Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Apr 29, 2014.
If you have no answers, you just blame someone else.
Nailed him spot on. Yet he claims a holier than thou stance whenever he is called on about his defense of Obama and Bush blaming. Denial....due to hollow answers at its shining best. Ever notice he NEVER has a supporting response...NEVER. Just his tired and worn one-liners.
Same old same old same. Blame Bush in order to justify anything Obama does---then when his post is called on, he spouts his garbage about the right defended Bush at every step(which TH historical files IF they still have them, would dispute his claims clearly)...then when called on again about his posts, he does the deflect maneuver that the right is re-writing history. Never anything to support or substantiate the posts or statements.
It's all good though....the entertainment value provided is priceless. We all need something to laugh at.
conflicting testimony? this is where the lies on top of lies starts to cause issues
A Fox News interview isn't "testimony."
That said, they've got that monumental contradiction between a TV interview where someone says in response to "Did you add this phrase two years ago?" "I believe so, maybe, I don't really remember that was two years ago." and congressional testimony from someone else backed up by a written record saying that the answer is "no, I did."
I'm not sure that someone from the White House in an unsworn statement apparently incorrectly admitting to making a change really goes towards what you're looking for here.
They can't comprehend the difference.
They really can't.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
While true it is not testimony per say but if you watched the interview he was certainly testifying- do not know about you but if I was involved in something of this magnitude I am pretty sure I would have a pretty good memory of the events- the fact that he says he doesn't is pretty suspect
What he said he didn't remember was whether he changed one word in an emailed set of talking points.
When his entire job responsibility is largely to be one of a number of people responsible for editing talking points (that's what a communications director does), I could see how whether you were the person who changed one specific word two years ago would be pretty hard to remember. In fact, unless you had a redline to look at I would find it hard to believe someone who said they did remember whether they were the person who changed one word in a document two years ago.
It's amazing how now lies matter.......Bush lied and he lied a lot:
President Bush's Lies: A report released by The Center for Public Integrity has put out a list of 935 false statements put forth by the Bush administration concerning the war in Iraq.
According to the report the following four statements were among the complete falsities concerning the war in Iraq. These statements all had something to do with the motives for going in to war, including Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and their connection to Al Qaeda. The four statements are:
August 26, 2002:
Dick Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
If there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq the Bush administration would have been the first group of people to bring us evidence of them. As it is it has been over 5 years since this statement was made and there has been no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Iraq is not that big of a country; if this was not a lie than we would know it by now.
Even former CIA director George Tenet, director at this time, said that Cheney's assertions that there were definitely weapons went beyond their own intelligence at the time. Another CIA official said, Where is he getting this stuff from?" according to journalist Ron Suskind.
Cheney's statements on WMDs in Iraq was an outright lie.
Late September, 2002:
President Bush talked about the reasons for going to war in Iraq on his weekly radio address. He said, "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."
As stated above, if this were true than we would have more clear evidence than what we have now. All we have is the reasons given to go to war before we were engaged in a full-blown war effort, but no proof that they were true. Over 5 years and no evidence, it looks like another lie.
Donald Rumsfeld was asked whether Iraq had a relationship with Al Qaeda and he replied with one, unmistakable answer, "Sure."
An analysis of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was done the same month by the Defense Intelligency Agency and they found no "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda."
To add to this an earlier DIA assessment between Iraq and Al Qaeda came to the same conclusion.
This may not be an outright lie as there is no proof that Iraq an Al Qaeda had a relationship, but the fact that there was no evidence made his response of, "Sure," way, way to damning for the information at hand. Not a full lie, but not the truth by any means.
May 29, 2003
President Bush did an interview on Polish TV in which he said that, ""We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."
The problem with this is that there were never and biological laboratories or weapons of mass destruction found. According to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial, a team of civilian experts was sent to Iraq to check on possible chemical weapons facilities and they concluded that the labs found were not for chemical weapons. The report indicated that the labs were probably to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
If anyone did find proof of WMDs and chemical weapons facilities than where is the proof? President Bush would love nothing more than to show proof, but he doesn't have it, so he had to lie about it.
even with the magnitude of lying done by the bush admin, and let's face it, policy during those eight years was going to have a direct effect on policies afterwards,* they're STILL gonna turn a deaf ear towards all of it, and stammer, using a keyboard, 'b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bush' as if he didn't exist. or say, as an afterthought, 'hey we didn't like him either'. i was posting on here in '07, and most of these guys were bush apologists. and not embarrassed to be so, in the least bit, either.
like i said in another thread, IF by some chance they win back the whitehouse in '16, i'm going to use the 'b-b-b-b-b-obama' thing every opportunity i get.
watch how all of a sudden, this 'derangement syndrome' thing 'doesn't apply'.....
*two wars, one of which was an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. very costly in lives, and money. trying to ignore that, or be dismissive....totally negates their nitpicking on crap like 'bbbbbbbb benghazi'
nana while those statements turned out to be wrong it does not make them lies
So you finally admit it., No fact will change your opinion.
4 people died and the white house lied-to save a too close for comfort election for Barry the liar.
Yes. I would also like to know where Barry was during this mess. He seems to have been AWOL.
well, he wasn't reading 'my pet goat' to kindergartners.
would certainly have been more honorable than his going to bed and according to one of his guys NEVER having even made an appearance in the situation room-oh I forgot he had a campaign fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas
That would insinuate that Obama was able to read in the FIRST place... History shows that reading isn't his finest quality.
I wonder how many people who keep screaming about Benghazi really think they've got some kind of major scandal on their hands or how many are just hoping they can make this stick when so many other absurdities have failed:
"He's going to let the UN take our guns!" "He's going to form a civilian army of brown shirts!" "He's going to give free health care to illegal immigrants!" "He was born in Kenya!" "He's the first president in 100 years to skip the Army-Navy game."And on and on ...
hope springs eternal
in other words, it's not really about the issues, because you guys simply make up most of them. it's simply about the fact that you lost an election.
hardly- it is about prezBHO's push to move us well to the left- it is about his lies and his deceit and his illegal changes to laws he does not have the power to do and how he has pledged to do more