Bush vs. the truth

[DJHurricane]

Don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=203

[TheWedge]

Again, neither one of those articles really change anything.
OK, Bush didn't "lie", because he believed the Brittish intel.
Clinton didn't lie because he didn't believe that oral sex was sex.
Sorry, I really hate bringing Clinton up, as it's irrelevant, but again, there are omissions from those articles and they don't really make any point other than "it wasn't technically a lie".
My point is, those articles do very little to strengthen Bush's case, IMO.
I'm still of the opinion that the Iraq war was a huge mistake and it is mostly the fault of our idiotic commander in chief.

[Ace42]

Don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=222

Having read that section of the Butler report, the "evidence" used to justify the claim (nay, insistance) that Iraq had sought uranium Ore from Africa was:

They had bought (legally) uranium ore from Niger 30 years previous. Niger's main export is Uranium ore. Some *undisclosed evidence* suggested they intended to restart the nuclear programme, and as such they'd need Uranium ore. There was seperate "evidence" that they had agreed a sale from Congo.

So, to sum up, according to the Butler report, the Bush was justified in saying (catergorically) "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Because one of his ministers was on a diplomatic visit to a country which had previous sold them Uranium, which sells a lot of Uranium generally, and they would need to buy Uranium to build nukes (duh)

That's like saying "Well, he went to the same sporting store he bought a gun from 30 years ago, the shop sells a LOT of guns, and his neighbour said he was talking about joining a gun club. HE MUST'VE BOUGHT A GUN!"

As for the Congo connection, which seems to be the only possible legitimisation, the Butler report says... NOTHING about it, other than that there was "some evidence to suggest a sale had been agreed"

So, there being "some evidence" - the quality and nature of which has not been verified means "The British government have learned"

At best it would be "The British government has been given a small and dubious quantity of information which could suggest"

It is a TOTAL whitewash.

[DJHurricane]

I find it interesting how people shove facts down the throats of those that do not share their views. On the other hand they try and dispute facts presented to them against their views and distort them in any way possible. By keeping an open mind I have learned many things about the president that I support from facts found through this forum. These facts have caused me to step back and reconsider my stance. I wish everyone else would have the same open mind when it came to facts that support Bush instead of trying to argue against them. Facts are facts.

[Ace42]

I find it interesting how people shove facts down the throats of those that do not share their views. On the other hand they try and dispute facts presented to them against their views and distort them in any way possible. By keeping an open mind I have learned many things about the president that I support from facts found through this forum. These facts have caused me to step back and reconsider my stance. I wish everyone else would have the same open mind when it came to facts that support Bush instead of trying to argue against them. Facts are facts.

I hope that is not aimed at me. The Butler report and the "facts therein" are a total whitewash. The third most popular party (rapidly becoming the main opposition) have denied the significance of the Butler report since the inquiry was proposed, stating "Its remit is too narrow."

For those not familiar with Lord Butler, who led the enquirey, he worked in 10 downining street (our equivalent of the whitehouse, if you will) and thus was hardly "independant" and was notable for stating the Jonathan Aitken was innocent of any wrong doing, *RIGHT BEFORE HE WENT TO PRISON FOR THE CRIMES BUTLER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING*

It's just like Hutton, with slightly more credibility (Hutton also flew in the face of the CPS, numerous independant regulatory authorities, etc and cleared allegations of police corruption, which are still being inspected, and are widely considered to be very real and very wrong)

Another whitewash, and therefore worthy of the utmost skepticism when being analysed. To put this into perspective, Hurricane, consider the Butler report like the 9/11 commission report if the Democrats refused to believe a word in it, and a lot of Republicans thought it was a farce.

[DJHurricane]

So I guess this is just another case of, let's disregard the facts and believe it if you want to, if not, don't believe it?
If it were the Butler report only then I guess your argument could go either way, depending on whether or not you support Bush. But the The Senate Intelligence Committee Report found the same truth.
"Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents."

[Ace42]

But the The Senate Intelligence Committee Report found the same truth.
"Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents."

Not being based on the faked documents does not mean they WERE based on sound reliable justifying evidence, does it?

And again

The most interesting feature of the debate over the Iraq crisis is that it never took place. True, many words flowed, and there was dispute about how to proceed. But discussion kept within rigid bounds that excluded the obvious answer: the U.S. and UK should act in accord with their laws and treaty obligations.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

Government agencies work for the government, even if their job would suggest independance. The JIC were supposed to be non-partisan and thus a good source of evidence. As the Butler report says, due to pressure to perform in a certain way when producing a document for pulbic consumption, they choked. Even though they had no *need* to (according to the Butler report, again that is up for debate) they fudged the report out of some subconscious or unordered desire to meet expectations. I do not believe for a second that the JIC is somehow less sophisticated than the GAO or any other quasi-autonomous organisation.

Just because a source doesn't have an interest in the government (not that I am saying any of the above DON'T) doesn't mean they do not have an interest in the status quo.

[DJHurricane]

Not being based on the faked documents does not mean they WERE based on sound reliable justifying evidence, does it?
I would say that at the time, information provided by the CIA and other agencies from other countries, not just the U.S., might I add, would have little reason to be suspected of being inaccurate. Therefore, I'm sure that Bush and many others thought this evidence to be reliable. What reason would he have for finding it suspect? If only foresight was as good as hindsight!

[Ace42]

I would say that at the time, information provided by the CIA and other agencies from other countries, not just the U.S., might I add, would have little reason to be suspected of being inaccurate. Therefore, I'm sure that Bush and many others thought this evidence to be reliable. What reason would he have for finding it suspect?

The fact that numerous "less professional sources" managed to get it spot on, as born out by the course of time, would suggest it is not like the intellgence services did the best that could be expected. If Bush had followed my method of looking up the likliehood of the Iraqis having WMD, or simply ASKED HANS BLIX, then he would not have been wrong. When a drunk an under-qualified Englishman can do a better job than the president of the US, WITH THE HELP OF A PROFFESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, then you gotta ask yourself "what went wrong" ?

This is not a "little fuckup" - this is not like locking your keys in the car, or accidentaly muffing up a speech and saying you are working as hard as your enemies to destroy your own country, this is going into a war which the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD DISAGREED WITH.

Don't you think that, with all these nations saying "Urm, no..." the evidence deserved a little more investigation? DOn't you think Bush should've gone "Hmmmm, I wonder what all these people know that I don't " (yes I know what we know and he doesn't could fill volumes, but this is rhetoric)

On the other hand, what did Bush know that the rest of the world didn't? Fuck all as it turns out, otherwise he'd've not made a collossal mistake and gone to war in error. (Well, he would've, because he is a scumbag, but that is beside the point)

He is just passing the buck. Take another analogy: If a surgeon accidentaly operated on a person because he messed up the diagnosis, he'd not be able to say "well the X-ray guys didn't do it right, look there's a black finger shaped bone in the middle of it! We had no way to tell that it was the X-ray engineer's finger! We had to operate to make sure it wasn't a bony gastric growth!"

When in doubt, you don't fuck about.

[DJHurricane]

IMO you have to weigh what the world thinks vs. your own national security. IMO our own national security comes first. If someone rushed in your house and said your roof was on fire would you call the fire dept., wait until they arrived and confirmed that it was on fire? Or would you get the fuck out and check for yourself to avoid any possibility of getting burned? We all make hasty decisions ESPECIALLY when we feel threatened. If you were sleeping at night and you heard your window break and someone start to enter would you not spring out of bed on the defensive? Probably attack before you were attacked? If you had a gun would you offer a couple of shots before someone else does the same to your wife and kids? What is it was a fireman, bursting in to save your sleeping famly because your house was on fire and you were unaware because you were asleep? If you kicked his ass or shot him would it be fair to him because he was just trying to save your family? I hope you get my point. The fact is, I have, you have, we all have acted before thinking when we feel threatened. Are we sometimes wrong? yep. Does this make it right? No. But it certainly does offer up some justification.

[EN[i]GMA]

If someone said my roof was on fire I would check.

Feeling threatened IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING THREATENED AND IT'S NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR.

Without hard, CONCLUSIVE evidence SHOWING we were threatened, which did not exist, you can't rush to war.

[TheWedge]

Does this make it right? No. But it certainly does offer up some justification.
Some justification maybe. Enough to justify all of the innocent lives lost though? IMO, hardly.
No one said our roof was on fire. Meaning no ne said Saddam had nukes pointed at the US and was 5 feet from pressing the fire button.
They had time to investigate and knew they did.

[Ace42]

IMO you have to weigh what the world thinks vs. your own national security. IMO our own national security comes first. If someone rushed in your house and said your roof was on fire would you call the fire dept., wait until they arrived and confirmed that it was on fire? Or would you get the fuck out and check for yourself to avoid any possibility of getting burned?

There were weapons inspectors in the country, spy satellites that can read the print of a newspaper in a guy's hands flying over head, regular spy drones flying over. You think with all this going on, Iraq could've launched a surprise attack on you? A more accurate analogy would be "If someone rushed into your house and said your house was on fire, WHILST FIRE SAFETY EXPERTS WERE WALKING ALL AROUND IT CHECKING IT, would you call the fire dept, etc, etc. And in THAT case, I'd shout to the fire experts, and they'd say "No, there's no reason to worry" and the problem would've been resolved, and I'd've not looked a fool for INVADING A COUNTRY THAT HAS NO WMDs.

If you were sleeping at night and you heard your window break and someone start to enter would you not spring out of bed on the defensive? Probably attack before you were attacked?

Not if I had security guards walking around my house looking everywhere for the slightest sign of intrusion, no I'd not. I'd have a look around, see there was a perfectly rational explanation, and NO INVADE A COUNTRY WHICH HAS NO WMDs.

If you had a gun would you offer a couple of shots before someone else does the same to your wife and kids?

Nope, because its just as likely to be your kids coming home drunk that you unload your gun into (It does happen) etc. Which is why I don't have a gun, and I don't believe in preemptive action. It is ignorant and irrational. I never throw the first punch, because you can never tell if someone else is until they've done it. And I've had drunk fucktards in my face getting arsey, and even people take a swing at me and stop short when I didn't flinch. By your argument, I'd be perfectly justified in hitting anyone who even looks at me funny "because they might start shit"

You being paranoid, neurotic, prone to violent outbursts due to chornic (justified) insecurity doesn't justify pre-emptive attacks.

If you kicked his ass or shot him would it be fair to him because he was just trying to save your family? I hope you get my point. The fact is, I have, you have, we all have acted before thinking when we feel threatened. Are we sometimes wrong? yep. Does this make it right? No. But it certainly does offer up some justification.

No, I've never acted violently and premptively without thinking when I have felt threatened, nor will I ever. This is because I am not a semi-evolved idiot who lives on wild impulses and primordial instinct, AND NEITHER SHOULD SOMEONE WITH CONTROL OF ENOUGH NUKES TO DESTROY THE GODDAMN PLANET.

So far your justification seems to be "I'm as bad as him" - well that doesn't wash with those who are aboce that.

[DJHurricane]

Not if I had security guards walking around my house looking everywhere for the slightest sign of intrusion, no I'd not.
Well we see how good of a job our "security guards" did in there shining moment on September 11, 2001.

It is ignorant and irrational. I never throw the first punch, because you can never tell if someone else is until they've done it. And I've had drunk fucktards in my face getting arsey, and even people take a swing at me and stop short when I didn't flinch. By your argument, I'd be perfectly justified in hitting anyone who even looks at me funny "because they might start shit"

You being paranoid, neurotic, prone to violent outbursts due to chornic (justified) insecurity doesn't justify pre-emptive attacks.
Losing thousands of innocent lives on my countries soil from pre-emptive attacks will have that affect on people.



No, I've never acted violently and premptively without thinking when I have felt threatened, nor will I ever. This is because I am not a semi-evolved idiot who lives on wild impulses and primordial instinct, AND NEITHER SHOULD SOMEONE WITH CONTROL OF ENOUGH NUKES TO DESTROY THE GODDAMN PLANET.

So far your justification seems to be "I'm as bad as him" - well that doesn't wash with those who are aboce that.
I have given you and your opinions the respect they deserve and refrained from calling you childish names even though I disagree with your opinons. I deserve the same. I refuse to fall to your level so if you can't give me the respect I deserve I'll just ignore you from now on.

[bilbo]

Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. It was founded by Walter H. Anneberg, a Nixon toady, and extreme right winger.
Sorry to piss on your posting parade.

[Ace42]

Well we see how good of a job our "security guards" did in there shining moment on September 11, 2001.

What does your planes being crashed into your buildings on your country have to do with the work of weapons inspectors in a foreign country which has no links to Al Qaeda got to do with the WTC? This would be another analogy yet again:

Some black guy jacks your car and drives it through your porch, so you go down the road to a totally different black guy's house and beat him up because he might own a gun which he could hypothetically use to shoot you.

Doesn't make any sense does it? Neither did the war on Iraq. "But you were scared after having some intimidating black guy screw you over, so that legitimises acting in a totally unresonable and accessive manner to someone totally different"


Losing thousands of innocent lives on my countries soil from pre-emptive attacks will have that affect on people.

The IRA have killed hundreds and hundreds of people in my country, and were funded by the people in the US. Doesn't mean we acted like a bunch of asses about it. And the attack on the WTC was not pre-emptive, the US has been screwing over the muslim world at large, specifically supporting Israel, selling them attack choppers that they use to kill Muslims, and killing over 100,000 innocent muslims in ONE WEEK AT THE END OF THE WAR. By your own argument, the attack on the WTC was *more* justified.


I have given you and your opinions the respect they deserve and refrained from calling you childish names even though I disagree with your opinons. I deserve the same. I refuse to fall to your level so if you can't give me the respect I deserve I'll just ignore you from now on.

I assume you mean:

You being paranoid, neurotic, prone to violent outbursts due to chornic (justified) insecurity doesn't justify pre-emptive attacks.

It was paranoid to think that Iraq could do any harm to you, as their lack of WMDs proves. Neurotic and chonric insecurity are very true. Secure nations (like the UK not being paranoid about the IRA and thus bombing Eire) don't act like spoilt children when they get attacked. And I'd say that shooting an intruder who turns out to be a fire-fighter, etc qualifies as prone to violent outbursts.

Alternatively, you meant:

No, I've never acted violently and premptively without thinking when I have felt threatened, nor will I ever. This is because I am not a semi-evolved idiot who lives on wild impulses and primordial instinct, AND NEITHER SHOULD SOMEONE WITH CONTROL OF ENOUGH NUKES TO DESTROY THE GODDAMN PLANET.

So far your justification seems to be "I'm as bad as him" - well that doesn't wash with those who are aboce that.

If you feel that you are justified in lashing out every time you feel threatened, then that lack of self control makes you impulsive and uncivilised. By any working definition, that would qualify as unevolved and thus primordial. Revenge is a very primitive instinct.

And, as I said, you saying "we all do that" is wrong. I, and pretty much everyone I know, does not act like a hooligan / thug / yob. If that is the sort of thing you do, then you are as bad as Bush, which is worse than every civilised person on the planet.

Hooligans, thugs, people who can't control their fists, their instincts, etc do not deserve respect, whether they dress themselves up in suits and attempt to enter discourse or no.

Bush would like people to think he is a sophisticated leader of a progressive country with a civilised culture. The reaction (both militarily, and of the numerous US people) to September the 11th says otherwise.

[DJHurricane]

Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. It was founded by Walter H. Anneberg, a Nixon toady, and extreme right winger.
Sorry to piss on your posting parade.
Oh dear God. Leave it to bilbo, Mr. The right never did anything good for our country. Mr. The only credible source is one that supports my views.
Well I will tell you what, to be so biased to the right, they sure do prove Bush wrong and point out his lies just as many times as they do Kerry. Actually probably more. As far as I'm concerned you have no credibility.

[EN[i]GMA]

Just because it's funded by him doesn't make it bad. It's a very good tool for debunking lie filled political ads despite it's founders faults.

The Annenberg Foundation seems to do a lot of good, especially the Public Policy Center. View it like Andrew Carnegie donating to libraries. He was a bastard but his libraries helped many. Maybe not as many as he hurt but still, it's philanthropy.

[DJHurricane]

Bush's delusion of grandeur (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=696&e=4&u=/afp/20040806/pl_afp/us_vote_economy_bush)

yup Texas is doing great! (http://home.comcast.net/~mhrunnels/texasjobloss.jpg)
Yea, Yahoo is a great source for credible information!

[DJHurricane]

What does your planes being crashed into your buildings on your country have to do with the work of weapons inspectors in a foreign country which has no links to Al Qaeda got to do with the WTC? This would be another analogy yet again:

Some black guy jacks your car and drives it through your porch, so you go down the road to a totally different black guy's house and beat him up because he might own a gun which he could hypothetically use to shoot you.

Doesn't make any sense does it? Neither did the war on Iraq. "But you were scared after having some intimidating black guy screw you over, so that legitimises acting in a totally unresonable and accessive manner to someone totally different"



The IRA have killed hundreds and hundreds of people in my country, and were funded by the people in the US. Doesn't mean we acted like a bunch of asses about it. And the attack on the WTC was not pre-emptive, the US has been screwing over the muslim world at large, specifically supporting Israel, selling them attack choppers that they use to kill Muslims, and killing over 100,000 innocent muslims in ONE WEEK AT THE END OF THE WAR. By your own argument, the attack on the WTC was *more* justified.



I assume you mean:



It was paranoid to think that Iraq could do any harm to you, as their lack of WMDs proves. Neurotic and chonric insecurity are very true. Secure nations (like the UK not being paranoid about the IRA and thus bombing Eire) don't act like spoilt children when they get attacked. And I'd say that shooting an intruder who turns out to be a fire-fighter, etc qualifies as prone to violent outbursts.

Alternatively, you meant:



If you feel that you are justified in lashing out every time you feel threatened, then that lack of self control makes you impulsive and uncivilised. By any working definition, that would qualify as unevolved and thus primordial. Revenge is a very primitive instinct.

And, as I said, you saying "we all do that" is wrong. I, and pretty much everyone I know, does not act like a hooligan / thug / yob. If that is the sort of thing you do, then you are as bad as Bush, which is worse than every civilised person on the planet.

Hooligans, thugs, people who can't control their fists, their instincts, etc do not deserve respect, whether they dress themselves up in suits and attempt to enter discourse or no.

Bush would like people to think he is a sophisticated leader of a progressive country with a civilised culture. The reaction (both militarily, and of the numerous US people) to September the 11th says otherwise.
Why am I even arguing with you on this? Like I said before, Don't shoot the messenger!

[bilbo]

As far as I'm concerned you have no credibility.


Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. If you choose to use Factcheck.org as your "be-all/end-all" then so be it. You'll be destined to a life of message board banality. Credible sources don't parse words to achieve their intended goal.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yahoo din''t write that story, the AFP did.

http://www.afp.com/

[DJHurricane]

Coming from you, I take that as a compliment. If you choose to use Factcheck.org as your "be-all/end-all" then so be it. You'll be destined to a life of message board banality. Credible sources don't parse words to achieve their intended goal.
Do any of your "credible" sources say anything wrong about anyone other than Bush or the left? If so I would LOVE to hear more about it.

[bilbo]

GMA']Just because it's funded by him doesn't make it bad. It's a very good tool for debunking lie filled political ads despite it's founders faults.


I said the same last night, but using their criteria, I could conceivable debunk anything. There is plenty of proof that Bush knew that he was pusjing lies. For factcheck.org to basically say he didn't technically lie well that's just an insult to the thinking man. One cannot ignore who's funding these supposed non-for-profit endeavors, left or right.

[EN[i]GMA]

I see what you mean. I think they were meaning to clarify that Bush didn't intentionally lie, he just used information he shouldn't have.


Edit: At the bottom of the page:

Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

This is who factcheck is: http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

[Ace42]

Do any of your "credible" sources say anything wrong about anyone other than Bush or the left? If so I would LOVE to hear more about it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7B1F6D65-0FD2-4A78-A646-7367EF31D81D.htm

Nader debunks Kerry, although I guess that is technically left vs left, or left vs slightly more to the right.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8BBA4964-361D-4418-AFFC-B2AAE61BB00F.htm

Kerry is criticised for offering nothing new and does "the same as Bush"

Senator John Kerry added that it would be "legitimate" for the U.S. to invade Iraq outright if Saddam "remains obdurate and in violation of the United Nations resolutions, and in a position of threat to the world community," whether the Security Council so determines or not. Such unilateral U.S. action would be "within the framework of international law," as Kerry conceives it. A liberal dove who reached national prominence as an opponent of the Vietnam War, Kerry explained that his current stand was consistent with his earlier views. Vietnam taught him that the force should be used only if the objective is "achievable and it meets the needs of your country." Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was therefore wrong for only one reason: it was not "achievable," as matters turned out.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

[bilbo]

Do any of your "credible" sources say anything wrong about anyone other than Bush or the left? If so I would LOVE to hear more about it.


Yes, the NYT, the AP, the Washington Post, the BBC, the CBC(plus countless others) all present multiple angles, and at times have been extremeley critical Kerry, Gore, Clinton...etc.
Quit being lazy and look it up, edumacate yourself. Don't look for quick answers on google or factcheck.org . Don't stop when you find a supporting story, look for the opposing one and consider it. I have seen the lame Bush did not lie argument several times before. Brooks Jackson's factcheck.org account aside, I am not buying it. I hold the POTUS to a high standard. Passing it off on the Intelligence field is not acceptable, especially when there have been several stories about the "lie factory" that existed in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

[EN[i]GMA]

I think this is the best thing to be posted in regards to this:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

[Ace42]

GMA']
Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

That's a legal disclaimer, not a promise of independance. And their SOLE funding comes from Annenberg, which would suggest more than just free cash.

[bilbo]

GMA']I see what you mean. I think they were meaning to clarify that Bush didn't intentionally lie, he just used information he shouldn't have.


Edit: At the bottom of the page:

Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff, not the Annenberg Center

This is who factcheck is: http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=70

I understand what you're saying, but disclaimer aside one still needs to know of the relationship if you want to look at something with an objective eye.

[bilbo]

GMA']I think this is the best thing to be posted in regards to this:

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/


That is a fantastic resource. It's hard for the Bush Administration to run from their own words.

[EN[i]GMA]

I just don't see factcheck as being biased. It's not a big deal really, all they do is debunk political ads.

Shame, the Bush administration DOES run from their own words and the media gives them a free pass.

[bilbo]

GMA']I just don't see factcheck as being biased. It's not a big deal really, all they do is debunk political ads.

I am not saying they're overtly biased, but for example, when they say an ad is false because it "overstated" something, well that leaves quite a bit to be desired. I am open to the possibility that they may have done the same in attacking a right wing ad...that's why I don't use them as the 100% spot on, fact source they have been touted as today.

[saz]

christ (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=305071&postcount=3)...

this DJHurricane is so full of shit...his 'I'm not a Republican nor Democrat' line is such crap, when all he does is defend Bush, bash Kerry and post the lamest links to biased, neo-con editorial diatribe.

[Ace42]

Regardless of who uncovers truth it is still truth.

You should know, Sisko, considering your consistant pandering of out and out lies.

You'd not know the truth if your brain was removed, it was trimmed so that only truth remained, and you were brain-washed into believing the truth by russian interogators.

[Ace42]

Ha if it's backed by facts it is truth.

No it is, retard.

You could say "The Earth revolves around Pluto, not the Sun, because Pluto is smaller than the Sun, so it is easier."

That is backed up by facts (Pluto is smaller) and still a load of crap.

That said, the "facts" you cite are incorrect, so it is a moot point anyway. Kindly fuck off and stop wasting our time with your nonsense.

[ASsman]

BUSH vs. GODZILLA
GODZILLA vs. The Truth
Tyson vs. Lewis

[QueenAdrock]

Ha if it's backed by facts it is truth.


So you're finally admitting that everything you believe in is false! It's about fuckin' time!

So when are you going to drop out of the Christian faith, having absolutely no facts, just stories to follow?

[Vladimir]

Regardless of who uncovers truth it is still truth.
Then how come Bill O'Reilly tried to discredit Paul Krugman in a debate on Russert's show because he got his material from a liberal source? It's still truth, according to you.

Also, nobody shoves things down other people's throats like you do, gmsisko1. Your constant cut & paste threads border on spam.