posted April 27, 2011 04:02 PM            

2: to create a false or misleading impression

posted April 28, 2011 01:01 AM            

There's nothing remotely distorted about my thinking on the subject. Everyone knows that people have been said to have been lying when they weren't intentionally doing so. If a "lie" is an untruth (which it is), then telling an untruth is clearly telling a "lie.". People of the South know that as well as anyone.

posted April 28, 2011 09:00 AM            

Now, you're repeating the lies of the lunatic left...that Bush lied and tried to tie Saddam to bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack.

While there were ties...for instance...the training camp commander of Salmon Pak said...as soon as I saw the reports of how the aircraft were taken over, I knew they were trained HERE. Here was a training facility with a Boeing 737 sitting on the ground about 30 miles from Baghdad used to train terrorists.

There, that's enough to establish a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There were many, many, many more ties.

But acoustic, Bush never claimed Saddam played any operational role in the al-Qaeda attacks on 9/11.

You should get your facts straight and stop repeating the lies of lunatics...or someone might say...That's a Lie and you're a liar. And, of course, using your own unreasonable, illogical, irrational definition of Lie, it would be justified.

This is what Bush actually did say...oh, and it's reported by CNN so I know you'll take it as gospel truth.

President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

posted April 28, 2011 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Now, you're repeating the lies of the lunatic left...that Bush lied and tried to tie Saddam to bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack.

---

No, I'm not. Not only is it not a lie of some "lunatic left," but I'm not repeating anyone.

quote:

---

While there were ties...for instance...the training camp commander of Salmon Pak said...as soon as I saw the reports of how the aircraft were taken over, I knew they were trained HERE. Here was a training facility with a Boeing 737 sitting on the ground about 30 miles from Baghdad used to train terrorists.

There, that's enough to establish a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There were many, many, many more ties.

---

There were not. We established that a LONG time ago. Saddam was an adamant secularist who didn't trust the religious fervor of Islamic extremists. What you've claimed is absolutely false, AND it was known by the intelligence community prior to Bush ever trying to make that tie.

quote:

---

But acoustic, Bush never claimed Saddam played any operational role in the al-Qaeda attacks on 9/11.

---

I didn't say that Bush did.

quote:

---

This is what Bush actually did say...oh, and it's reported by CNN so I know you'll take it as gospel truth.

President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

---

President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-15/world/bush.alqaeda_1_iraq-an d-al-qaeda-zarqawi-terrorist-network?_s=PM:WORLD

posted April 28, 2011 12:01 PM            

Your arguments are kaput acoustic.

Bush lied is kaput
Your definition of Lie is kaput.

Btw, Bush never said Saddam Hussein "was in league with al-Qaeda". That's the writer's interpretation of what Bush said.

This is what Bush did say:
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

Notice that acoustic. Bush says there was a CONNECTION...not an operational role between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

And acoustic, that's no Lie, nor is it a mistake of fact. It's the truth.

posted April 28, 2011 12:12 PM            

As the loser of this argument, you can't justify calling the winner's argument "kaput". Bush lied. My definition is correct.

quote:

---

Btw, Bush never said Saddam Hussein "was in league with al-Qaeda". That's the writer's interpretation of what Bush said.

This is what Bush did say:
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."

---

Trying to use my article against me now? You didn't even link to the article you posted from CNN.

posted April 28, 2011 12:17 PM            

The Times said it had no comment on Cheney's charges.

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Beyond the Sept. 11 attacks, administration officials have also suggested that there had been cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda that went beyond contacts. Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda." Just this Monday, Cheney said Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

In January, Cheney said the "best source" of information on the subject was an article in the Weekly Standard, which reported: "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda -- perhaps even for Mohamed Atta -- according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum."

Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

posted April 28, 2011 12:31 PM            

Now, you're down to arguing my argument. There were ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda...just not operational ties in the 9/11 attacks.

Which of course, is exactly what George W Bush said...over and over and over and over and over!

"no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda....in the 9/11 attacks.

Which is exactly what George W Bush said over and over and over and over!

Bush didn't lie and your definition of Lie from an alternate universe holds no water in this universe.

Now acoustic, would you like to discuss the 16 words in the Bush State of the Union speech? All the low grade morons tried to call that a Lie too.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

posted April 28, 2011 12:39 PM            

quote:

---

Now, you're down to arguing my argument. There were ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda...just not operational ties in the 9/11 attacks.

Which of course, is exactly what George W Bush said...over and over and over and over and over!

---

Nope. Did you fail to read?

Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Bush last year called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda."

You've very clearly lost on this one several times over as we've had this conversation before.

quote:

---

"no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda....in the 9/11 attacks.

---

Nor in general, which is exactly what Cheney had implied several times as that WashPost article pointed out.

posted April 28, 2011 12:40 PM            

A Treason Times lie and Cheney was right to call them on it.

"Bush, in 2003, said "the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

A true statement. No lie there and the war against terrorists continues.

"Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

A true statement and even if it weren't true, the information came from the CIA delivered via George Tenet...so, it still wouldn't be a BUSH Lie.

Is this the best you can do acoustic?

posted April 28, 2011 12:46 PM            

quote:

---

A true statement. No lie there and the war against terrorists continues.

---

The lie is in suggesting Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath. Duh. If Hussein/Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 there would be no reason to say that a victory in a war in Iraq began on September 11, 2001. Remember how the war in Iraq was supposed to be justified by the UN resolution, not by the attack on 9/11?

quote:

---

Is this the best you can do acoustic?

---

I can only remind you that you've already lost a long time ago. You haven't refuted that the intelligence community knew there was no credible working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and you haven't refuted the fact that Bush had knowledge of this even while making statements suggesting the opposite.

Even the fact that Bush held back from trying to directly link Iraq to the attack on 9/11 suggests deception. If you KNOW there's a chance you might be found out if you go too far with statements suggesting a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, you would tip toe right up to that line without crossing it, and that's exactly what happened.

Bush:
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. [URL=http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html]http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html[/ URL]

Anyone would come back from hearing that from the PRESIDENT and report that Bush had linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

President Bush has said the presence of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, before the war was evidence of a link. But the report revealed that US intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush Administration officials were publicly asserting them to justify invasion. http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html

posted April 28, 2011 02:16 PM            

Further, Saddam funded terrorists, gave safe haven to terrorists, had terrorist training camps inside Iraq AND there were al-Qaeda members inside Iraq...before the allied invasion of Iraq.

Oh, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi WAS in Iraq before the Iraq invasion and so were other al-Qaeda fighters. That's the reason one of the very first targets to be hit was in Northern Iraq where they were congregated.

You're so far off the road and into the weeds you'll never find your way back.

The truth is that Bush never assigned any blame to Saddam for the 9/11 attacks...and he said so over and over.