Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

[NOVA]

Maineman's naiveté...
And when the president of the united states speaks, he speaks for his administration... he is the voice of our government.

Thats so cute and poetic, I hate to shoot it down.
Yeah, he speaks for his administration, only because he commands their personal allegiance.
If they wander, they simply won't be part of his
administration....and IF our government, or at
least a hefty majority of it agreed, he would be said to be the voice of it....but that isn't the case is it. A president's promise's, compared to his actions, make it clear the president speaks for himself and/or his party the great majority of the time. That is reality, no matter who is president.

 

[NOVA]

Maineman's one pony horse show continues....
" He said that doubt did not exist, even though it was sitting there on his desk in the NIE folder. "

His narrow-minded perspective has him convinced that presidents have one, and only one
source of information to make judgements on....
That they don't confer with allies and their judgements using other sources of information.
Then he goes on to even ridicule our own intelligence, implying the president shouldn't have considered it....

 

[NOVA]

Maine strikes again....
"They scared us with stories of mushroom clouds over American cities. They led with fear."

Snopes lists 18 quotes from Democrats and the article quotes some the context they were made in.

ALL 18 mention weapons of mass destruction
the word 'nuclear' appears 8 times.

In the entire snopes article covering these quotes by Democrats...,

Nuclear appears 22 times
Weapons of mass destruction appears 41 times
Chemical weapons appears 25 times
Biological weapons appears 23 times

Yet, Republicans are pointed to as 'scaring' the people....because they used the phrase 'mushroom clouds'
Reality according to mushbrainman....

How pathetic...

 

[Truth Detector]

I've never seen a talking point in my life.

That's a fascinating claim because you have used just about every talking point from the left in this thread regardless of the facts and the truth. Maybe this is because you are a liar?

I was against the Iraq War from the day that Bush even mentioned the word "Iraq." I was against it when the resolution was voted on, and against every Democrat who voted for it. I was against it before invasion, and after invasion. And I was called a traitor & terrorist sympathizer for my position.

I guess you missed the part that no one cares what you were for or against. This isn't about YOU or Mainetard. DUH!

But, it turns out that I was right, and you & yours were wrong.

No you aren't right. You haven't been right once in your life as far as I can tell. There is nothing "right" about leaving a despot in place and not enforcing the resolutions he agreed to when he was ejected from Kuwait; he should have been removed during the first Gulf War when he illegally invaded a sovereign nation and member of the UN.

Do you know how I know I was right? Because you & yours have gone from arguing that Dems were on the "wrong side of history" to tripping over yourselves trying to give Dems "credit" and distancing Bush as much as you can from accountability.

No that is not what we are doing you moron; we are proving that your buddy Mainetards assertions that Bush lied about WMDs cannot be made unless you want to PAINT all those Democrat leaders and 36 other nations leaders as liars.

Or you can be a REAL moron can claim that Bush, the man Liberals label as a dunce, was soooooo smart that he fooled EVERYONE.

Both arguments are too stupid for prime time and can only be made by leftist morons like you.

But of course I don't expect an idiot like you to comprehend anything beyond your inept stupid leftist talking points.

I wish it felt better being right; this is one case where it doesn't.

LMAO. Dunce.

 

[NOVA]

Because you & yours have gone from arguing that Dems were on the "wrong side of history" to tripping over yourselves trying to give Dems "credit" and distancing Bush as much as you can from accountability.

At the end of the day,

Credit or blame are subjective values and personal opinion
and
No War Resolution, no war
No Congressioal approval, no war
No Dems voting 'yes', no war

Thats just the undeniable truth

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

At the end of the day,

Credit or blame are subjective values and personal opinion
and
No War Resolution, no war
No Congressioal approval, no war
No Dems voting 'yes', no war

Thats just the undeniable truth

LOL

That didn't take long.

In the post just above that, Truthie was saying that this is exactly what righties have NOT been doing.

See there, Truthie? It only took a few minutes.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bullshit. Saddam was doing three things in 2003 better than we could do them and it would have been well worth our while to let him continue to do those things and free our resources for defeating Islamic extremist terrorism.
1. He kept sunnis and shi'ites from slaughtering one another.
2. He kept Al Qaeda from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting goldmine
3. He kept the Iranians and their aspirations of regional hegemony in check.

You left out how he also was a success at rape, torture, making political opponents disappearing, etc.

 

[maineman]

so.... you are saying it was the TRUTH that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague mere months before 9/11? yes or no?

 

[maineman]

His narrow-minded perspective has him convinced that presidents have one, and only one
source of information to make judgements on....
That they don't confer with allies and their judgements using other sources of information.
Then he goes on to even ridicule our own intelligence, implying the president shouldn't have considered it....

if one source has doubts, and one source does not, and another sources has some, but not quite as many as the first, and yet another source has whole bunches of doubts, and another source has a few.... that may very well allow someone to say that "I HAVE NO DOUBT", but it does NOT allow a truthful person to say,"THERE IS NO DOUBT".

But, Bush wasn't being truthful so that makes sense.

 

[NOVA]

LOL

That didn't take long.

In the post just above that, Truthie was saying that this is exactly what righties have NOT been doing.

See there, Truthie? It only took a few minutes.

I didn't say anyone was doing anything.....you don't understand the written word...?

Credit or blame are subjective values and personal opinion.....do you disagree with that.....? or the part about the war resolution ?.....

If I'm factually wrong, I'll certainly admit it....

 

[Truth Detector]

so.... you are saying it was the TRUTH that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague mere months before 9/11? yes or no?

Is that what he said shit-for-brains? And who is "you" when you are too fucking stupid and dishonest to reply with quote you fucking dunce.

Damn you are one dumb dishonest hyper partisan idiot you know that?

 

[Truth Detector]

if one source has doubts, and one source does not, and another sources has some, but not quite as many as the first, and yet another source has whole bunches of doubts, and another source has a few.... that may very well allow someone to say that "I HAVE NO DOUBT", but it does NOT allow a truthful person to say,"THERE IS NO DOUBT".

But, Bush wasn't being truthful so that makes sense.

Dear Commander shit-for-brains; there is no such thing as perfect intelligence. For someone who CLAIMS they served; you're either very naive, or very dishonest or never actually served. I am thinking it is all three.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I didn't say anyone was doing anything.....you don't understand the written word...?

Credit or blame are subjective values and personal opinion.....do you disagree with that.....? or the part about the war resolution ?.....

If I'm factually wrong, I'll certainly admit it....

I was actually going to qualify it for Truthie, since you don't represent most righties.

You're definitely the most shameless Bush apologist that I've ever seen - and I watch Fox, so that's saying something.

 

[NOVA]

if one source has doubts, and one source does not, and another sources has some, but not quite as many as the first, and yet another source has whole bunches of doubts, and another source has a few.... that may very well allow someone to say that "I HAVE NO DOUBT", but it does NOT allow a truthful person to say,"THERE IS NO DOUBT".

But, Bush wasn't being truthful so that makes sense.

if one source has doubts, and one source does not, and another sources has some, but not quite as many as the first, you read 'em all and come to YOUR OWN CONCLUSION as
each and every one of does in making any decision.....you weigh one against another and decide what you believe....and when commenting on that decision, you say what
YOU'VE concluded in your own mind, in totality....its understood by everyone but you that when speaking, its you speaking, only a moron would demand you specify you're speaking.
Its obvious who is speaking....its also obvious you're speaking your own mind, unless you make it clear you're talking about someone else's opinion....
Its sad you've got a one track mind that can't seem to handle normal conversation and need to have every little nuance put into phrases you think appropriate...
After contemplating the pros and cons its reasonable to come to the conclusion that "there is no doubt" about an issue no matter what opinions you've heard from others
....and obvious it is your conclusion and that fact doesn't have to explained as if talking to a child....

Lets keep it simple

Your friend: "I'm gonna hit it 300 yards this time..."

You: "no way"
Player 3: "no way"
Player 4: "no way"

Your friend: "There is no doubt about it, I'm gonna do it" ?

Obviously, your friend is now a liar in your eyes, right ? You gotta start counting his strokes, huh ?
If he said, "I think there is no doubt about it".....does that change anything?
If he said, "In my mind there is no doubt about it"....does that ?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

if one source has doubts, and one source does not, and another sources has some, but not quite as many as the first, you read 'em all and come to YOUR OWN CONCLUSION as
each and every one of does in making any decision.....you weigh one against another and decide what you believe....and when commenting on that decision, you say what
YOU'VE concluded in your own mind, in totality....its understood by everyone but you that when speaking, its you speaking, only a moron would demand you specify you're speaking.
Its obvious who is speaking....its also obvious you're speaking your own mind, unless you make it clear you're talking about someone else's opinion....
Its sad you've got a one track mind that can't seem to handle normal conversation and need to have every little nuance put into phrases you think appropriate...
After contemplating the pros and cons its reasonable to come to the conclusion that "there is no doubt" about an issue no matter what opinions you've heard from others
....and obvious it is your conclusion and that fact doesn't have to explained as if talking to a child....

Lets keep it simple

Your friend: "I'm gonna hit it 300 yards this time..."

You: "no way"
Player 3: "no way"
Player 4: "no way"

Your friend: "There is no doubt about it, I'm gonna do it" ?

Obviously, your friend is now a liar in your eyes, right ? You gotta start counting his strokes, huh ?
If he said, "I think there is no doubt about it".....does that change anything?
If he said, "In my mind there is not doubt about it"....does that ?

Hitting 300 yards is easy.
Controlling which way it goes... that is another story.

 

[NOVA]

I was actually going to qualify it for Truthie, since you don't represent most righties.

You're definitely the most shameless Bush apologist that I've ever seen - and I watch Fox, so that's saying something.

Does that mean I AM NOT FACTUALLY WRONG ?

 

[NOVA]

Hitting 300 yards is easy.
Controlling which way it goes... that is another story.

I was trying to dumb it down for him but its useless if one doesn't use the exact phrasology he wants....he'll continue to parse and redefine until hell freezes over..
I'm moving on.

But you'll notice how after reading my post he will ask "so.... you are saying it was the TRUTH that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague mere months before 9/11? yes or no?"

It enough to make me puke....his reading comprehension is worthless...

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Bravo dumbing down his posts? Huh. That must be an interesting process.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I was trying to dumb it down for him but its useless if one doesn't use the exact phrasology he wants....he'll continue to parse and redefine until hell freezes over..
I'm moving on.

But you'll notice how after reading my post he will ask "so.... you are saying it was the TRUTH that Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague mere months before 9/11? yes or no?"

It enough to make me puke....his reading comprehension is worthless...

And yet; President Obama using the word "PERIOD", means something different.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

sucks to be the fools that flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter invading a country to disarm them when they didn't have any arms to begin with, pimp.

and it must really suck to be YOU- still sucking on Bush's rectum this many years after the fact....

they didn't have them to begin with, Cunt?......how were they counted and inventoried in 1993 if they weren't there at the time?......