PART I
and your "Your post above is barely understandable"
I think you should ask around about that, lol. Hey, a simple lack of specificity on my part I'll admit to. I rather thought you'd figure out the appropriate references. Hopefully, the clarity brought within parenthesis added above will make it clear to you. That was easy. Now that you understand it, reply again.
Sorry but the parens don't help. In any case, I am not about apologize for duplicity or misrepresentation you claim I made. The criticisms I have made of Bush and his administration have been researched and well thought through. If anything, the situations in Iraq worsens much as I expected it would last fall. Sorry that you choose to be blind to it.
Re: "Sometimes its just a distortion or exaggeration of the truth but mostly its lying. I don't know whether he does it intentionally or whether its a kind of manipulation on the part of his staff."
You still haven't gotten through your head what a lie is.
Excuse me, you think you can tell me what a lie is? I hardly think you know yourself.
You've described only one to date in all our conversations here. You did that when you said you think Bush knew there were no WMD's but said there were anyway.
He also claimed there were WMDs, he said that Iraq presented a serious threat to the US, he said that Saddam was buying weapons grade uranium, he said there were definite links between al Qaeda etc. In the meantime, Powell showed pics in front fo the UN that he claimed were trucks carrying armaments. He went on to show buildings where WMDs were being constructed. Those are just a few lies off the top of my head.
If you are correct, that would be a lie from Bush. However, in this only instance when you have delineated an actual lie from Bush, you've admitted it would be very difficult to prove.
Get over yourself.......are your trying to win a Nobel prize for your outstanding posting on the subject of Bush's lies. |
