"But I won't hold my breath thinking you are capable of it."
In the words of the conservative idol Ronald Reagan, "there you go again." Reason isn't defined as subscribing to conservative ideology, Max. It's defined as "the capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence." What you've exhibited in this post and your others isn't reason so much as blind ideology and a "no matter what" attitude.
"President Bush did not LIE about anything, and your insistence that he did proves your bias against him, and it proves your disingenuous intentions."
Assuming your diatribe here is correct (which it is not), how is this different, or less appropriate from your admitted bias in favor of Bush which proves your own intentions to downplay or disregard anything you don't want to hear? Once again we see you giving yourself special dispensation and targeting others with descriptions that apply to you.
Question, Max: does conservatism attract hypocrites, or is it the other way around? Because I've never come across a conservative who wasn't also a glaring hypocrite.
Now, in regards to your points about Bush, points #1 and #2 state that it was documented that Iraq once had WMD's and that everyone knew this. None of the examples I provided of Bush lying - and yes, that word is LYING, Max - involved any dispute over whether Iraq had WMD's. I never disputed it either. Of course we know Iraq had them, since the Republicans sold them these weapons during the 1980's (and wasn't it funny how you guys had no problems with Hussein using them on whomever he liked back then; it was only after Bush started hankering for the oil that conservatives began dutifully screeching about Saddam gassing his own people).
The fact you have deliberately tried to distort the argument like this to pretend I accused Bush of lying for making the statement that Iraq had WMDs shows who is being disingenuous: you. And like most of the conservatives I've had the pleasure of conversing with, you point fingers at your opponent and loudly accuse him of doing the same thing you're doing at that very moment. Hypocrisy, once more.
Now, I assume your Point #3 concerning Bush's credibility refers to the following claims:
I said:
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
and
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
And you replied:
"Point 3: Some evidence has indeed been found that they did exist and/or they were working on the development of them."
Fine. Post the evidence, please, because Bush and his team certainly haven't aired any such proof in the many months that have passed since these lies were uttered. And do try to do a better job with this request than Jim did.
Your points #4 and #5 refer to the possibility WMDs were moved or may still be found in Iraq. That doesn't address these lies by Bush which I posted.
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
No such proof exists, Max, and you didn't address this. Weapons may be moved, but facilities? Or did you mean to rebut that the entire facilities may still be found or were hustled into Syria? The first possibility contradicts what Bush said - that he had PHOTOGRAPHS. And the second possibility is just absurd.
Moving right along to another Bush lie you tried to brush aside:
"Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." (this was in reference to the trailers found last May which were actually for filling weather balloons.
Remember this? Bush claimed it was a biological laboratory. No, it wasn't. You see, Max, making a comment you know to be untrue is called lying.
Last but not least, your rambling point #6 also ignores this final lie by Bush which I posted.
"We gave [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
This is patently false and has been well-documented as such. Bush used this lie as yet another of his many excuses as to why "we have to attack Iraq now!"
"Therefore, President Bush DID NOT LIE about anything."
Would you like five more examples after you're done trying to brush away these, Max? And then how about another five after that? Ten more? Twenty? I can go on and on, if you like - it will be very interesting to see how many of these you can desperately attempt to bat aside, distort, excuse or just plain pretend didn't really happen.
"But you will certainly not be open-minded enough to accept these matters of fact"
And once more, there you go again. Being open-minded isn't defined as blindly and eagerly accepting whatever propaganda you or this administration hands off to the public.
"and you will continue to let your bias against President Bush compel YOU to continue your LIES in your lame attempt to discredit him."
Once more, Max, your frantic attempts to label me and the material I'm presenting aren't going to work. I don't accept labels, especially when coming from people better suited to wear the ones they're trying to stick onto the backs of others.
"Point 1: There is indeed proof that Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime was supporting terrorist organizations. Whether that support was financial, facilitation, moral, or whatever, it doesn't matter. Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq is ALSO about the war on terrorism."
Post the proof, please. Second request now.
"Point 2: Terrorist organizations are presently in Iraq. If there were no ties, they wouldn't be there."
No, they are there because Islamic fundamentalists have profited greatly from Bush's invasion of Iraq, calling for terrorists to enter that country to drive off the American invaders. Nice try to put the hat on Hussein's head rather than Bush's, but it doesn't wash. Bush and his policies are the reason why the terrorists are in Iraq now. Can you demonstrate to us that these terrorists were in Iraq before March?
"Point 3: I'm perfectly happy with the might of the United States military fighting terrorists in their own backyard instead of in Boston or Baltimore or Britain or anywhere else."
So am I, and what a pity this country is wasting it's resources invading and conquering a country that wasn't involved with 9/11, when it should have been off finding Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Speaking of which, how's the hunt for Bin Laden going, Max? Care to elucidate on that, or is it just easier to keep sticking to your premise of "Iraq was the real enemy after all."
As for Bill Clinton, you are the one who continues to bring him up, your attempt to defend yourself against this notwithstanding. If you choose to believe that lying about a consensual affair with another adult is a bigger crime than lying in order to provoke a war with another country (or lying about an economic plan which will largely benefit wealthy Republicans, lying about one's accomplishments as governor, lying about one's environmental policy, carefully editing information to pretend global warming is not a real factor or instructing the EPA to inform residents of New York City the air after September 11th was safe when in reality it wasn't), that's your right. Whether you can justify or defend this, well, that's your shortcoming, obviously. I'm sure you'll also insist that Iran-Contra and Watergate really weren't a big deal either.
"Last Point: You're an idiot. (Okay, go ahead and say that I'm resorting to "name calling".
Of course you are, because that's what conservatives do when they get frustrated and when they're losing their arguments: out come the playground taunts. I'm not offended, though - I would only be offended by a negative opinion if it was well-thought-out and based on reason.
