yes or a no......did Bushco lie us into war?  Now, I just came back to this thread, so I'll go all along and find if that was indeed answered with a yes or a no, somewhere between when it was asked and now.  Anything other demonstrates a pretty clear double standard as you sit in some form of judgement on how partisan someone like myself is supposed to be

[Plane]

The sanctions could have been strengthened, his air force, anti-aircraft and missile sites taken out, and the opposition strengthened, all without a full scale invasion, and we could have still finished the job in Afghanistan first. We had enough allies willing to help invade, how much easier it might have been to get them to assist with air support to enforce the sanctions and take out his air force and any anti-aircraft batteries without risking ground troops.

That is a good description of what Clinton tried to do, thus it is proved to be a bad plan, it did not work.

And I love this bit -

I suppose you can be strangleing someone , and stop, but , I don't think you can be strangleing someone , stop , and ask them to wait a little while so that you can go down the block to kill his even worse neighbor before you return to finish the kill on him.

Isn't that exactly what we did with Afghanistan, when we decided to concentrate on Iraq? We took the pressure off the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan while we concentrated on Iraq, drawing the fighting in Afghanistan out to over ten years now.

So you get my point in reverse? I am very happy, because this point is completely reversable , you cannot tell the foe on the left to wait for his turn to be killed , and you also cannot tell the foe on the right to wait for his turn to be killed. If the enemy of my enemy is not really my friend , he is still really usefull for a far flank.

Some of us are still marvelling that Bush41 was stupid enough not to finish the job the first time around.

Perplexed I was, I understood his aim was to have a victory in Iriqui hands thus an Iraq that did not belong to us, but when that didn't happen , why not just chase Saddam off the table? There was a lot of waste in that .

[sirs]

I asked a simple question, that required a yes or a no......did Bushco lie us into war?  Now, I just came back to this thread, so I'll go all along and find if that was indeed answered with a yes or a no, somewhere between when it was asked and now.  Anything other demonstrates a pretty clear double standard as you sit in some form of judgement on how partisan someone like myself is supposed to be

Apparently that question still has gone unanswered.  Interesting

[hnumpah]

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn.

Apparently, either you didn't read my answer, or you failed to understand it.

[sirs]

yes or no.  That's all that's required in an answer here.  I failed to see either one.  Care to provide it now?

[hnumpah]

yes or no.  That's all that's required in an answer here.  I failed to see either one.  Care to provide it now?

Certainly.

Yes or no.

Happy?

You DO NOT get to dictate to me which posts I should respond to, and you DO NOT get to dictate to me the manner of my response. I gave you my answer before. Whether you like it or not is of no consequence to me.

[sirs]

Pulling out the false narrative of demanding some response strawman again, I see.  Well, I do appreciate the non-answer.  As I referenced, anything other than a yes OR no. demonstrates a pretty clear double standard as you sit in some form of judgement on how partisan someone like myself is supposed to be, all the while being completely befuddled in producing any proof that Bushco knew there were no WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways.  THAT's what lying us into war would be all about.  And that's where your rationality hits a brick wall, and BDS takes over

[BT]

Pulling out the false narrative of demanding some response strawman again, I see.  Well, I do appreciate the non-answer.  As I referenced, anything other than a yes OR no. demonstrates a pretty clear double standard as you sit in some form of judgement on how partisan someone like myself is supposed to be, all the while being completely befuddled in producing any proof that Bushco knew there were no WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways.  THAT's what lying us into war would be all about.  And that's where your rationality hits a brick wall, and BDS takes over

Couple points.

You are partisan. In fact one of your handles used to be Partisan Conservative if memory serves.

You do demand responses, then chide people when they don't respond.

And thirdly, I believe Bears claim was that he never claimed that Bush personally and purposely lied to the American People. BushCo would be a different entity.

Think about it this way. CU wants to sell his car. Being the honest sort that he is, he has his mechanic check it out to make sure there are no real problems and to help him set a price.

He sells the vehicle based on his mechanics appraisal and the vehicles clean bill of health.

Within a week, the buyer informs CU that the engine blew and accuses CU of lying to him about the condition of the car.

Did CU lie?

Was the buyer justified in calling CU a liar?

[sirs]

Pulling out the false narrative of demanding some response strawman again, I see.  Well, I do appreciate the non-answer.  As I referenced, anything other than a yes OR no. demonstrates a pretty clear double standard as you sit in some form of judgement on how partisan someone like myself is supposed to be, all the while being completely befuddled in producing any proof that Bushco knew there were no WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways.  THAT's what lying us into war would be all about.  And that's where your rationality hits a brick wall, and BDS takes over

Couple points.

You are partisan

Absolutely.....and proud of it.  I'm also OBJECTIVE, in nearly all my criticisms.  You CAN be both, I hope you realize that
 

You do demand responses, then chide people when they don't respond.

Now that's you laying claim to what you think I mean, vs what I post.  I repeat ASKING (read not demanding) for responses to showcase both a choice of the other either refusing to back up their claim/accusation, or that they simply were stumped/debunked and could not, so just moved on, hoping no one would notice. 

BIG DIFFERENCE, than some conclusion that I'm "demanding answers"

Glad we got that out of the way

And thirdly, I believe Bears claim was that he never claimed that Bush personally and purposely lied to the American People. BushCo would be a different entity.

and I also believe I made that acknowledgement, thus my question then was inquiring about Bushco.  Why you want to keep making this about Bush....well, Cu4 was able to take you to task on that one

I hope that cleared things up, not that there should have been anything to have to clear up, but apparently it was necessary. 

[BT]

Re: Partisan. Glad you admitted it.

Re: Demanding then chiding.

Your answer affirms my observation.

I repeat ASKING (read not demanding) for responses to showcase both a choice of the other either refusing to back up their claim/accusation, or that they simply were stumped and could not, so just moved on, hoping no one would notice. 

[sirs]

Twisted & wrong as your observation(s) may be, you have every right to that version.  Going to chide everyone else now for their *gasp* partisanship?

[BT]

and I also believe I made that acknowledgement, thus my question then was inquiring about Bushco.  Why you want to keep making this about Bush....well, Cu4 was able to take you to task on that one

But your original accusation was that he claimed that Bush lied.

The point becomes how irrational it is to try and claim Bush "lied us into war", when not 1 shred of proof can be provided that shows that Bush, and Bush alone KNEW Saddam had no WMD, but took us into war with the claim he did.

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/white-house-told-of-militant-claim-two-hours-after-libya-attack!/msg144993/#msg144993

Which he denied:

As for Sirs, i do not recall ever coming out and saying Bush, personally, lied us into the war in Iraq. I have left open the possibility that he was misled by his vice president and advisors (which I refer to as Bushco, which may have led to your confusion), which I believe is what actually happened.

At which point you confirmed his suspicions concerning your conclusion.

Sure could have fooled most people.  Your inferences were pretty transparent.  But if you want to back down from that position, that'd be a very rational thing to do

http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/white-house-told-of-militant-claim-two-hours-after-libya-attack!/msg145001/#msg145001


Not sure why you suddenly switched to making it about BushCo, which we agreed is a different entity. And which Bear admitted might lead to your confusion.

And i must have missed where CU took me to task.

[BT]

Twisted & wrong as your observation(s) may be, you have every right to that version.  Going to chide everyone else now for their *gasp* partisanship?

No but i might hurl a barb at them when they start demanding answers.

[sirs]

and I also believe I made that acknowledgement, thus my question then was inquiring about Bushco.  Why you want to keep making this about Bush....well, Cu4 was able to take you to task on that one

But your original accusation was that he claimed that Bush lied.

And if you cared to read on, you'll note that I acknowledged his transition from Bush --> Bushco, and subsequent questions were in reference to that

You still be the only hung up on a point long since removed.  Why is that?

Not sure why you suddenly switched to making it about BushCo,

Because, that's what H said he meant.  That's why

And i must have missed where CU took me to task.

The subsequent references to you, and mostly H, on how how its now about Bushco vs just Bush apparently

Twisted & wrong as your observation(s) may be, you have every right to that version.  Going to chide everyone else now for their *gasp* partisanship?

No but i might hurl a barb at them when they start demanding answers.

Which as everyone can note, you'd be wrong in my "demands", not to mention a seperate part to your 3 part response