Rockefeller (Democrat) on Bush's lie

[Truth-Bringer]

Silly me, I would have thought that the entire NIE would have been far more useful to you since the one page summary is just that, a summary.

We don't know that. We don't know if there were additional recommendations, additional warnings, etc. We just don't know, if it wasn't presented. If it was just a simple summary, then what are they afraid of? The fact that they won't present it just might indicate it did contain some type of additional information.

Well what do you know, you STILL can't formulate a cogent argument without resorting to someone elses work.

What we know is, you can't address those specifics, and that's why you attack me rather than the details.

It's really too bad that all of the really big words confuse you so much. The point that TR was getting to is something that's completely over your head, that being that YOU are the ones LYING about President Bush.

No, many people are telling the truth about your master Bush. The problem is, you can't handle the truth.

chronicle EXACTLY what "lies" President Bush is alleged to have told, with credible substantiation (as opposed to these idiotic drive-by Op Eds you keep dredging up),

They are substantiated.

Maybury is an idiot,

Again, another Ad Hominem. Maybury's predictions have all been been far more accurate than idiot Cheney:

"Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to persuade Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader, who was skeptical about a war on Iraq, in a private meeting in September 2002: 'We have great information. They’re going to welcome us. It’ll be like the American Army going through the streets of Paris. They’re sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we’ll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two.'"

 

[Federal Farmer]

We don't know that. We don't know if there were additional recommendations, additional warnings, etc. We just don't know, if it wasn't presented. If it was just a simple summary, then what are they afraid of? The fact that they won't present it just might indicate it did contain some type of additional information.

What do you mean "we" don't know that? Are you taking french lessons, or do you have a frog in your pocket? Have you read the entire report I found for you since you're too lazy to do even basic research? A summary is just that, a summary, it summarizes the main report. If anything else were attached that wasn't in the original report, it wouldn't very well be a summary now would it? Also, what's the panic about a one page summary when they've released the ENTIRE NIE ESTIMATE? Not only that, but the other link I provided to you, the Intelligence Committee report, details the summary you're looking for, but alas, you haven't read that either. You've fallen victim to the biggest logical fallicy there is. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense just like evidence of absense in not absense of evidence.

What we know is, you can't address those specifics, and that's why you attack me rather than the details.

You've got the temerity to level that accusation after all of the ducking, weaving, and dodging you've done? That's laughable!

No, many people are telling the truth about your master Bush. The problem is, you can't handle the truth.

WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU? Jack Nicholson? "you can't handle the truth"! ROTFLMFAO!!!

They are substantiated.

No their not! THEY'RE LYING! THEY DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE! THEY DON'T "GET IT", THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION, etc., etc., etc., what-ever.

Again, another Ad Hominem. Maybury's predictions have all been been far more accurate than idiot Cheney:

What "predictions"? It's awfully hard to make "predictions" after the fact! Maybury wrote his article in 2004 (that's AFTER the invasion) doing his version of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, and detailing what he 'thinks' (not that there's any evidence to support any assertion that he CAN think) should have been done. That's past tense you silly little girl, not a prediction.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

A summary is just that, a summary, it summarizes the main report. If anything else were attached that wasn't in the original report, it wouldn't very well be a summary now would it?

Well summaries sometimes do actually have minor additions. Again, the point is, we can't know unless we can look at it.

You've got the temerity to level that accusation after all of the ducking, weaving, and dodging you've done? That's laughable!

Once again you seek to direct attention away from your inability to address specifics.

WHO THE F*CK ARE YOU? Jack Nicholson? "you can't handle the truth"! ROTFLMFAO!!!

Once again, you will not address specifics.

No their not! THEY'RE LYING!

THEN PROVE IT!!!!!!!!! Your opinion is irrelevant. You seem to think your opinion actually proves something. This is hilarious.

What "predictions"? It's awfully hard to make "predictions" after the fact!

You obviously know very little about Richard Maybury. Once again, you make conclusions on things without even reading - and then hypocritically accuse others of the same behavior.

For one thing, he has predicted that the war would last at least a decade, and oil and gold prices would go through the roof - unlike the "brilliant" Cheney who predicted they'd have a government up and running in a month or two. ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst*suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran-against-egypt.htm