gop saint regan and poison gas

[Truth Detector]

No, Clinton lied as well, remember when the right claimed this as well, something about wagging the dog, you are talking to the wrong gal on this, if you think I am going to defend Clinton and his bombing campaign.

Scott Ritter has since changed his story on Iraq and the weapons. He states that they were basically disarmed when Bush 41 went into Iraq. There were no hidden caches.

I supported Clinton at first, then the more I read, the more I learned that both sides lie.

I do not support military actions in most cases.

They weren't lying, dimwit; they were going on the best intelligence at the time just as did the British, the Germans, the French and the Australians.

In order to tell a lie, which you seem prolific at, you have to know the truth first. Of course you're a brain dead dimwit; you don't know what a lie is because first you have to have the intelligence to know the definition; something you don't have.

 

[tekkychick]

I never saw anyone on here make the claim that Saddam never used chemical weapons. Can you link me to such a post, or am to simply take your word for it?

No one ever did. We DID say he no longer had WMDs when Bush Jr invaded. But that statement does not deny that he had used them in the past

 

[maineman]

Just factually refute the validity of this without resorting to gratuitous insults to cover up your inability to do so.

and I am fully aware that when Bush said "there is no doubt that Saddam possesses stockpiles of WMD's" he was lying. He was well aware of the doubt that existed within his own intelligence community when he made that statement.

Really. How can it NOT be a lie to state as an absolute fact something you know is not an absolute fact?

 

[Truth Detector]

This is why one should never argue with leftist idiots; on one hand they claim that Bush was an idiot.
Then they claim that he lied us into a war and fooled all those smart Democrats into parroting his talking points.
Then they claim that this man was so clever to have fooled them into a war built upon lies, that he was not clever enough to figure out that after they went into Iraq and not find weapons, he would be found out.

I mean in order to be a Liberal lefttard asshat who voted for a dipshit like Obama, you have to not only be incredibly stupid, but lack even basic common sense.

 

[Truth Detector]

Just factually refute the validity of this without resorting to gratuitous insults to cover up your inability to do so.

Really. How can it NOT be a lie to state as an absolute fact something you know is not an absolute fact?

Because if you weren't such a prolific lying leftist asshat and so incredibly stupid, you would comprehend based on what has already been posted that Bush, like Clinton and all those Democrats who said the same thing, including your beloved Clinton, they actually did think Saddam had WMDs. Saddam himself admits that he wanted the West and the Iranians to believe he had them. Saddam thought the Iranians were more of a threat than the feckless West and UN who he pretty much figured based on history would do nothing.

But then you are an idiot who is devoted to a moronic partisan agenda, what need do you have of the truth, facts or reality?

 

[NOVA]

Just factually refute the validity of this without resorting to gratuitous insults to cover up your inability to do so.

Really. How can it NOT be a lie to state as an absolute fact something you know is not an absolute fact?

You're right mm....you cannot state something as absolute fact if you KNOW its not absolute fact....thats lying

However....if you state something as absolute fact, believing it IS absolute fact...you not lying

what you believe is what determines if you're lying or not and its quite irrelevant if you are correct or incorrect, or what ANYONE ELSE thinks of your claims.

You're English is improving.....you might be on your way to a "B"....

 

[NOVA]

This is why one should never argue with leftist idiots; on one hand they claim that Bush was an idiot.
Then they claim that he lied us into a war and fooled all those smart Democrats into parroting his talking points.
Then they claim that this man was so clever to have fooled them into a war built upon lies, that he was not clever enough to figure out that after they went into Iraq and not find weapons, he would be found out.

I mean in order to be a Liberal lefttard asshat who voted for a dipshit like Obama, you have to not only be incredibly stupid, but lack even basic common sense.

Nice try, but your undeniable logic is much too far above the intelligence of partisan hacks like your talking to....they don't even see the hypocrisy of their argument...

 

[NOVA]

the fact of the matter is that the Reagan administration turned a willful blind eye to Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran because he was gassing OUR enemies. The republican administration continued to be unconcerned when Saddam used them against the Kurds.

There is no real proof that Reagan personally knew of Saddams planned use of chem. weapons.....
The CIA was giving Saddam intelligence on Iran's troop movements as they were supposed to and if they knew or suspected Saddam was going to use
chem weapons it certainly didn't stop from from supplying him with intelligence....
we certainly knew he possessed chem. weapons and used them as early as 1983 and it was believed he probably would again...that also does not mean that
he would definitely use them in 1988....but the conclusion can be made that we didn't really care very much....

Iraq's chem wmd...
The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign sources. The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons) One Indian company, Exomet Plastics, sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq The Singapore -based firm Kim Al-Khaleej, affiliated to the United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. Dieter Backfisch, managing director of West German company Karl Kolb GmbH, was quoted by saying in 1989: "For people in Germany poison gas is something quite terrible, but this does not worry customers abroad "

NEW YORK TIMES
Excerpts From the President's Speech to the U.N.
Published: September 27, 1988

Poison gas. Chemical warfare. Mr. Secretary General, distinguished delegates, the terror of it. The horror of it. We condemn it. The use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war -beyond its tragic human toll - jeopardizes the moral and legal strictures that have held those weapons in check since World War I. Let this tragedy spark reaffirmation of the Geneva protocol outlawing the use of chemical weapons. I call upon the signatories to that protocol, as well as other concerned states, to convene a conference to consider actions that we can take together to reverse the serious erosion of this treaty. And we urge all nations to cooperate in negotiating a verifiable, truly global ban on chemical weapons at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

It is incumbent upon all civilized nations to ban, once and for all and on a verifiable and global basis, the use of chemical and gas warfare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idiot liberal partisans might note...
George Bernard Shaw said: "Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."

http://tinyurl.com/kxzbej6

 

[maineman]

Oh...I am quite sure there is no "real proof" that Ronnie knew BEFORE the fact concerning gassing Iranians, but the record is clear that his administration did nothing about it - besides telling the Iraqis where the Iranians were before the fact, of course - and the record is equally clear that they did nothing about the attack on the Kurds in Halabja either. Fine fellows, those Reaganites.

 

[maineman]

You're right mm....you cannot state something as absolute fact if you KNOW its not absolute fact....thats lying

However....if you state something as absolute fact, believing it IS absolute fact...you not lying

what you believe is what determines if you're lying or not and its quite irrelevant if you are correct or incorrect, or what ANYONE ELSE thinks of your claims.

You're English is improving.....you might be on your way to a "B"....

He knew it was not an absolute fact. The doubts held by the intelligence agencies were all in the NIE's he received. They all had caveats and qualifiers concerning the certainty of the intelligence. Caveats and qualifiers ARE expressions of doubt. He knew there were elements and expressions of doubt. He said there was no doubt. That was a lie.

Your English still needs some work, but your blind devotion to Dubya and to your party cannot be faulted one little bit. You've got THAT goin' for ya. Good job.

 

[zappasguitar]

No you didn't know Bush was lying because you're a lying leftists hyper partisan asshat.

Why do you feel compelled to bombard this forum with incredible lies and distortions and think that you won't get called on it? Are you really THAT dumb?

Rumsfeld went on TV and said right into the camera "We know Saddam has WMD's, WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE".

That was a lie...a lie told by the Bush admininstration.

 

[maineman]

Because if you weren't such a prolific lying leftist asshat and so incredibly stupid, you would comprehend based on what has already been posted that Bush, like Clinton and all those Democrats who said the same thing, including your beloved Clinton, they actually did think Saddam had WMDs. Saddam himself admits that he wanted the West and the Iranians to believe he had them. Saddam thought the Iranians were more of a threat than the feckless West and UN who he pretty much figured based on history would do nothing.

But then you are an idiot who is devoted to a moronic partisan agenda, what need do you have of the truth, facts or reality?

nobody is questioning what they THOUGHT. If Bush had said, "there is little doubt" or "I have no doubt", I would have no problem... those are expressions of opinion. To state that THERE IS NO DOUBT is an expression of fact, not opinion. He knew of doubt, and told us there was none. LIAR. pure and simple. Spin all you want... it won't change that fact.

 

[zappasguitar]

He knew it was not an absolute fact. The doubts held by the intelligence agencies were all in the NIE's he received. They all had caveats and qualifiers concerning the certainty of the intelligence. Caveats and qualifiers ARE expressions of doubt. He knew there were elements and expressions of doubt. He said there was no doubt. That was a lie.

Your English still needs some work, but your blind devotion to Dubya and to your party cannot be faulted one little bit. You've got THAT goin' for ya. Good job.

Give it up.

You are never going to bet the masters of verbal gymnastics to admit their heroes were lying.

They will find some ridiculous grammatical semantics to latch onto while ignoring facts and the truth.

 

[Taft2016]

Holy cheez 'n crackers!

Our libtard friends spent the whole afternoon huffin' 'n puffin' away from the original lie that started this thread. lol.

Libtards. If one of 'em had a brain they'd be dangerous.

 

[Taft2016]

nobody is questioning what they THOUGHT. If Bush had said, "there is little doubt" or "I have no doubt", I would have no problem... those are expressions of opinion. To state that THERE IS NO DOUBT is an expression of fact, not opinion. He knew of doubt, and told us there was none. LIAR. pure and simple. Spin all you want... it won't change that fact.

Obama has no doubt that Assad used chemical weapons... yet there are two nations (one superpower) in the region asserting otherwise, that it was the rebels who used the chemical weapons.

Obama wants to bomb. He has no doubt.

How many nations stepped forward and contradicted the intelligence of the USA, the UK, Germany, Russia, Italy, and France in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion?

Who stepped forward to contradict both Clintons, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid?

Seems to me Obama should have a doubt, much more of a doubt than Bush should have. And if he says he has no doubt, he's lying.

 

[zappasguitar]

Obama has no doubt that Assad used chemical weapons... yet there are two nations (one superpower) in the region asserting otherwise, that it was the rebels who used the chemical weapons.

Obama wants to bomb. He has no doubt.

How many nations stepped forward and contradicted the intelligence of the USA, the UK, Germany, Russia, Italy, and France in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion?

Who stepped forward to contradict both Clintons, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid?

Seems to me Obama should have a doubt, much more of a doubt than Bush should have. And if he says he has no doubt, he's lying.

Note how quickly someone who's lying tries to change the subject once he realizes he's been cornered?

 

[Taft2016]

Note how quickly someone who's lying tries to change the subject once he realizes he's been cornered?

Exactly. That's why we're talking about Iraq and Syria.... instead of Reagan selling chemical weapons to Saddam.

But since you weaseled out of the original subject.... how about rebutting what I said?

 

[Taft2016]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...emical-weapons-used-in-syria-as-intelligence/

Facing rising skepticism in Congress and abroad, the president and top Cabinet officials tried to make a robust case for intervention on Friday -- releasing an intelligence report showing "high confidence" the Assad regime carried out the strike and arguing that responding would be in the U.S. interest.

Hmmm, here we see the president willing to drop bombs on a standard of "high confidence." IOW, "I could be wrong, but what the fuck? Kill 'em!"

Kerry was the most impassioned as he made the case for an unspecified intervention, saying there's "no doubt" the Assad regime was behind this "crime against humanity."

Ahhh, there's that "no doubt" thing again.

Even though this time there are nations contradicting the "no doubt" assertion... contradictions that did not exist in 2003.

In 2003 the world's major intelligence agencies concurred with the intelligence of the Bush Administration. And a coalition joined us in the attack.

Not seeing that this time around though, are we?

There's plenty of doubt this half-cocked president is ignoring, which libtards are in turn ignoring because any political points the president has to spend overseas means fewer political points he has available at home to give them free shit.

 

[maineman]

Obama has no doubt that Assad used chemical weapons... yet there are two nations (one superpower) in the region asserting otherwise, that it was the rebels who used the chemical weapons.

Obama wants to bomb. He has no doubt.

How many nations stepped forward and contradicted the intelligence of the USA, the UK, Germany, Russia, Italy, and France in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion?

Who stepped forward to contradict both Clintons, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid?

Seems to me Obama should have a doubt, much more of a doubt than Bush should have. And if he says he has no doubt, he's lying.

You are wrong. English really is your second language, isn't it?

If Obama says that HE has no doubt. that is an opinion and cannot be a lie. If he says that THERE IS NO DOUBT, that is a statement of fact, and if there are, in fact, degrees of doubt, then that would be a lie.

Similarly, If I were to say that "I have no doubt that the Red Sox will win the world series this year"...that is my opinion, and cannot be a lie, per se. If I were to say, "THERE IS NO DOUBT that the Red Sox will win the world series this year", that would be a lie, because I know of Dodgers fans and Tampa fans who do indeed doubt that statement. I KNOW there is doubt yet I state that there IS NO DOUBT. That's a lie.

It really isn't all that difficult unless you are being willfully ignorant, which apparently, you are.

 

[NOVA]

No one ever did. We DID say he no longer had WMDs when Bush Jr invaded. But that statement does not deny that he had used them in the past

Who is we ?,,,,certainly enough Democrats voted for the War Resolution to get it passed....didn't you tell them he no longer had WMDS....the infamous quotes prove
that a few of the more prominent Dems didn't get the word. They KNEW otherwise.