Bush Lied!

jiffy · 06-14-2008, 02:50 PM

Has anyone read this report yet? If you have or haven't what's your feedback?

washingtonpost.com

Gaolee · 06-14-2008, 10:39 PM

dumb'ya had no more or less information than Clinton had. dumb'ya chose to invade Iraq. Clinton didn't. You see the aftermath. Who picked the right course? Clinton fired missiles at Osama bin Laden. dumb'ya is on record saying he doesn't matter. The complexity of the situation calls for judgment dumb'ya didn't possess. I hope the next president doesn't have the same cocksure and utterly insular way of looking at the world. dumb'ya is incapable of understanding ambiguity, and incapable of making a reasoned choice in any matter.

The editorial only goes to show the complexity of the situation and brushes over the way the administration used ambiguous estimates to bang the drums of war with a level of certainty that didn't exists.

So, in the pursuit of a war dumb'ya surely wanted to start, he chose to misrepresent ambiguous information as certainty. That is a lie. Case closed.

baldheadeddork · 06-15-2008, 12:31 AM

This is a minor distinction to someone who doesn't follow this stuff closely, but this isn't a report. It's an editorial, and this paper's editorial page has a policy that its editorials are not subject to factual review.

Hiatt has cherry picked this report for some conclusions that make him look like less of a moron for swallowing all of Bush's bullshit six years ago. This has become an almost-regular feature on the WaPo op-ed pages in the last four years. They haven't found a way to clean up the smell yet.

flylooper · 06-15-2008, 11:42 AM

Absolutely. An amazing turn for a paper which got it right during Watergate. Where's Ben Bradlee when we need him?

shah269 · 06-15-2008, 10:01 PM

Back to square one!
We are not in Iraq about WMD's or Alqueda or anything tangible that you and I can relate to.
We are in Iraq for one reason and one reason only. We are in Iraq because our boy king jesus h bush wished to prove to his father that he the boy king is/was as much of a man as the old man via doing what the old man could not. Kill Saddam.
In fact if you sit back and objectively look at our boy kings actions since the day he became president and look into his relationship with his father it's one act of vanity over another all with the intent of proving ones manhood.
Note,
# of vacation days, our boy king had more than his father

Take brakes, the boy king gave more to the upper 1% than his father ever did.
Remember that line "Read my lips no more new taxes".......ok

Iraq, hay he did what his father could not.....or maybe knew better than to?

Landing the jet on the air craft carrier, old man bush was a Navy Aviator our boy king was a flunky Air Force National guard jockey. Navy aviators look down their noses at the USAF guys. Something about their lack of skill.

So our boy king didn't lie, he knew what he was doing. He was trying to prove to his father that he too was a man.

SXSMITH · 06-15-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shah269

We are in Iraq for one reason and one reason only. We are in Iraq because our boy king jesus h bush wished to prove to his father that he the boy king is/was as much of a man as the old man via doing what the old man could not. Kill Saddam.

Actually, when Obama is prez'nit, we'll still be in Iraq. And even after Obama's gone.

Don't you get it?

Gaolee · 06-16-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Actually, when Obama is prez'nit, we'll still be in Iraq. And even after Obama's gone.

Don't you get it?

Yep, some of us get it. dumb'ya done breached our sothern borders but good, and we won't be able to sit down without pain for about a decade.

shah269 · 06-16-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Actually, when Obama is prez'nit, we'll still be in Iraq. And even after Obama's gone.

Don't you get it?

Smith buddy when you use a q tip, when you feel pressure stop!
Yes if and when Obama is president we will still be in Iraq. Because your boy king jesus h bush put us there to prove to his father that he was as manly as the old man.

Man I'm telling you, go back to gop training camp. You spin is weak!

jim schmidt · 06-16-2008, 09:54 AM

Editorials are opinions. This opinion follows the opinion that the Washington Post editorial page has had for six years. As far as apologists for Bush's Folly, in Washington, only the Washington Times leads the editorial board of the WP.

It's bad form, BTW, to fail to label an Editorial for what it is.

jiffy · 06-16-2008, 09:58 PM

Jim I'm not sure what you mean. It says editorial page editor under the authors name. I find that fairly straight forward.

This editorial is no different than any other, it is an opinion. Just like yours.

Gaolee · 06-16-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiffy

Has anyone read this report yet? If you have or haven't what's your feedback?

You call it a report. Apparently you don't know the difference between a report and an opinion. You must be a Republican.

jiffy · 06-16-2008, 11:12 PM

No, I'm just slow

flylooper · 06-17-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiffy

No, I'm just slow

Aren't they one in the same?

636blurr · 06-17-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaolee

dumb'ya had no more or less information than Clinton had. dumb'ya chose to invade Iraq. Clinton didn't. You see the aftermath. Who picked the right course? Clinton fired missiles at Osama bin Laden. dumb'ya is on record saying he doesn't matter. The complexity of the situation calls for judgment dumb'ya didn't possess. I hope the next president doesn't have the same cocksure and utterly insular way of looking at the world. dumb'ya is incapable of understanding ambiguity, and incapable of making a reasoned choice in any matter.

The editorial only goes to show the complexity of the situation and brushes over the way the administration used ambiguous estimates to bang the drums of war with a level of certainty that didn't exists.

So, in the pursuit of a war dumb'ya surely wanted to start, he chose to misrepresent ambiguous information as certainty. That is a lie. Case closed.

Something about Purgery and a president, damn, its on the tip of my tounge, what was his name again? Can ya help me out here?

636blurr · 06-17-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

Actually, when Obama is prez'nit, we'll still be in Iraq. And even after Obama's gone.

Don't you get it?

Not only will we be in IRAQ we will be in Pakistan as well. AHHHHHH the smell of burnt pakistani children, SCREAMING for there moms I can hear it now. "why mommy? Why did Obama want us dead"? mommy.......................