Unintentional
Active Member
Frauds and lies
The recent "Bush" memo showing Bush ignored a direct order with proportional typing (in 1972) in a style no one in the military would ever write and in a way no one who knew the alleged author would write is just a recent example of why I am hard to be persuaded by anti-war arguments.
www.rotten.com is another. Many, if not most, of those WMD quotes that have been bandied about, when sought out, were fabricated.
fahrenheit 9-11 is another. If you believe f9-11, then you believe a plan was made to invade Afganistan and Iraq for oil. So the plan had to include Bush winning in 2001. Say that together: "When Clinton was president a plan was put into place for W to be the next president so the WTC could be attacked and then we could invade Afganistan and Iraq for oil." Do you realize how nutty that sounds?
There have been outright lies since day one and it just makes me wonder, if your argument is correct why do you need to embellish it with lies? There have been numerous lies on the left but none on the right. The left says he lied about WMDs. Did he? I have yet to see where. I have heard the left's mantra over and over again, but no evidence that Bush said Sadam had WMDs and we would find them when we went in. I have heard him say, Sadams wants them, has used them, and it would be very bad if we waited until he had them, but only the left agreed with the invasion basing their decision on WMDs. Now that there are no WMDs to be find, they say they were lied to. It was the left that fabricated this reason to justify their own support. It was also known that if we invaded Iraq, WMDs would be very hard to find if they could be found at all. Was the left feigning support in anticipation of their being no WMDs to be found so they could then use it as a political weapon against Bush? Of all conspiracy theories, THAT makes as much sense if not more of all the wacko-Michael Moore-type conspiracies I have heard from the left.
Another recent one is supposedly the people at a Bush rally booed when Bush offered prayers for Clinton's surgury. Another lie.
These lies are also being reported by major media outlets and not just internet whack jobs.
If you want Bush out, fine, tell me why without lieing. If you are against war, fine, tell me why without lieing. If you think the war against Iraq was wrong, fine, tell me why without lieing. Everytime the left lies and then is found out, it makes their next argument all the more weaker and immediately suspect. If your argument is valid, you may win the argument. If you lie, you take down other valid arguments by association.
The recent "Bush" memo showing Bush ignored a direct order with proportional typing (in 1972) in a style no one in the military would ever write and in a way no one who knew the alleged author would write is just a recent example of why I am hard to be persuaded by anti-war arguments.
www.rotten.com is another. Many, if not most, of those WMD quotes that have been bandied about, when sought out, were fabricated.
fahrenheit 9-11 is another. If you believe f9-11, then you believe a plan was made to invade Afganistan and Iraq for oil. So the plan had to include Bush winning in 2001. Say that together: "When Clinton was president a plan was put into place for W to be the next president so the WTC could be attacked and then we could invade Afganistan and Iraq for oil." Do you realize how nutty that sounds?
There have been outright lies since day one and it just makes me wonder, if your argument is correct why do you need to embellish it with lies? There have been numerous lies on the left but none on the right. The left says he lied about WMDs. Did he? I have yet to see where. I have heard the left's mantra over and over again, but no evidence that Bush said Sadam had WMDs and we would find them when we went in. I have heard him say, Sadams wants them, has used them, and it would be very bad if we waited until he had them, but only the left agreed with the invasion basing their decision on WMDs. Now that there are no WMDs to be find, they say they were lied to. It was the left that fabricated this reason to justify their own support. It was also known that if we invaded Iraq, WMDs would be very hard to find if they could be found at all. Was the left feigning support in anticipation of their being no WMDs to be found so they could then use it as a political weapon against Bush? Of all conspiracy theories, THAT makes as much sense if not more of all the wacko-Michael Moore-type conspiracies I have heard from the left.
Another recent one is supposedly the people at a Bush rally booed when Bush offered prayers for Clinton's surgury. Another lie.
These lies are also being reported by major media outlets and not just internet whack jobs.
If you want Bush out, fine, tell me why without lieing. If you are against war, fine, tell me why without lieing. If you think the war against Iraq was wrong, fine, tell me why without lieing. Everytime the left lies and then is found out, it makes their next argument all the more weaker and immediately suspect. If your argument is valid, you may win the argument. If you lie, you take down other valid arguments by association.
) to remind you that the Spanish didn't vote Aznar out of office because of the attack, but because he repeatedly LIED to them trying to blame the ETA (spanish terrorists) instead of Al Qaida.