PDA

View Full Version : Remember When



Prakosh
08-31-2006, 09:52 AM
The rabid liars in the Bush administration were saying these things...They are going back to the well again. Don't ever forget how right they were the last time:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." George W. Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03

"We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC, 3/30/03

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney, Veterans of Foreign Wars, National Convention, 8/26/02

"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza Rice, "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on CNN, 9/8/02

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 09:56 AM
Ahhh, how selective one can be when trolling down memory lane. I recall a few from the other side stating some similar things when describing the iraq situation. Oh, that must be because they stated even earlier than that of the bush administration????

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 10:13 AM
Remember this one?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)

Holy hell, even a link to go with it!

So how about it Poprikash, are we choosing selective memory or what?:cof1:

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 10:20 AM
What, no other leftists wanting to wander down memory lane today?:(

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 10:35 AM
:whome: ....... :whome: ....... :fogey: ........:rolleyes:

krisy
08-31-2006, 10:39 AM
What, no other leftists wanting to wander down memory lane today?:(

I think you left them speechless,evil

Funny how often it is ignored that Clinton had a thing for Iraq as well,and even hammered them on a daily basis

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 10:42 AM
I think you left them speechless,evil

Funny how often it is ignored that Clinton had a thing for Iraq as well,and even hammered them on a daily basis

No need to be speechless krisy, I mean most here can admit to not being partisan in their views!

Isn't that so:
cypress
Darla
Desh
Care4all
Watermark
LadyT
Poprikash
and the many other..........:cof1:

Immanuel
08-31-2006, 10:51 AM
No need to be speechless krisy, I mean most here can admit to not being partisan in their views!

Isn't that so:
cypress
Darla
Desh
Care4all
Watermark
LadyT
Poprikash
and the many other..........:cof1:

Do I sense sarcasm in that post? ;)

I mean for anyone to insinuate that Cypress is not partisan is one thing, but Care4all! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to mention Desh?

Immie

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 10:55 AM
Do I sense sarcasm in that post? ;)

I mean for anyone to insinuate that Cypress is not partisan is one thing, but Care4all! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not to mention Desh?

Immie


Maybe a wee bit! :cof1: Seriously though, I can admit to having a partisan view here or there, but when it comes down to things like this it should be pointed out that the accusatiuon on iraq were coming from all over. Just wanted to get the opinions on the one way thinkers is all.....

Immanuel
08-31-2006, 10:58 AM
Aren't we all guilty in some respects? I know I am to some respect except now I dislike both sides of the political spectrum equally.

But, I will admit it. Care will deny that she is until the day she dies.

Immie

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:04 AM
Aren't we all guilty in some respects? I know I am to some respect except now I dislike both sides of the political spectrum equally.

But, I will admit it. Care will deny that she is until the day she dies.

Immie

Sure we are, but this here is a pretty good represenative of what is wrong with the politcal specrtum today. Those who can't see it for what it is will always draw a line somewhere to have it fit their cause, but the fact remains that it goes both ways when getting right down to it. Iraq was in issue prior to the bush administration although all too many have selective memory when it comes to this.

Care4all
08-31-2006, 11:04 AM
Remember this one?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/)

Holy hell, even a link to go with it!

So how about it Poprikash, are we choosing selective memory or what?:cof1:

your reading comprehension is lacking there evil....

Clinton's words do not state that HE KNOWS FOR A FACT that saddam hussein HAS wmds and IS amassing them against us....as Cheney stated.

He also did not recommend or ever INDICATE that we would need to go in to a full FLEDGE WAR to change saddam's regime.

and along with ALL OTHER Senator comments that your side keeps posting that they made in 1998, none of them STATED THAT THEY KNOW FOR A FACT that saddam NOW HAS WMD'S... they spoke of Wmd programs and they spoke that saddam HAS HAD wmd's in the past, that is a FACT....

What the administration presented to us with their craftily managed words, is saying that saddam HAS NOW AcQUIRED wmd's, NEW PROGRAMS, because cheney said "NOW" HAS WMD'S, NOT WMD programs...

And the nuke comment in 45 minutes by condi on several talk shows IMPLIED that saddam was going to nuke the USA....

It was nothing less than deceitful if not a conserted effort to mislead us in to this war in Iraq.

care

uscitizen
08-31-2006, 11:04 AM
Evil, Old stuff, Bush misled in my opinion, whether by intent or error. Wussy demoncrats followed to keep from appearing weak and now we are in a big mess. Politicians on both sides suck, but both sides have a FEW good ones.

Cypress
08-31-2006, 11:06 AM
Aren't we all guilty in some respects? I know I am to some respect except now I dislike both sides of the political spectrum equally.

But, I will admit it. Care will deny that she is until the day she dies.

Immie

This is simple. Clinton exaggerated Iraq's WMD capacity, as a way to keep the sanctions on Iraq, to effect regime change. After about 1994 "Disarmament", was never the real US policy. Regime change was. And hyping the threat of WMD was one way to keep saddam in a box. And wait for regime change to occur. Did Clinton lie and exaggerate? Yes.

He didn't use it to lie us into an unneccessary war though.

Damocles
08-31-2006, 11:06 AM
I like this Prakosh guy... It's like having an RSS feed without using any bandwidth...

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:07 AM
Evil, Old stuff, Bush misled in my opinion, whether by intent or error. Wussy demoncrats followed to keep from appearing weak and now we are in a big mess. Politicians on both sides suck, but both sides have a FEW good ones.

And you are totally entitled to that opinion pops, I don't say you are wrong for it either. Open the article I linked, you will see that Clinton as well bought into a wmd theory!

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:12 AM
This is simple. Clinton exaggerated Iraq's WMD capacity, as a way to keep the sanctions on Iraq, to effect regime change. After about 1994 "Disarmament", was never the real US policy. Regime change was. And hyping the threat of WMD was one way to keep saddam in a box. And wait for regime change to occur. Did Clinton lie and exaggerate? Yes.

He didn't use it to lie us into an unneccessary war though.

LOL, fitting for the cause eh mudflap? Well good for you! it does go to show his belief though into the whole wmd theory, or was that all just bullshit on his behalf as well?

kudos to you though for at least responding!

Care4all
08-31-2006, 11:14 AM
Evil, Old stuff, Bush misled in my opinion, whether by intent or error. Wussy demoncrats followed to keep from appearing weak and now we are in a big mess. Politicians on both sides suck, but both sides have a FEW good ones.

it was NOT by error imo, it was BOLD ARROGANCE, and INTENTIONAL IN EVERY MANNER.....there the facts lie, as far as I am concerned...and we have too MNAY INSTANCES that have been brought forth like the downing street memos that say they were going to FIX the evidence to present before the people, to get us to go along with their already PREDETERMINED PLAN.

PERIOD.

And from ALL of the various readings on the subject that I have done on it, there is no changing my mind on this one.

has it been done before by other presidents? most likely...but I am not going to lie to myself and pretend to live in lala land and pretend that the American public had not been HAD, cuz they were HAD.

Immanuel
08-31-2006, 11:14 AM
This is simple. Clinton exaggerated Iraq's WMD capacity, as a way to keep the sanctions on Iraq, to effect regime change. After about 1994 "Disarmament", was never the real US policy. Regime change was. And hyping the threat of WMD was one way to keep saddam in a box. And wait for regime change to occur. Did Clinton lie and exaggerate? Yes.

He didn't use it to lie us into an unneccessary war though.

How does this apply to my post?

I meant we are all guilty of being partisan.

I didn't blame Clinton in the least and I sure as hell am not excusing Bush.

Immie

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:20 AM
has it been done before by other presidents? most likely...but I am not going to lie to myself and pretend to live in lala land and pretend that the American public had not been HAD, cuz they were HAD.

Yeah don't pretend at all Care, you been had big time, ya been duped! Y'all been duped actually, but the facts remain, Billy also bought into the theory of wmds during his term as well regardless of what he did about it. So go ahead and wear the goggles of partisan view, nobody is looking to make you see it any other way.....

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:21 AM
How does this apply to my post?

I meant we are all guilty of being partisan.

I didn't blame Clinton in the least and I sure as hell am not excusing Bush.

Immie

He had to quote someone, I made his ignore list! :D

uscitizen
08-31-2006, 11:24 AM
And you are totally entitled to that opinion pops, I don't say you are wrong for it either. Open the article I linked, you will see that Clinton as well bought into a wmd theory!

Yep but he did not invade, and Sadam DID have WMD's and used em in the past.
I guess the issue is WHEN he had em.

I am by no means saying Clowntoon was right either, that whole Iraq thing has been a mess for serveral presidents terms.

But this is water under the bridge, what do we do going forward ?

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:29 AM
But this is water under the bridge, what do we do going forward ?

Ahh key question! more importantly though is that it needs to go forward.

However water under the bridge can be traced back for some time. Because Billy didn't go to war about this makes him better for some reason? or perhaps if he did it may not of been an issue that is still ongoing? Did Billy have a better intelligence report in comparison to the reports of today? I'm merely pointing out that this thread of "remember when" will be read by most here with selected memory. iraq was an issue long before this administration!

maineman
08-31-2006, 11:48 AM
THe significant difference between democrats and Bush is that democrats never advocated invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq as a response to the possibility that Saddam may have hade weapons of mass destruction program development related activities. We were suggesting that if we did, in fact, know where the wmd's were - like Rummy told us - that maybe a good response might have been to launch a few tomahawk missiles from navy ships in the northern arabian sea to hit those locations. As it turns out, our way would have been just as effective as YOUR way for ridding Saddam of the WMD's he never had, and it
**would have been about a half a trillion dollars cheaper,
**would have saved us 2639 dead American servicemen and woman and 19323 wounded American servicemen and women... and
**would NOT have set Iraq on a course towards the civil war it now finds itself in...and
**would not have allowed Iran to expand its influence throughout the region and flex its muscles the way it has in the absence of Saddam and in the absence of any sort of perceived moral high ground on the part of the US in middle eastern foreign affairs.

So if you are going to quote democrats, it's important to make those distinctions and to acknowledge the distinctions between your failed outcome and the alternative democrats proposed.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 11:55 AM
So if you are going to quote democrats, it's important to make those distinctions and to acknowledge the distinctions between your failed outcome and the alternative democrats proposed.

Howdy maine, I was anticipating your presence sooner or later on this one however I thought you could have gidtwrapped the spin a little better!
Do you remembers when billy claimed saddam to be a clear and present danger with wmd's or not? For whatever reason he took the actions he did or did'nt I am not here to dispute, cry about the monetary issue if you want, anyway you slice it the intel was pretty clear for those without selective memory for sometime.

Now a small suggestion, While your head is tilted so nicely so far to the left, slap the right side of your head, listen closely to the cement hitting the ground, regroup, and now see things a little more clearly, perhaps slightly more centered!....:p

maineman
08-31-2006, 12:03 PM
I remember that many democrats said that if Saddam were to ever get his hands on WMD's he'd be a danger. Undisputed fact. If pigs had wings, they could fily... undisputed fact. get it?

And the intell was NEVER solid about Saddam's WMD's.... go back and look at the cobbled together stack of innuendo and conjecture that Colin Powell presented to the USSC.

and it's sort of sad that you said that I was crying about the monetary issue and avoided the senseless human loss that I was crying about and the loss of stature in the region that I was crying about and the rise of Iran that I was crying about. Talk about selective!

I'd tell you to slap the left side of your head, but when it's up your ass, I can only imagine that must be tough to do.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 12:13 PM
and it's sort of sad that you said that I was crying about the monetary issue and avoided the senseless human loss that I was crying about and the loss of stature in the region that I was crying about and the rise of Iran that I was crying about. Talk about selective!

I'd tell you to slap the left side of your head, but when it's up your ass, I can only imagine that must be tough to do.

No, you wanna know what is real sad? the fact that you are selectively forgetting when your side of the spectrum stated that saddam had wmds, oh but the undisputed, clearly better man did'nt invade and because of it makes him ok,
the fact that the psts administrations were not part of the present day terrorism threat, What is really sad is the fact that the people of 911 died for no cause at all and people like yourself wanna see the facts oneway, and blame that too on this administration. Perhaps if your better man wasn't too busy copping a bj, and doing a clearly better job maybe we would'nt be where we are in the present day! Spin it anyway you want, I can still see it from a fairly centered perspective that you can't.... that is sad! also as sad is the fact that I have ever given you credit for being a somewhat centered thinking member here.....:rolleyes:

OrnotBitwise
08-31-2006, 12:30 PM
I like this Prakosh guy... It's like having an RSS feed without using any bandwidth...
Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Prakosh is one of my all-time favorite posters.

Welcome, Prak!

:burn:

maineman
08-31-2006, 12:31 PM
I think that the democrats said he would be a threat if he ever got them...I don't recall any democrat saying definitively that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

I am not spinning anything. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.... Dubya himself said that just last week. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity...I for one, think that AMerican presidents should only send our young men and women to die on the battlefield when they need to, not when they want to.

If Dubya had kept his eye on the ball and fought the enemy that attacked us instead of attacking Iraq and thus making us millions of new enemies, I would have supported those actions.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 12:36 PM
I think that the democrats said he would be a threat if he ever got them...I don't recall any democrat saying definitively that Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.



Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment..

Cypress
08-31-2006, 12:38 PM
I remember that many democrats said that if Saddam were to ever get his hands on WMD's he'd be a danger. Undisputed fact. If pigs had wings, they could fily... undisputed fact. get it?

And the intell was NEVER solid about Saddam's WMD's.... go back and look at the cobbled together stack of innuendo and conjecture that Colin Powell presented to the USSC.

and it's sort of sad that you said that I was crying about the monetary issue and avoided the senseless human loss that I was crying about and the loss of stature in the region that I was crying about and the rise of Iran that I was crying about. Talk about selective!

I'd tell you to slap the left side of your head, but when it's up your ass, I can only imagine that must be tough to do.

Bush admin lied about iraq having an active nuclear program and collaborative ties to al qaeda. Those were blatant lies, that was not supported by Democrats at large.

I think clinton fear-mongered about Saddams WMD capacity in the 1990s. Because, US policy was about keeping Saddam in his box. It wasn't really, strictly speaking, just about "disarming" him. Who really gave a shit if he had some mustard gas? That's not a stategic threat to us.

But there was never an attempt to lie us into a bloody war and occupation until the chimp ambled onto the scene.

maineman
08-31-2006, 01:01 PM
Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment..


Please pull a quote from your linked article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction"

be careful

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 01:21 PM
Please pull a quote from your linked article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction"

be careful

You read the article, no? Why do you want me to pull a quote, so you can spin it to the way you see it? If you wanna see it for the only administration, the only politcal figures to make these claims then more power to ya. The iraq issue was hashed over and over before this administration came to be. They acted on it and therefore must be the only ones to ever of had this view of iraq.
You see it for whatever you would like, I'll choose to see it for what I like. Facts will remain though that many politicans made claims about iraq, some did at one time or another see it for the same purpose. You wanna make it fit your way of seeing it I'm cool with that......:cool:

maineman
08-31-2006, 01:25 PM
you cannot pull a quote from your article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's. I made that assertion earlier and you replied:

"Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment.."

I assumed by that quote that you were suggesting that the article in some way contradicted my statement. We both know that the linked article does NOT contradict my statement which begs the question, why did you write the above quote in the first place????

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 01:32 PM
you cannot pull a quote from your article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's. I made that assertion earlier and you replied:

"Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment.."

I assumed by that quote that you were suggesting that the article in some way contradicted my statement. We both know that the linked article does NOT contradict my statement which begs the question, why did you write the above quote in the first place????

Ok, good for you! see it whichever way you would like, if you feel that billy never made his own asessment about iraqs weapon programs then see it for whatever it is that you to, I'm hardly telling you how to view something, just suggesting that many seem to view it another way.

Care4all
08-31-2006, 01:55 PM
Yeah don't pretend at all Care, you been had big time, ya been duped! Y'all been duped actually, but the facts remain, Billy also bought into the theory of wmds during his term as well regardless of what he did about it. So go ahead and wear the goggles of partisan view, nobody is looking to make you see it any other way.....

yes, he did back in 1998, and he bombed a stupid pill factory because of it...SO WHAT? So what?

What's your POINT? Did he take us to f-ing war over it? Did he come before America and tell us he had not made up his mind yet about going to FULL FLEDGE F-ING WAR WITH 150,000 + American men and women WHICH LEAD TO KILLING 50,000-100m000 people of whom MOST were innocent and had done NOTHING TO US, while he had PLANS all along to send our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and sisters in there?

I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy, :) ), you can post one quote after another of the clintons, kerry, reid or whoever the heck you want to post and I will POINT OUT TO YOU where these quotes ARE MOST CERTAINLY different than the statements of the President, the Vice president, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice etc.....

Very different meanings and most certainly very different circumstances.

And yes, alot of congress was duped or they wanted to be duped and believe in their president.

I did not fall for it, but I know many friends that did, because they had not read as much as I had on the subject of saddam etc, where they just BELIEVED what they were told....fell for the damn war drums because of fear, and cowardice, imo....cowardly because they never took it upon themselves to question their government in times of crisis because their government will uses a crisis to the hilt to advance ideological beliefs.

that's what happened....and DECIET was the means used to do it.

care

Cypress
08-31-2006, 01:56 PM
you cannot pull a quote from your article that has Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's. I made that assertion earlier and you replied:

"Whatever.....I guess the article I linked was just another made up story, I guess you have it all right, the rest is all false facades simply there for pure entertainment.."

I assumed by that quote that you were suggesting that the article in some way contradicted my statement. We both know that the linked article does NOT contradict my statement which begs the question, why did you write the above quote in the first place????

Bill Clinton saying that Saddam had any WMD's

The Clinton-era National Intelligence Estimate (1999) was much more cautious about asserting whether Iraq had WMD. In fact, it went to pains to outline the lack of direct evidence suggesting it.

For some strange reason that all changed in October 2002, when the NIE was updated with much more ominous assertions, and clearcut statements of fact - with the caveats and qualifiers removed:

previous NIE had indicated - and this was still the general consensus of US intelligence agencies in early 2002 - that:

-The 1991 Gulf War, UN inspections, and subsequent military actions had destroyed most of Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and long-range missile capacity.
-There was no direct evidence that any chemical or biological weapons remained in Iraq, but agencies judged it likely that some stocks could still remain and that production could be renewed.
-As Iraq rebuilt its facilities, some of the equipment purchased for civilian use could also be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons.
-Without an inspection regime, it was very difficult to determine the status of these programmes.

A marked shift, however, occurred with the October 2002 NIE. The findings became far more dramatic, specific and certain. This NIE judged that Iraq had 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons "much of it added in the last year," that "all key aspects . . . of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) programme are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."




http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd78/78jc.htm

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 02:08 PM
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy, :) ), you can post one quote after another of the clintons, kerry, reid or whoever the heck you want to post and I will POINT OUT TO YOU where these quotes ARE MOST CERTAINLY different than the statements of the President, the Vice president, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice etc.....

Very different meanings and most certainly very different circumstances.



care

The point is that the quotes I point out are there, the ones you will point out are there, so if you wanna selectively take it down memory lane and say how the cercumstances were different, we did'nt go to war then. we had only bombed a pill factory, the fact will remain that many figures on both sides of the lines that all draw so very well here, saw iraq as an issue.

You wanna say that iraq was no threat to us at all when it conveniently fits your argument, I say clinton stumpled upon this path himself, and for that I am autmoatically a neocon or whatever it is you wish to classify the opposing views as. Call it whatever you wanna call it to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I am cool with that, I just see it differently, call me what you want for seeing it differently and I shall certainly be upset........NOT!.......:cof1:

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 02:23 PM
I am telling ya Evil (Dick, to make you happy, :) )

care

LOL, ya like that one too when I am not in agreeance with what you say?

You can certainly refer to me a dick, I do like that but something tells me before long you too will be claiming I am following your every post looking to stick my nose up your coochie.....:p

klaatu
08-31-2006, 02:24 PM
Maybe a wee bit! :cof1: Seriously though, I can admit to having a partisan view here or there, but when it comes down to things like this it should be pointed out that the accusatiuon on iraq were coming from all over. Just wanted to get the opinions on the one way thinkers is all.....

Hey .. Im acused of being a far right winger .. so how friggin partisan can one get .... :cof1:

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 02:30 PM
Hey .. Im acused of being a far right winger .. so how friggin partisan can one get .... :cof1:

:shock:

Who dare had the nerve to accuse you of that one?.............:D

Care4all
08-31-2006, 02:32 PM
The point is that the quotes I point out are there, the ones you will point out are there, so if you wanna selectively take it down memory lane and say how the cercumstances were different, we did'nt go to war then. we had only bombed a pill factory, the fact will remain that many figures on both sides of the lines that all draw so very well here, saw iraq as an issue.

You wanna say that iraq was no threat to us at all when it conveniently fits your argument, I say clinton stumpled upon this path himself, and for that I am autmoatically a neocon or whatever it is you wish to classify the opposing views as. Call it whatever you wanna call it to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and I am cool with that, I just see it differently, call me what you want for seeing it differently and I shall certainly be upset........NOT!.......:cof1:



no, YOU ARE PLAYING POLITICS and the rest of the ''right wingers'' are too, with this issue... YOU just did it....you took the republican jargon, after the fact jargon i might add, and jargon that only came out AFTER people started speaking out against the war, and have TRIED REPEATEDLY to twist the words that were said 6 FRICKING YEARS EARLIER, and circumstances that were CERTAINLY DIFFERENT than the times we were in in 2003 when Bush invaded and PRETEND THAT THEY WERE THE SAME THING.

When they were not the same thing Evil, not even close...yes Saddam is evil, yes we don't want him to build up wmd's and yes we would like regime change, but for your side to say that INTELLIGENCE THAT CLINTON USED FROM 5 F-ING YEARS EARLIER WAS the same intelligence bush used and why knock fricking bush for it, for the "same thing" is an out right LIE, AND SPIN and does a diservice to our country promoting it...

And if our fricking intelligence can not get any further info in FIVE F-ING YEARS OTHER THAN what clinton had THEN we should NOT under any circumstances act on it....not five year old intelligence...so using what clinton said and had info on right after we lost our inspectors as the reason bush was ok to go to war is ludacrice, and MOOT AS far as I am concerned, and it should be for you too, if you used some LOGIC...

Clinton had more recent info than Bush, and HE DID NOT SEND OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN to a ful fledge war to die for it, or he did not believe in preemptive WAR, war, war... :(

Care4all
08-31-2006, 02:35 PM
anyway evil, gotta step away for a bit, but i will be bck

uscitizen
08-31-2006, 02:45 PM
Ahh key question! more importantly though is that it needs to go forward.

However water under the bridge can be traced back for some time. Because Billy didn't go to war about this makes him better for some reason? or perhaps if he did it may not of been an issue that is still ongoing? Did Billy have a better intelligence report in comparison to the reports of today? I'm merely pointing out that this thread of "remember when" will be read by most here with selected memory. iraq was an issue long before this administration!

Oh yes pappy bush and Regan were messing around in Iraq.....
and before that too...
But no one else was dumb enough to occupy and force a new govt on them.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 02:46 PM
When they were not the same thing Evil, not even close...yes Saddam is evil, yes we don't want him to build up wmd's and yes we would like regime change, but for your side to say that INTELLIGENCE THAT CLINTON USED FROM 5 F-ING YEARS EARLIER WAS the same intelligence bush used and why knock fricking bush for it, for the "same thing" is an out right LIE, AND SPIN and does a diservice to our country promoting it...



Wait a minute now, I didn't claim they used the same intelligence, I questioned if it were better! there is a difference. I stated that bill also said these things about saddam, I didn't state that I am using that in defendind bush, I stated that it seems a case of selective memory for those who like to bash bush on the issue. bottom line is that anway you choose to look at the issue for some it will always fit their own argument, others may see it differently. So if I choose to read into this isuue differently, and that makes me a warmonging, neocon, rightwing nutjob, and a diservice to this country, hey I'm cool with that......:cool:

klaatu
08-31-2006, 02:46 PM
no, YOU ARE PLAYING POLITICS and the rest of the ''right wingers'' are too, with this issue... YOU just did it....you took the republican jargon, after the fact jargon i might add, and jargon that only came out AFTER people started speaking out against the war, and have TRIED REPEATEDLY to twist the words that were said 6 FRICKING YEARS EARLIER, and circumstances that were CERTAINLY DIFFERENT than the times we were in in 2003 when Bush invaded and PRETEND THAT THEY WERE THE SAME THING.

When they were not the same thing Evil, not even close...yes Saddam is evil, yes we don't want him to build up wmd's and yes we would like regime change, but for your side to say that INTELLIGENCE THAT CLINTON USED FROM 5 F-ING YEARS EARLIER WAS the same intelligence bush used and why knock fricking bush for it, for the "same thing" is an out right LIE, AND SPIN and does a diservice to our country promoting it...

And if our fricking intelligence can not get any further info in FIVE F-ING YEARS OTHER THAN what clinton had THEN we should NOT under any circumstances act on it....not five year old intelligence...so using what clinton said and had info on right after we lost our inspectors as the reason bush was ok to go to war is ludacrice, and MOOT AS far as I am concerned, and it should be for you too, if you used some LOGIC...

Clinton had more recent info than Bush, and HE DID NOT SEND OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN to a ful fledge war to die for it, or he did not believe in preemptive WAR, war, war... :(


Care ..I wouldnt call it 5 or 6 year old intelligence .. it was in 1998 ... and Bush started the Saddam rap after 9/11 ... so it was 3 to 4 years ....
Still a long time ... but there is no denying that the Democrats supported the intelligence as well .. why is that you want to give them a pass on this? Like the excuses you all gave for Kerry ..bs ... Because Bush misled them? Well how friggin sorry are they to get misled by Bush?
There is no twisting around with this.. its all in balck and white ....

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 02:49 PM
Oh yes pappy bush and Regan were messing around in Iraq.....
and before that too...
But no one else was dumb enough to occupy and force a new govt on them.

Yeah, but impossible and deplorable to think that they may have considering the rhetoric was fairly much the same at different given times.

uscitizen
08-31-2006, 02:52 PM
Actually they supported Sadam and I think we helped him rise to power at some point. Remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend. No complaints when he chemed the iranians either.....
Untill sonny boy bush came along....

Cypress
08-31-2006, 02:54 PM
Care ..I wouldnt call it 5 or 6 year old intelligence .. it was in 1998 ... and Bush started the Saddam rap after 9/11 ... so it was 3 to 4 years ....
Still a long time ... but there is no denying that the Democrats supported the intelligence as well .. why is that you want to give them a pass on this? Like the excuses you all gave for Kerry ..bs ... Because Bush misled them? Well how friggin sorry are they to get misled by Bush?
There is no twisting around with this.. its all in balck and white ....

but there is no denying that the Democrats supported the intelligence as well .. why is that you want to give them a pass on this?


Two words: Ned Lamont

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 02:54 PM
Actually they supported Sadam and I think we helped him rise to power at some point. Remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend. No complaints when he chemed the iranians either.....
Untill sonny boy bush came along....

The same given for OBL, he was cia trained if not mistaken but wanted to see him dead now may give ya the wrong impression of me.....:p

Cypress
08-31-2006, 02:58 PM
but there is no denying that the Democrats supported the intelligence as well .. why is that you want to give them a pass on this?


Two words: Ned Lamont

What is this? A "heads I win, tails you lose" game?

You guys need to stick to one story, instead of switching back and forth:

-One day its: "Dems got rid of Lieberman, what a shame! He's such a nice statesman!"

-The next day its: "Why don't you dems hold someone accoutable in YOUR party, for the Iraq fiasco?"

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 03:01 PM
LOL, nothing like trying to change the course of a disussion by quoting yourself!

Shut up mudflap, we all know you have'nt a partisan view in your cranium full of silly putty.....:rolleyes:

uscitizen
08-31-2006, 03:05 PM
The same given for OBL, he was cia trained if not mistaken but wanted to see him dead now may give ya the wrong impression of me.....:p

Yes we have been messing around in that area for a long time. We shoved the shaw down Irans throat as well. He was the playboy son of a hitler crony.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 03:13 PM
Yes we have been messing around in that area for a long time. We shoved the shaw down Irans throat as well. He was the playboy son of a hitler crony.

And it will always be that way, it's a role we play as well as any other power!

uscitizen
08-31-2006, 04:43 PM
And it will always be that way, it's a role we play as well as any other power!
To our countries shame we seem to play that role too much.
Just my opinion though, and that of many other countires in the world.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 04:45 PM
To our countries shame we seem to play that role too much.
Just my opinion though, and that of many other countires in the world.

Probably so! But lemme ask ya pops, who do they call upon for help?

OrnotBitwise
08-31-2006, 04:48 PM
Probably so! But lemme ask ya pops, who do they call upon for help?
Lately, the EU.

Care4all
08-31-2006, 05:15 PM
yes, they all made a mistake, repubs and dems alike...they made a mistake because they TRUSTED the president....and what he was PRESENTING TO THEM...

And they did not have all of the intelligence...they had manipulated intelligence synopsis...they didn't read the fine print and the synopsis was "fixed" to represent the administration's ideology.

Sir Evil
08-31-2006, 05:26 PM
yes, they all made a mistake, repubs and dems alike...they made a mistake because they TRUSTED the president....and what he was PRESENTING TO THEM...

And they did not have all of the intelligence...they had manipulated intelligence synopsis...they didn't read the fine print and the synopsis was "fixed" to represent the administration's ideology.

Care - is this here statement of fixed intelligence opinion or fact? Is your info on this here a theory read somewhere?
It comes down to this final thought for me, these issues are taken within the contexed viewed, you wanna see it just one way you are entirely free to do so, I have'nt a problem with that, I wanna see it a different way, and I am everything that is wrong in fantasyland.

NOVA
08-31-2006, 09:02 PM
Yes Yes Yes Prakosh....we are all well aware of the quotes...ALL THE QUOTES

The rabid liars in the Bush administration were saying these things...They are going back to the well again. Don't ever forget how right they were the last time:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." George W. Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on ABC, 3/30/03

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney, Veterans of Foreign Wars, National Convention, 8/26/02

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza Rice, "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on CNN, 9/8/02

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

maineman
09-01-2006, 05:53 AM
and...oddly enough...not one of those democratic quotes says that Saddam has any weapons of mass destruction.... as opposed to the likes of Bush, Rummy and Cheney who not only said that he most certainly HAD weapons of mass destruction, but, that they knew right where they were.

People who claim they cannot discern the difference between those two classes of statements pretty much brand themselves as thick, obtuse morons.

That would be YOU, write... but we already knew that. lol

klaatu
09-01-2006, 06:16 AM
The whole point is this .. fundementally this is neither Democrat nor Republican.. it is all about gaining control over a region ... why? We all know why ... its called the life blood of our economy ... black gold...Texas tea.
Our children are dying in a War that is beng fought for A) Economic Survival B) because of the shotsightedness of our economic leadership
C) and finally ...the crazy threat of brainwashed religous fantatics.

We need to go inot a different direction ... and it needs to be fast tracked ...

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 08:22 AM
People who claim they cannot discern the difference between those two classes of statements pretty much brand themselves as thick, obtuse morons.

That would be YOU, write... but we already knew that. lol

Spin it up, down, sideways, but the truth of the matter is that you really have to be seeing it absolutely one way to assume that none of the quoted figures throughout the article thought any differently. ........:rolleyes:

uscitizen
09-01-2006, 08:36 AM
The whole point is this .. fundementally this is neither Democrat nor Republican.. it is all about gaining control over a region ... why? We all know why ... its called the life blood of our economy ... black gold...Texas tea.
Our children are dying in a War that is beng fought for A) Economic Survival B) because of the shotsightedness of our economic leadership
C) and finally ...the crazy threat of brainwashed religous fantatics.

We need to go inot a different direction ... and it needs to be fast tracked ...
What kind of vision and direction did you expect from ex(?) oilmen in the WH ?

maineman
09-01-2006, 08:41 AM
Spin it up, down, sideways, but the truth of the matter is that you really have to be seeing it absolutely one way to assume that none of the quoted figures throughout the article thought any differently. ........:rolleyes:

I think that all the democrats quoted thought that Saddam was a bad guy and that he was trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction so that he could be the toughest tough guy in the middle east.

The difference being that Dubya told that he HAD them and that he wanted to use them on US and that there was an excellent chance that he would give them to Al Qaeda to use on us if he didn't use them himself.

And that difference is huge: it led to our invading, conquering and occupying Iraq in a move that has been counterproductive to our efforts to defeat islamic extremism, has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and has evaporated the post 9/11 goodwill throughout the world.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 08:52 AM
And that difference is huge: it led to our invading, conquering and occupying Iraq in a move that has been counterproductive to our efforts to defeat islamic extremism, has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and has evaporated the post 9/11 goodwill throughout the world.

The huge difference maine is that fact that you are unwilling accept that there were plenty on the side that you hold so dear that thought the very same thing.
This is exactly why I will not quote the article I posted as you will twist it into something it is not. You read the article, did billy have a better source of intelligence then? No, you wanna claim that the intelligence now was purely forged to invade for no good reason. I still maintain the position that there was not even a need to talk wmd's in order to invade.

You wanna believe that seeing as the intelligence then was not acted upon, or shall I say that it did not lead to war, that the side you see it from is far superior. Anyway you look at it maine the iraq issue laid dormant for many years prior to the administration, the issue came to light with this administration, so therefore it works perfect to your argument.

See it for whartever you want, point is that the story goes quite aways back with the same theories involved.

uscitizen
09-01-2006, 09:01 AM
Evil I find it somewhat disheartening that we keep making the same or very similiar mistakes again and again in the ME, will we ever learn ?

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 09:09 AM
Evil I find it somewhat disheartening that we keep making the same or very similiar mistakes again and again in the ME, will we ever learn ?

I doubt that thought very much to be honest. It will all depend upon what you forsee to be mistakes, and those who will agree & disagree will still be there. Foreign policy swing from one ideal to the next depending upon administrations, some will be there to see it the way they choose to see it. Until a time comes that a single ideaology is put in place, and then acted upon throughout different leaderships it will most likely never happen.....just my worthless opinion though.

maineman
09-01-2006, 09:19 AM
The huge difference maine is that fact that you are unwilling accept that there were plenty on the side that you hold so dear that thought the very same thing.
This is exactly why I will not quote the article I posted as you will twist it into something it is not. You read the article, did billy have a better source of intelligence then? No, you wanna claim that the intelligence now was purely forged to invade for no good reason. I still maintain the position that there was not even a need to talk wmd's in order to invade.

You wanna believe that seeing as the intelligence then was not acted upon, or shall I say that it did not lead to war, that the side you see it from is far superior. Anyway you look at it maine the iraq issue laid dormant for many years prior to the administration, the issue came to light with this administration, so therefore it works perfect to your argument.

See it for whartever you want, point is that the story goes quite aways back with the same theories involved.

there were some, but not "plenty". I articulated what many democrats believed above... it was different than what Dubya sold us.... and he did NOT have the intelligence that suggested that Saddam wanted to use WMD's on us...and he did NOT have the intelligence that suggested that Saddam would even THINK of giving WMD's to AQ given the stated goal of AQ to eliminate the secular states in the region of which Saddam's Iraq was one...that was the shit he made up and that was the shit we went to war over.

Cypress
09-01-2006, 09:22 AM
there were some, but not "plenty". I articulated what many democrats believed above... it was different than what Dubya sold us.... and he did NOT have the intelligence that suggested that Saddam wanted to use WMD's on us...and he did NOT have the intelligence that suggested that Saddam would even THINK of giving WMD's to AQ given the stated goal of AQ to eliminate the secular states in the region of which Saddam's Iraq was one...that was the shit he made up and that was the shit we went to war over.

I articulated what many democrats believed above... it was different than what Dubya sold us....

Dubya was stating that "we knew FOR A FACT" Iraq had WMD.

Dubya's admin was the one lying that iraq had "reconstituted nuclear weapons", and had collaborative ties with al qaeda. Virtually nobody on the democratic side made those false assertions.

Dubya was the one who went on a road-tour to promote his war in the Fall of 2002 - not democrats.

And Democrats held their most prominent war-apologist accountable: Joe Lieberman.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 09:24 AM
that was the shit he made up and that was the shit we went to war over.

LOL, ok maine. I'm not here to attempt making you seeing it any other way at all. But so long as you find yourself so articulate, and of course adamant with the truth that is out there, why not run with this piece of evidence you have and make the biggest case in history? I'll be standing by to see the results.....:cof1:

Cypress
09-01-2006, 09:26 AM
Vietnam was democrat LBJ's war.

I've never heard anybody state that republicans held equal responsiblity, since virtually ALL republicans in the senate voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

The war was LBJ's responsibility - as was its failure.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 09:29 AM
Vietnam was democrat LBJ's war.

I've never heard anybody state that republicans held equal responsiblity, since virtually ALL republicans in the senate voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

The war was LBJ's responsibility - as was its failure.

Another half ass attempt to change the course of discussion mudflap!

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5857/cup04kc6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

it's really overdue at this point.....:rolleyes:

maineman
09-01-2006, 09:41 AM
LOL, ok maine. I'm not here to attempt making you seeing it any other way at all. But so long as you find yourself so articulate, and of course adamant with the truth that is out there, why not run with this piece of evidence you have and make the biggest case in history? I'll be standing by to see the results.....:cof1:


the evidence is already in the public domain. America now knows that Saddam did NOT have WMD's capable of being launched at the eastern seaboard from UAV's launched from the decks of cargo ships under Iraqi control ... Bush claimed that. America now has begun to educate itself about Al Qaeda and islamic extremism and is becoming aware of the fact that Al Qaeda was a natural enemy of Saddam. Would this make any sense to you:

"Saddam: Okay Osama.... I know that you guys are sworn to eliminate my government and establish a theocracy throughout the region, but I also know that you are out to get the US, so I will give you, my sworn enemy, a whole passel of weapons of mass destruction but only on the condition that you swear - cross you heart and hope to die, stick a needle in your eye - that you will NOT use them against ME"

Cypress
09-01-2006, 09:45 AM
the evidence is already in the public domain. America now knows that Saddam did NOT have WMD's capable of being launched at the eastern seaboard from UAV's launched from the decks of cargo ships under Iraqi control ... Bush claimed that. America now has begun to educate itself about Al Qaeda and islamic extremism and is becoming aware of the fact that Al Qaeda was a natural enemy of Saddam. Would this make any sense to you:

"Saddam: Okay Osama.... I know that you guys are sworn to eliminate my government and establish a theocracy throughout the region, but I also know that you are out to get the US, so I will give you, my sworn enemy, a whole passel of weapons of mass destruction but only on the condition that you swear - cross you heart and hope to die, stick a needle in your eye - that you will NOT use them against ME"

What idiot ever thought that the secular socialist dictator saddam would dare risk giving his most deadly weapons to a bunch of whacked-out jihadists who were dedicated to overthrowing all secular authoritarian governments in the arab world?

Oh....that's right. Bush-fans thought that that was a strong possibility.

OrnotBitwise
09-01-2006, 09:45 AM
the evidence is already in the public domain. America now knows that Saddam did NOT have WMD's capable of being launched at the eastern seaboard from UAV's launched from the decks of cargo ships under Iraqi control ... Bush claimed that. America now has begun to educate itself about Al Qaeda and islamic extremism and is becoming aware of the fact that Al Qaeda was a natural enemy of Saddam. Would this make any sense to you:

"Saddam: Okay Osama.... I know that you guys are sworn to eliminate my government and establish a theocracy throughout the region, but I also know that you are out to get the US, so I will give you, my sworn enemy, a whole passel of weapons of mass destruction but only on the condition that you swear - cross you heart and hope to die, stick a needle in your eye - that you will NOT use them against ME"
Well put. Not even Ronald Reagan was quite that stupid. Close, but not quite.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 09:47 AM
the evidence is already in the public domain. America now knows that Saddam did NOT have WMD's capable of being launched at the eastern seaboard from UAV's launched from the decks of cargo ships under Iraqi control ... Bush claimed that. America now has begun to educate itself about Al Qaeda and islamic extremism and is becoming aware of the fact that Al Qaeda was a natural enemy of Saddam. Would this make any sense to you:

"Saddam: Okay Osama.... I know that you guys are sworn to eliminate my government and establish a theocracy throughout the region, but I also know that you are out to get the US, so I will give you, my sworn enemy, a whole passel of weapons of mass destruction but only on the condition that you swear - cross you heart and hope to die, stick a needle in your eye - that you will NOT use them against ME"

Ok maine, fair enough, I know the whole world is wrong thanks to the rebublicans. It's all their for everyone to see, and you give it your stamp of approval so it must be factual. I'm cool with that, thanks a bunch for allowing me to see the light......:cool:

maineman
09-01-2006, 11:00 AM
of course, the world is not all wrong thanks solely to American republicans. Please refrain from the flatulent and inflammatory hyperbole. The fact that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses is clearly their fault however. The fact that Rove & Co. spun that use of force resolution vote to be about patriotism and not about reality is certainly all their fault. Democrats had their part to play in helping screw up the rest of the world over the past century, no doubt. But THIS mess...this mess in Iraq is all about you guys... and you should remember when the war was first on, and Bush was landing on the aircraft carrier and claiming mission accomplished and everybody was pumped up because we were finally "gettin' some" as payback for 9/11.... you should remember that the republicans were claiming that victory all for themselves and were saying that democrats were going to find ourselves on the wrong side of history about Iraq and how wrong we were to have opposed it....

and now that it has turned into the bucket of shit that many of us were predicting it would turn into from day one...NOW, the republicans want to make it some big bi-partisan effort and want to have democrats share some of the blame for the mess we find ourselves in.....

I ain't buyin' it...and neither is America. We are in Iraq because George Bush and Dick Cheney and Rummy and Wolfie and PNAC and the Republican party wanted us to be there. Nobody believes - nor should they - that we are in Iraq because the democratic party wanted us to be there.

Vietnam? that was our screw up and I would never try to foist it on republicans.... (except for that last four years or so when Tricky Dick ran as the peace candidate in '68 promising that he had a secret plan to end the war, but couldn't talk about it until we'd elected him and then, when we did, he kinda let us know that his "plan" was to bomb the shit out of North Vietnam and Cambodia for four more years and lose another 20K American boys before actually ending it)...

Korea? all ours....

Iraq? you broke it...you own it.

That's just the way it is.

Prakosh
09-01-2006, 11:07 AM
Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Prakosh is one of my all-time favorite posters.

Welcome, Prak!

:burn:

Aw shucks...now I've got that reputation thing to live up to...

Hey, Ornot, what do I do when I write a long post myself. Should I post it on another message board and then link to that or should I just post it here and let them go nuts trying to find a link to it somewhere else? Is there a length limit or can you post a long post if you are the author? I'm so confused.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 11:28 AM
Aw shucks...now I've got that reputation thing to live up to...

Hey, Ornot, what do I do when I write a long post myself.

LOL, you may as well so long as you are looking for back patting! Have no worries though, the left reign supreme here in will give credence to whatever you posts so long as it is against anything remotelycentered or to the right!:D

TheDanold
09-01-2006, 11:33 AM
This is simple. Clinton exaggerated Iraq's WMD capacity, as a way to keep the sanctions on Iraq, to effect regime change. After about 1994 "Disarmament", was never the real US policy. Regime change was. And hyping the threat of WMD was one way to keep saddam in a box. And wait for regime change to occur. Did Clinton lie and exaggerate? Yes.

He didn't use it to lie us into an unneccessary war though.

Uh he also didn't have Sep 11 stupid.
Remember that after embassy attacks overseas Clinton eventually responded with missile attacks, so of course he would have done more had the damage been more.

maineman
09-01-2006, 03:18 PM
Uh he also didn't have Sep 11 stupid.
Remember that after embassy attacks overseas Clinton eventually responded with missile attacks, so of course he would have done more had the damage been more.

are you suggestng that Clinton would have attacked Iraq because of 9/11?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 03:22 PM
are you suggestng that Clinton would have attacked Iraq because of 9/11?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

LOL, remember when ya had the facts on that statement too?

OrnotBitwise
09-01-2006, 03:40 PM
LOL, remember when ya had the facts on that statement too?
:confused:

Remember when you could formulate an actual sentence?

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 03:43 PM
:confused:

Remember when you could formulate an actual sentence?

Remember when you were able to string together anything more then a one liner that would get ya back pat from your fellow shitbricks? .....:321:

Remeber when ya had anything remotely interesting to say that was actually your own? yeah me neither.......:cof1:

uscitizen
09-01-2006, 03:47 PM
Evil you are having altogether too much fun getting under their skin. Surely that level of enyoyment is illegal ;)

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 03:50 PM
Evil you are having altogether too much fun getting under their skin. Surely that level of enyoyment is illegal ;)

LOL, hey pops, remember when I used to care what people here thought?
yep, me neither....:D

maineman
09-01-2006, 03:54 PM
LOL, remember when ya had the facts on that statement too?


I am not sure to what you are referring

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 04:00 PM
I am not sure to what you are referring

maine - I wasn't referring to nothing, In fact I did'nt even make any of the posts in this thread. Damnit, somebody manipulated my words to try and draw me into war, god damn conspiracy I tell ya! You have to be thick or obtuse to think that was my words, really, go look it up for yourself anywhere on the net, it's all there in plain facts that it was all manipulted. Truly, I'm American and put myself above all that, I am really the victim of the conservative men of this world. If you don't see it my way, well then we just can't be friends. Are you related to dixie?

:cof1:

maineman
09-01-2006, 04:22 PM
whatever.... either you're here to debate the issues and back up your positions with facts and well thought out arguments, or you're here to goof around and have fun..... I like to think I am the former.... you seem to be showing me that you are the latter.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 04:30 PM
whatever.... either you're here to debate the issues and back up your positions with facts and well thought out arguments, or you're here to goof around and have fun..... I like to think I am the former.... you seem to be showing me that you are the latter.

What's to debate? you,the left are right, I'm cool with that!......:cool:

maineman
09-01-2006, 05:45 PM
Like Isaid, I have never claimed we are right about everything.... but we certainly were right about Iraq.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 05:58 PM
but we certainly were right about Iraq.

Yeah ya sure are, you have gone beyond any doubt showing how it was never suggested by anyone else outside of the bush administration. need a pat on the back now, or used to that already?:cof1:

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:11 PM
come on... if all you got is hollow sarcasm, give it a break. This war in Iraq was the idea of the neocons in the administration. When it was going well, the republicans were not about to share any of the glory and claimed that democrats were on the wrong side of history....now that it's turned into a bucekt of runny shit, we are somehow your partners in this. fuck that.

I have ALWAYS been against the war in Iraq. I remember way back on politics.com asking what if there ARE no WMD's... and all the republicans laughed... and what if there IS no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11... and all the republicans laughed... and what if we AREN'T welcomed as liberators... and all the republicans laughed... and what if we suffer four digit casualties... and all the republicans laughed... and what if the sunnis and the shiites start fighting with one another... and all the republicans laughed... and what if the shiites form a theocracy and align themselves with Iran... and all the republicans laughed...

AND I WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PREDICTIONS....EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE.

Damocles
09-01-2006, 06:20 PM
"and what if there IS no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11... and all the republicans laughed."

Rubbish. What if there is no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11? There is, it is a pretty clear one. Come on maineman... Don't you mean Iraq and 9/11? If you do that statement is still rubbish. I stated back then and still do to this day that Bush had clearly stated that 9/11 had no fingerprints of Saddam...

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 06:21 PM
AND I WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PREDICTIONS....EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE.

And the republicans still laugh!.......:tongout: :tongout: :tongout:

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:29 PM
"and what if there IS no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11... and all the republicans laughed."

Rubbish. What if there is no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11? There is, it is a pretty clear one. Come on maineman... Don't you mean Iraq and 9/11? If you do that statement is still rubbish. I stated back then and still do to this day that Bush had clearly stated that 9/11 had no fingerprints of Saddam...

there is no clear link other than a few intermediaries talking to one another. Anyone who knows the difference between sunnis and shiites, batthists and wahabbists (Oh...I forgot damo..that doesn't include you, does it?) knows that the stated purpose of Al Qaeda was the eventual destruction of arab and muslim secular states.

Does this make sense to you:

Saddam: "Here you go, Osama. I know that your stated purpose is to destroy my government and all other non-theocratic islamic governments, but I know you also don't like America and neither do I...so why don't you take [these nasty weapons of mass destruction][this money][the use of these training facilities] as long as you promise - scout's honor - to only use them on America and not on ME"

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:30 PM
And the republicans still laugh!.......:tongout: :tongout: :tongout:

so..our short lived mutual admiration society has disbanded, I take it?

I got no time for frivolity

Damocles
09-01-2006, 06:34 PM
You messed up again you stated that there was no clear link between Al Qaeda and 9/11... maineman, Al Qaeda was the group that did 9/11.

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:36 PM
You messed up again you stated that there was no clear link between Al Qaeda and 9/11... maineman, Al Qaeda was the group that did 9/11.


I said what if there is no link TO Al Qaeda and 9/11

FROM Iraq....get it now?

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:38 PM
"I have ALWAYS been against the war in Iraq. I remember way back on politics.com asking what if..... "

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 06:38 PM
so..our short lived mutual admiration society has disbanded, I take it?

I got no time for frivolity

Not at all maine, we obviously don't see eye to eye on this one, and were not going to either, I stated that pretty much already, and I'm fine with it.

Damocles
09-01-2006, 06:38 PM
and what if there IS no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11... and all the republicans laughed...

AND I WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PREDICTIONS....EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE.

Here is the original statement that I was replying to... Notice you said no link between AL QAEDA AND 9/11... Do you notice that?

Here is what I answered:


"and what if there IS no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11... and all the republicans laughed."

Rubbish. What if there is no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11? There is, it is a pretty clear one. Come on maineman... Don't you mean Iraq and 9/11? If you do that statement is still rubbish. I stated back then and still do to this day that Bush had clearly stated that 9/11 had no fingerprints of Saddam...

Then finally Your answer:


there is no clear link other than a few intermediaries talking to one another. Anyone who knows the difference between sunnis and shiites, batthists and wahabbists (Oh...I forgot damo..that doesn't include you, does it?) knows that the stated purpose of Al Qaeda was the eventual destruction of arab and muslim secular states.

Does this make sense to you:

Saddam: "Here you go, Osama. I know that your stated purpose is to destroy my government and all other non-theocratic islamic governments, but I know you also don't like America and neither do I...so why don't you take [these nasty weapons of mass destruction][this money][the use of these training facilities] as long as you promise - scout's honor - to only use them on America and not on ME"

You are once again confusing Iraq and Al Qaeda. Your original statement said you were right when there was NO LINK BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND 9/11... I am pretty sure you meant Iraq and 9/11 and during that time (myself the republican) pointed out consistenly on p.com that Iraq had not been accused of being part of 9/11... So the "All the Republicans laughed" is total rubbish...

Also during that time I spent many an hour arguing with other Rs about Declared War....

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:41 PM
Not at all maine, we obviously don't see eye to eye on this one, and were not going to either, I stated that pretty much already, and I'm fine with it.

the only difference being your inability to support your position.....

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:42 PM
and how about if I said, "and nearly all the republicans laughed"?

Damocles
09-01-2006, 06:46 PM
and how about if I said, "and nearly all the republicans laughed"?
At the statement that "Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11"? I'd be embarrassed if any of them didn't... Al Qaeda was the group that perpetrated the deed.

Sir Evil
09-01-2006, 06:47 PM
the only difference being your inability to support your position.....

maine, what is so hard to understand about my position? is it that I don't see this particular post the way you do, is it that I tend to look at things from my own view instead of declaring a position in cement, is it that I can understand when there is no longer a debate, and then have fun with it, or is it that I supported my postion on this thread but you would prefer to turn it into something else?

Suggestion: change your username to The Rhetorical Oracle, that would be awesome!:cof1:

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:49 PM
that is a fine name...but I gotta admit, I am really partial to Maineman and I am loathe to part with it.

maineman
09-01-2006, 06:52 PM
At the statement that "Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11"? I'd be embarrassed if any of them didn't... Al Qaeda was the group that perpetrated the deed.


my statement which you misconstrued from the git go was that I asked (in regards to the impending invasion of Iraq) "and and what if there IS no link TO Al Qaeda and 9/11"

are you really suggesting that the meaning of that sentence is still not clear to you???

Damocles
09-01-2006, 07:04 PM
my statement which you misconstrued from the git go was that I asked (in regards to the impending invasion of Iraq) "and and what if there IS no link TO Al Qaeda and 9/11"

are you really suggesting that the meaning of that sentence is still not clear to you???
That there is no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11 as you stated that you became the owner of 100% accuracy in your prognostication....


Are you missing the fact that Al Qaeda was the Group that perpetrated 9/11?

maineman
09-01-2006, 07:24 PM
That there is no link to Al Qaeda and 9/11 as you stated that you became the owner of 100% accuracy in your prognostication....


Are you missing the fact that Al Qaeda was the Group that perpetrated 9/11?

of course not... my point was that the implied (continually) connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and 9/11 was made by our pResident over and over and over and over again in the months leading up to the vote...and my prognostication was that there was no link

Damocles
09-01-2006, 07:29 PM
Right, which was my next statement. That I was sure that you meant Iraq and 9/11 not Al Qaeda...

;)

maineman
09-01-2006, 07:54 PM
Right, which was my next statement. That I was sure that you meant Iraq and 9/11 not Al Qaeda...

;)

no...I meant exactly what I said...which was all in context of Iraq.... I SAID WHAT IF THERE IS NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA AND 9/11. NOT BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND 9/11.




but we both know what the other is saying - I think... and I was 100% correct and many many republicans (not YOU) laughed like I was a complete idiot for saying even ONE of those "what if's" and those that laughed are laughing whilst standing knee deep in a barrel of wet shit, because I was right on all of them

NOVA
09-01-2006, 09:16 PM
and...oddly enough...not one of those democratic quotes says that Saddam has any weapons of mass destruction.... as opposed to the likes of Bush, Rummy and Cheney who not only said that he most certainly HAD weapons of mass destruction, but, that they knew right where they were.

People who claim they cannot discern the difference between those two classes of statements pretty much brand themselves as thick, obtuse morons.




That would be YOU, write... but we already knew that. lol

Darn...you must have conviently missed the Al Gore quote....

Sir Evil
09-02-2006, 11:54 AM
Darn...you must have conviently missed the Al Gore quote....

LOL, sure it's a convenience but it's also under highly different circumstances. These fine updsatnding political figures are immune to such acts of war, and agression.......they leave it for someone with backbone to do it, and then they can turn around and claim the world is all wrong because of them....:cool:

BRUTALITOPS
09-02-2006, 12:01 PM
No need to be speechless krisy, I mean most here can admit to not being partisan in their views!

Isn't that so:
cypress
Darla
Desh
Care4all
Watermark
LadyT
Poprikash
and the many other..........:cof1:

watermark isn't that bad evil, i'll give him my vouch..

Sir Evil
09-02-2006, 12:09 PM
watermark isn't that bad evil, i'll give him my vouch..

LOL Grind, I don't think of any of them as bad, well maybe cypress because he is just a whimp as he likes to add one to his ignore list but then quickly jump offline and view what the ignored one has posted. The rest are all good people I'm sure with the opinions they are entitles to, I jsut like to hear those opinions to keep an issues on course of discussion. I only pointed out watermark because he failed to ask a question for a period of time, he since has and this tells me he is a respectable person. So no, none are bad as far as I am concerned but they are a whole lot of fun to irritate! :D