Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

christiefan915 said:
Imbecile. Context is everything. If I state "This is the saddest story I have ever heard" it could refer to:

1. A news article about a child's disappearance.
2. A barn burning and all the animals inside killed.
3. The opening lines from Ford Madox Ford's novel The Good Soldier.

Pull out your head and try using logic instead of partisan emotion.
Click to expand...

Cut the irrelevant bs....whatever the stroy was, you plainly say it was the saddest story you have ever heard. I our case, the Dems were always talking about WMD, ALWAYS.


Hey Sweetie, maybe can answer my simple questions then....looks like mm went down for the count...

And so....why was Clinton waging war on Saddam in 1998 ? not because of imaginary WMD I hope.
And we degraded Saddams ability to deliver WMD we weren't positive he had ? wanna explain that.
And the Dems whined on for the next 4 or 5 years about exactly what again ? we won, according to your post.
I can't wait....be specific and no strawmen, please.
 
NOVA said:
Hey Sweetie, maybe can answer my simple questions then....looks like mm went down for the count...

And so....why was Clinton waging war on Saddam in 1998 ?
And we degraded Saddams ability to deliver WMD we weren't positive he had ?
And the Dems whined on for the next 4 or 5 years about exactly what again ?
I can't wait....be specific and no strawmen, please.
Click to expand...

Who made the decision to invade Iraq?

No strawmen, please.
 
Thing1 said:
Who made the decision to invade Iraq?

No strawmen, please.
Click to expand...

Are you back with you one word dictionary ?.....After getting permission from the US Congress, Bush made the call to oust Saddam by air strikes, invasion and occupation...
OR, more likely....it was the military that came up with the actual military plan and Bush approved it....Bush set the goal, and the military brass did the planning.
I just don't think Bush personally dreamed up the actual military plans to take out Saddam because he didn't fancy himself an armchair General ala LBJ....
Conjecture on my part, but I don't think dis-proven in any way....


Is that plain enough for you.....case closed....we're discussing a different topic at the moment.
 
NOVA said:
Are you back with you one word dictionary ?.....After getting permission from the US Congress, Bush made the call to oust Saddam by air strikes, invasion and occupation...
OR, more likely....it was the military that came up with the actual military plan and Bush approved it....
I just don't think Bush dreamed up the actual military plans to take out Saddam because he didn't fancy himself an armchair General ala LBJ....
Conjecture on my part, but I don't think dis-proven in any way....


Is that plain enough for you.....case closed....we're discussing a different topic at the moment.
Click to expand...

Why do you use so many words and so much spin?

It's a one word answer. I bolded it for you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
see anything in there about the absolute certainty of the non-existence of stockpiles?
<see what I did there>
Click to expand...

Its just so amusing when pinheads like Thingy and mm latch onto single, particular words and try to make a case for something......I gotta admit, I get to
actually laughing to myself at times.....they're so pathetic in their mind set....
 
NOVA said:
Its just so amusing when pinheads like Thingy and mm latch onto single, particular words and try to make a case for something......I gotta admit, I get to
actually laughing to myself at times.....they're so pathetic in their mind set....
Click to expand...

Glad we can amuse each other. I always find it hilarious when you can't just answer "Bush" to the question of who made the decision on invasion (which is the obvious answer). It's always, uh, uh, well, uh, Democrats voted for the resolution, which uh, gave Bush permission and encouraged him, and uh, with the advice of his advisors and a plan from the military, and uh, uh, other stuff, Bush may have possibly had something to do w/ the decision.

It's great apologist stuff.
 
Thing1 said:
Why do you use so many words and so much spin?

It's a one word answer. I bolded it for you.
Click to expand...

Its not a one word answer....if you want to be clear (fair and balanced)lol

Do you still suck dicks ?....How about a one word answer.
 
christiefan915 said:
Imbecile. Context is everything. If I state "This is the saddest story I have ever heard" it could refer to:

1. A news article about a child's disappearance.
2. A barn burning and all the animals inside killed.
3. The opening lines from Ford Madox Ford's novel The Good Soldier.

Pull out your head and try using logic instead of partisan emotion.
Click to expand...

Dear dumbass; context is everything and nothing in the context changes those FACTUAL quotes from meaning what they mean.

Now you can desperately attempt to parse their meanings like Commander shit-for-brains and look like the idiot we know you to be, or accept the FACT that only morons and dishonest leftist assholes can claim that Bush KNEW Saddam didn't have WMDs when everyone else thought he did and therefore, he lied.

Spare me your dishonest stupidity. Life is too short for your nonsense.

“All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction”

But because you are really ignorant, let us parse out what the "red" part of your quote really is:

However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S.

I underlined the pertinent part; it is irrelevant because the US did not engage in unilateral intervention in Iraq, and most of those “speakers” voted for the Joint Resolution. But alas, you're too painfully stupid to comprehend your own attempts to refute my facts and desperately defend Commander shit-for-brains desperate and stupid efforts to claim Bush alone lied.

Carry on dumbass.

P.S. If you weren’t such a dishonest Liberal dunce, I wouldn’t have to call you dumbass. But you really are a repugnant insulting uninformed dumbass stuck on that special brand of stupid repugnant dumbass Liberals get stuck on.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Its just so amusing when pinheads like Thingy and mm latch onto single, particular words and try to make a case for something......I gotta admit, I get to
actually laughing to myself at times.....they're so pathetic in their mind set....
Click to expand...


Its amusing that you think Bush was personally drawing up the plans to oust Saddam...Presidents set the goals...the military creates and carries out plans to
achieve those goals.....I guess you think Obama sat down one night after dinner and wrote the 23,000 pages of Obamacare....sorry sonny, thats not how it
works in real life....Bush may have been a fighter pilot, but he ain't no battlefield tactician...

Its time for you to join mm and Christiefan on the canvas.....
 
NOVA said:
Its amusing that you think Bush was personally drawing up the plans to oust Saddam...Presidents set the goals...the military creates and carries out plans to
achieve those goals.....I guess you think Obama sat down one night after dinner and wrote the 23,000 pages of Obamacare....sorry sonny, thats not how it
works in real life....Bush may have been a fighter pilot, but he ain't no battlefield tactician...

Its time for you to join mm and Christiefan on the canvas.....
Click to expand...

No one said he "drew up the plans."

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Period.
 
NOVA said:
And so....why was Clinton waging war on Saddam in 1998 ?
And we degraded Saddams ability to deliver WMD we weren't positive he had ?
And the Dems whined on for the next 4 or 5 years about exactly what again ?
I can't wait....be specific and answer the questions...
Click to expand...

OK... let's try this again.

1. Regarding 1998... The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Nothing in that statement suggests that he DID have stockpiles of ANYTHING, only that we were striking at his ability to produce them.

2. Having a delivery system is nice... having something to deliver is even nicer. We degraded his ability to deliver WMD's in case he ever got them.

3. The dems discussed what a threat Saddam was to international stability. He was.... he was, however, much LESS of a threat than Al Qaeda was... we just didn't know that then.

And... like I said... with the exception of Al Gore AFTER he left office, no democrat EVER stated that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. And NO democrat ever stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a working relationship prior to 9/11. And NO democrat made the final decision to send our troops into Iraq to disarm a tinhorn dictator that did not have any arms to begin with.
 
maineman said:
OK... let's try this again.

1. Regarding 1998... The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Nothing in that statement suggests that he DID have stockpiles of ANYTHING, only that we were striking at his ability to produce them.

2. Having a delivery system is nice... having something to deliver is even nicer. We degraded his ability to deliver WMD's in case he ever got them.

3. The dems discussed what a threat Saddam was to international stability. He was.... he was, however, much LESS of a threat than Al Qaeda was... we just didn't know that then.

And... like I said... with the exception of Al Gore AFTER he left office, no democrat EVER stated that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. And NO democrat ever stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a working relationship prior to 9/11. And NO democrat made the final decision to send our troops into Iraq to disarm a tinhorn dictator that did not have any arms to begin with.
Click to expand...

I guess these, from 1998, mean nothing:

"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."

"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"

"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998."

"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."
 
maineman said:
OK... let's try this again.

1. Regarding 1998... The stated goal of the cruise missile and bombing attacks was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Nothing in that statement suggests that he DID have stockpiles of ANYTHING, only that we were striking at his ability to produce them.
Click to expand...

The main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and the barracks and command headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam's lavish presidential palaces came under attack.

So Clinton was waging war on Iraq over something that might happen in the future....thats amazing...
How did attacking one of Saddam's lavish presidential palaces figure into that ?

Do you now condone putting people in prison on the possibility that they might break the law in the future, too?



2. Having a delivery system is nice... having something to deliver is even nicer. We degraded his ability to deliver WMD's in case he ever got them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that from the first statement.....so we 'de-graded' a delivery system that didn't exist , so he wouldn't have the power to use
WMD that he didn't yet possess......thats a fantastic story, ....... you must be one hell of a tapdancer, sailor....




3. The dems discussed what a threat Saddam was to international stability. He was.... he was, however, much LESS of a threat than Al Qaeda was... we just didn't know that then.
Click to expand...
And... like I said... with the exception of Al Gore AFTER he left office, no democrat EVER stated that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. And NO democrat ever stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a working relationship prior to 9/11. And NO democrat made the final decision to send our troops into Iraq to disarm a tinhorn dictator that did not have any arms to begin with.
Click to expand...

wow, I'm under-whelmed....

no body but Algore, huh....
look up the definition of the words 'real' and "confident" before my next post
I gotta make head call in the meantime....
 
No body but Algore.........?

We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons............
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
In case you don't know what confident means :
confident (ˈkɒnfɪdənt)
adj
1.having or showing confidence or certainty; sure

--------------

...... I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
In case you don't know what REAL means :
re·al 1 (rē′əl, rēl)
1. a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence
b. True and actual; not imaginary
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial
3. Being no less than what is stated
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation

And of course you must know what the words "weapons of mass destruction in his hands" means....

And NO democrat ever stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a working relationship prior to 9/11

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

Not before 9/11 but telling nevertheless...
 
Thing1 said:
No one said he "drew up the plans."

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. Period.
Click to expand...

by the way, Thing.....I put a lot of effort into correcting your error regarding the final UN reports back on page 10.....the least you could have done was post a "sorry I fucked up, thank you for telling me".........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top