Will he be held accountable?

[Zeb_Carter]

It's been discussed to death. It's still being discussed. I know you won't read this, but;

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/17/can-the-bush-lied-deniers-handle-the-truth/

If Bush used lies to get congressional approval, in essence he committed perjury-- a perjury that has unleashed chaos and death for no reason. He is a war criminal. It's possible that Obama is as well. I'm not that partisan. I'm not that happy with him-- I voted for him because he wasn't going to die in office and leave Sarah Palin to take up the reins.

The problem with any discussion on whether he lied or not is that no one can prove that at the time he told congress that he knew what he was saying was a lie. It may have turned out to be lies afterward, long afterward, but at the time he told them, he may not have been lying.

Now comes Obama...how many times has he lied? Hint: You'll need more fingers and toes than you have. Of course, at the time he told his lies, he may have believed them to be the truth and only afterwards they were determined to be lies. But, I have a feeling he knew he was lying when he said them...that's the Chicago way.

 

[sr71plt]

no one can prove that at the time he told congress that he knew what he was saying was a lie.

Sure "someone" can. When "someone" tells the White House one thing and the White House turns around and tells Congress something other than that to get them to support him, he's lied--and people know he's lied. We know what happened to the WMDs in Iraq--and we knew then what happened to them--and the White House was told what happened to them before it got permission from the Congress to invade in search of what was never found. (which is all the proof you need right there--if, of course, you were motivated by proof)

And although you obviously want to make this a Party thing, it isn't. The Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, did exactly the same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin (and Kennedy did it on Laos and Nixon on Cambodia). They lied, and "someone" knew they lied, because they changed the information given to them before giving it to Congress to gain support for what they wanted to do.

Obama didn't lie on Libya. He just neglected to go through all the hoops--a function, I think, of the inexperience of him and all of his staff.

You, of course, are going to continue to be a dumb ostrich on this, because reality doesn't match your partisan dogma.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Sure "someone" can. When "someone" tells the White House one thing and the White House turns around and tells Congress something other than that to get them to support him, he's lied--and people know he's lied. We know what happened to the WMDs in Iraq--and we knew then what happened to them--and the White House was told what happened to them before it got permission from the Congress to invade in search of what was never found. (which is all the proof you need right there--if, of course, you were motivated by proof)

And although you obviously want to make this a Party thing, it isn't. The Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, did exactly the same thing with the Gulf of Tonkin (and Kennedy did it on Laos and Nixon on Cambodia). They lied, and "someone" knew they lied, because they changed the information given to them before giving it to Congress to gain support for what they wanted to do.

Obama didn't lie on Libya. He just neglected to go through all the hoops--a function, I think, of the inexperience of him and all of his staff.

You, of course, are going to continue to be a dumb ostrich on this, because reality doesn't match your partisan dogma.

And you will remain and overstuffed blow-hard with delusions of ineptitude. A legend in your own mind.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"delusions of ineptitude?" Does that mean he thinks he's inept but really is very effective?

I love it when you get past the point of no return, Zeb. You remind me of a sixteen-year-old girl I used to tutor.

She used to misuse words that way, too. On her it was cute.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, whenever Zeb can't get out of a corner, he reverts solely to personal attack.

Address the issue, Zeb. You are the one who brought it up.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yep, whenever Zeb can't get out of a corner, he reverts solely to personal attack.

Address the issue, Zeb. You are the one who brought it up.

I asked a question which you have failed to answer. I have addressed the issue, you on the other hand have brought nothing but innuendo and hyperbole to the table.

 

[JackLuis]

All I can do is shake my head about the Red Neck Preacher, who has to 'make a point', and provided the Taliban with another talking point.

Will he be accountable?

No, he just a no account.

 

[sr71plt]

I asked a question which you have failed to answer. I have addressed the issue, you on the other hand have brought nothing but innuendo and hyperbole to the table.

What question? I most certainly answered the question you asked. I noted both a bunch of presidents lying to Congress under similar circumstances to Libya to get what they wanted--and that people knew they were lying before they did it, while they were doing it, and after they'd done it. I also countered your supposition that Obama did any lying to Congress about Libya with my own supposition of what really went wrong there. I answered everything I saw you ask dead on. Your problem is that you didn't like the answers. They didn't suit your partisan political agenda.

You're really a pretty dim bulb, you know.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What question? I most certainly answered the question you asked. I noted both a bunch of presidents lying to Congress under similar circumstances to Libya to get what they wanted--and that people knew they were lying before they did it, while they were doing it, and after they'd done it. I also countered your supposition that Obama did any lying to Congress about Libya with my own supposition of what really went wrong there. I answered everything I saw you ask dead on. Your problem is that you didn't like the answers. They didn't suit your partisan political agenda.

You're really a pretty dim bulb, you know.

How do I know you're not lying? You provided no proof whatsoever just your usual meanderings of piled up bullshit.

And you're still an asshole.

 

[sr71plt]

How do I know you're not lying? You provided no proof whatsoever just your usual meanderings of piled up bullshit.

And you're still an asshole.

So, you've decided that I did respond to your question?

Well, on one issue, show me the WMDs.

And then, read some political history.

That should keep you busy for a while, especially because God didn't give you the brains of a Cocker Spaniel.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What question? I most certainly answered the question you asked. I noted both a bunch of presidents lying to Congress under similar circumstances to Libya to get what they wanted--and that people knew they were lying before they did it, while they were doing it, and after they'd done it. I also countered your supposition that Obama did any lying to Congress about Libya with my own supposition of what really went wrong there. I answered everything I saw you ask dead on. Your problem is that you didn't like the answers. They didn't suit your partisan political agenda.

You're really a pretty dim bulb, you know.

Until recently, the Big O would have no reason to lie to Congress, since his party dominated both houses and they would do whatever he wanted. When I called him a liar, I referred more to his campaign promises than anything else. I also say he deliberately lied about Obamacare, especially when he said it would benefit senior citizens and other groups of people. I've been a dirty old man most of my life, but now that I'm a dirty OLD man, the only benefit I have received is a big increase in my companion health insurance, and I fully expect things to get worse, until the GOP is able to repeal it or SCOTUS rules it to be unconstitutional.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So, you've decided that I did respond to your question?

Well, on one issue, show me the WMDs.

And then, read some political history.

That should keep you busy for a while, especially because God didn't give you the brains of a Cocker Spaniel.

You still haven't given any proof, just spouting left-wing propaganda.

The question to answer is...

So, now prove that what he told congress was a lie at the time he told them?

Don't give me after the fact bullshit about how what he said turned out not to be true. Prove that he knew it was a lie at the time he said it? Link to some new story, some statement he made at the time that he knew was a lie at the time he he uttered the words.

And of course you're still the biggest asshole on the boards. Dickhead.

 

[sr71plt]

You still haven't given any proof, just spouting left-wing propaganda.

The question to answer is...

So, now prove that what he told congress was a lie at the time he told them?

Don't give me after the fact bullshit about how what he said turned out not to be true. Prove that he knew it was a lie at the time he said it? Link to some new story, some statement he made at the time that he knew was a lie at the time he he uttered the words.

And of course you're still the biggest asshole on the boards. Dickhead.

No, dear, Zeb. Take your head out your reactionary cesspool. I fingered both Kennedy and Johnson as well in my response to your question. That was the point of my response--that it wasn't/isn't either the Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal issue you insist on trying to make it.

You simply won't focus on anything but your ignorant reactionary partisan dogma. Nor will you yourself offer up any "proof" of anything you are claiming. The best "proof" that we would have to isolate the MWDs in Iraq--the excuse Bush(thelesser) gave to Congress for going to war--would be producing MWDs. That's YOUR proof. Where are they? Where's YOUR proof of anything?

As for the "proof" of the instances I cited: Kennedy/Laos, Nixon/Cambodia, Johnson/Vietnam, Bush(thelesser)/Iraq, it's not my responsibility to make up for your inability or unwillingness to read up on political history. It's all there. You just have to decide you want to be objective in your information gathering (which, obviously, you don't want to be).

On the Bush(thelesser)/Iraq issue alone that you are foaming at the mouth about, all you need do is read Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror--which, as an national best-seller, was certainly available to you and which lays it all out for you by people who were there. I know, because I helped with the content of the book.

But again, you're not going to read that--or anything else that doesn't bolster your pinheaded views. So, I have no responsibility to "prove" anything to you. It's all there in the public media if you wanted to inform yourself. But, of course you don't want to.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You have to give him a soundbite, Pilot, or he won't believe you.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

No, dear, Zeb. Take your head out your reactionary cesspool. I fingered both Kennedy and Johnson as well in my response to your question. That was the point of my response--that it wasn't/isn't either the Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal issue you insist on trying to make it.

You simply won't focus on anything but your ignorant reactionary partisan dogma. Nor will you yourself offer up any "proof" of anything you are claiming. The best "proof" that we would have to isolate the MWDs in Iraq--the excuse Bush(thelesser) gave to Congress for going to war--would be producing MWDs. That's YOUR proof. Where are they? Where's YOUR proof of anything?

As for the "proof" of the instances I cited: Kennedy/Laos, Nixon/Cambodia, Johnson/Vietnam, Bush(thelesser)/Iraq, it's not my responsibility to make up for your inability or unwillingness to read up on political history. It's all there. You just have to decide you want to be objective in your information gathering (which, obviously, you don't want to be).

On the Bush(thelesser)/Iraq issue alone that you are foaming at the mouth about, all you need do is read Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror--which, as an national best-seller, was certainly available to you and which lays it all out for you by people who were there. I know, because I helped with the content of the book.

But again, you're not going to read that--or anything else that doesn't bolster your pinheaded views. So, I have no responsibility to "prove" anything to you. It's all there in the public media if you wanted to inform yourself. But, of course you don't want to.

Yeah, yeah you're an excellent tap dancer but so far no proof, just words, just your words, not even a quote from a credible source.

I bet you look real snazzy in you pink tights...no please no pictures I wouldn't want to stroke out from puking my guts out.

 

[sr71plt]

That's our Zeb. I rather like what this tread reveals.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's our Zeb. I rather like what this tread reveals.

What does it reveal anyhow? I think all of us agree the pastor is an asshole, but he didn't do anything illegal.

 

[sr71plt]

What does it reveal anyhow? I think all of us agree the pastor is an asshole, but he didn't do anything illegal.

This part of the discussion wasn't about the pastor, Boxlicker (do try to keep up, if you plan on commenting). And of course--in contrast to Zeb--I did give him references to look at. References that support what I posted. Zeb provided nothing to support his claims except for, in the end, gay bashing--on a forum that supposedly is open to all sexual orientations. And he resorted to gay bashing when that had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread discussion.

So, there are three things Zeb has revealed about himself. (1) He denies that what has been provided to him has been provided to him--this while not providing any of what he requests himself (this was actually Boxlickerish of him, so I don't expect you to understand that one), (2) he is blind to anything but reactionary dogma (didn't respond to my pointing out that my comments painted Democratic/liberal presidents with the exact same brush I painted Republican/conservative presidents with)--, hmm, this is sort of Boxlickerish too, and (3) he easily slides into gay bashing. Oh, yes, there was a fourth--he has the intellectual capability of a Cocker Spaniel.

Let's add that to his "I'm crazy and out of control" avatar, shall we?

You want to support him on the irrelevant gay bashing, Box? Or are you going to stick your head in the sand and think up reasons why he didn't sink to gay bashing? (I'm betting on the latter--that's your way. And, you know what, I don't give a shit if you do. )

 

[stephen55]

What does it reveal anyhow? I think all of us agree the pastor is an asshole, but he didn't do anything illegal.

He didn't do anything illegal but he did do something stupid.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Phelps and Bastards aren't doing anything illegal.

A quote from Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind...

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.

And when he was asked what he thought of Western Civilization..."I think it would be a good idea."

 

[sr71plt]

Hmmm. Nothing today from either Zeb or Box. What a surprise.

Zeb, here's an reference you can pretend I haven't given you to a just-released book by an "I was there" author, Chas W. Freeman, America's Midadventures in the Middle East.

Chas Freeman was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the Bush(therelativegreater) administration throughout the period of the first Iraq War and almost into the second.

(But I suppose you're going to pretend that the older Bush was a Liberal Democrat.)