Reply #98: There you go again...more lies [View All]

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==Well, no. This is what had to be dragged out of you, kicking and screaming. ==

That is false, as the earlier post confirms. You had trouble comprehending what was said and reached an incorrect conclusion.

==. The entire gist of your post is that Obama is somehow not anti-war because he opposed a specific timetable for withdraw.==

False. I never said that. That is your Kool-Aid drinker's interpretation of anyone daring to question Obama on Iraq.

==You then attempt to claim that the ONLY reason he could have changed his opinion is a decision to run for president==

Another flat-out lie. I never said that.

==Then you should follow that and try to let them without lying, spinning and redacting quotes and attempting to change history..==

You have not pointed to any lies, "spin", or relevant redactions. Levin-Reed was irrelevant to the issue because it was non-binding. History changed? Where.

==You can't even read a timeline or state accurate facts.==

There you go again, making schoolyard attacks without offering an supporting evidence. How about any quotes?

==For example, the issue that Obama and others take Clinton to task for is COMPLETELY different,==

The reasoning applied by Obama apologists can easily be applied to Clinton's. Of course, this contradicts the Official Story so you can't grasp this.

==See, here is another lie. I never said what you claim. ==

You cited the capital gains tax being cut from 70% to 28% and fantasized that if they could be done why couldn't the reverse be done.

==which is that the findings of the ISG carried significant weight in people's minds and could cause them to change their opinions based on its weight.==

If you believe it took James Baker to convince people that a timetable for ending the war was necessary...

==Which is disproven by the fact that Iraq agreed to unconditional inspections on Sept 16, 2002, 3 weeks BEFORE the IWR.==

That is deceptive. As everyone knows, nations can change their positions. A sovereign nation can change the terms of inspections, or even kick out inspectors. Perhaps Hillary believe leverage was required to ensure that the inspections actually occurred, were not interfered with, and allowed to finish? You dismiss Senator Clinton's own perfectly reasonable explanation (while accepting Obama's on Kerry-Feingold, a timetable for ending the war, lock stock and barrel) out of hand without recognizing the issue is hardly as simple was you think was.

==It SUPPORTED diplomacy only, didn't include it, require it, or even suggest it. There was absolutely 0 mandated, required or even suggested dimplomacy in the IWR.==

Once again you are misleading. Without the IWR, which passed 77-23, the Republicans could have shoved through a much more pro-* bill in a close vote. Perhaps Clinton, being a realist (unlike some), believed the IWR was the best possible resolution?

==I am sick of your incredibly hypocrisy and will continue to call you on it when I see it.==

And I will continue to get a laugh out of your sanctimony, lies, hypocrisy, and deception. :)