woohoo!

If you don't know what a lie is, I'll give you a perfect example:

 

"Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction" lie, no weapons were found.

 

"Saddam has pretty well confirmed ties with Al-Qaeda" Lie, no evidence of ties.

 

Those are lies. Now show me where in the movie does Michael Moore presents assertions without supporting evidence, meaning a lie.

I'll give you a perfect example -

 

"I did not have realtions with that woman..."

 

:lol

If you don't know what a lie is, I'll give you a perfect example:

 

"Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction" lie, no weapons were found.

 

"Saddam has pretty well confirmed ties with Al-Qaeda" Lie, no evidence of ties.

 

Those are lies. Now show me where in the movie does Michael Moore presents assertions without supporting evidence, meaning a lie.

I'll give you a perfect example -

 

"I did not have realtions with that woman..."

 

:lol Exactly! good learning skills.

If you don't know what a lie is, I'll give you a perfect example:

 

"Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction" lie, no weapons were found.

 

"Saddam has pretty well confirmed ties with Al-Qaeda" Lie, no evidence of ties.

 

Those are lies. Now show me where in the movie does Michael Moore presents assertions without supporting evidence, meaning a lie.

So missile parts, bio cookers, and sarin were Tonka toys I suppose.

 

The Saddam AQ "ties" are established - even the commission admits this. What is NOT established is if Saddam helped AQ accomplish anything, or if those ties were just exploratory communications.

 

The problem I have with your definition of "lie" is that it has no basis in physical reality only situational political expedience - in such a framework of hard factual denial and revisionist grammar interpretation, its easy to see why you think Moore is 100% factual. Tonyi I will say it only once:

 

Stop repeating lies!

 

THERE WERE NO TIES WITH AL-QAEDA

 

THERE WERE NO STOCK PILES OF WEPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

There also was no denial of involvment with terrosrist groups, nor was there any efforts to comply with efforts to ascertain if Iraq had weapons or not.

 

Oh, and they used 'em before. Alot.

 

The problem I have with this whole "Bush is a liar" thing (well, one of the problems) is that Saddam never, ever attempted to disclose that he didn't do any of the things he was accused of. Bush had actionable intelligence indicating terror and wmd evidence and absolutely nothing from Saddam (or the 11 years of his evasion of the UN) to indicate otherwise.

I give up... You guys want to keep supporting a liar, then so be it.

 

Ties as an the supposed help and colaboration between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And no, the "supposed" conversations between Iraqui officials and Al-Qaeda were NEVER CONFIRMED... Although Cheney would like you to believe he never asserted this.

 

 

Weapons of Mass Destruction that supposedly Saddam was developing and ready to use against us. Weapons that absolutely were never found, for all the "stockpiles" that they supposedly had.

 

Furthermore... If you have any doubt whatsoever that Bush lied to you and me... see my thread: BUSH - Top Ten lies