Ted Kennedy, Still an embarresment to the country even in death

Onceler said:
That's the truly sad comment. Although your characterization of Vietnam was sad, too. Yes, we were sending troops; but Johnson escalated. He made Vietnam what it was, and it was his war.

Just as Iraq is Bush's war. It always will be. You don't put responsibility on those who are responsible - Bush made the decision. PERIOD.
Click to expand...


Really....?? Someone else starts a war and another escalates it, ...then another, then another....so its his war and not the one that started it.....thats logic...?....well, pinhead logic....

Who helps you put your shirt on in the morning ?....and can you sign yourself out on weekends.....?
 
Onceler said:
That's the truly sad comment. Although your characterization of Vietnam was sad, too. Yes, we were sending troops; but Johnson escalated. He made Vietnam what it was, and it was his war.

Just as Iraq is Bush's war. It always will be. You don't put responsibility on those who are responsible - Bush made the decision. PERIOD.
Click to expand...


Bush is responsible for the method....he, along with many others are responsible for the decision to allow a war in the first place.....
 
bravo said:
There would be no Iraq War without the bi-partisan passage of the WAR RESOLUTION......I don't blame anyone for anything.....I put responsibility on those that are responsible.....and it is "those".............as in plural....
Click to expand...

There should be a different word than "bi-partisan" to illustrate the passage of that resolution.

48 out of 49 Repub senators voted for it;
215 out of 221 Repub congressmen voted for it.

At least we had some principled Dems who saw the resolution as the bogus piece of crap it was, while 97% of Repubs drank the kool-aid.
 
bravo said:
Bush is responsible for the method....he, along with many others are responsible for the decision to allow a war in the first place.....
Click to expand...

Pathetic apologism. The only thing that "allowed" the Bush war was Bush's decision.

Can't you hear yourself? I swear - you take koolaid ingestion to a whole new level.
 
Onceler said:
Pathetic apologism. The only thing that "allowed" the Bush war was Bush's decision.

Can't you hear yourself? I swear - you take koolaid ingestion to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

You're like a broken record.....and repetition won't change the historical facts or the events as they happened or why they happened......

Your na na na na na like a child just won't cut it.....Reading comprehension and logical thought can be learned over time so keep trying.....

I'll do my best to not laugh at you anymore.......your stupidity isn't funny, its pathetic....

Its amazing how sparing with you is so much like talking to Apple about biology and his views on why abortion is so needed in our society....
 
bravo said:
You're like a broken record.....and repetition won't change the historical facts or the events as they happened or why they happened......

Your na na na na na like a child just won't cut it.....Reading comprehension and logical thought can be learned over time so keep trying.....

I'll do my best to not laugh at you anymore.......your stupidity isn't funny, its pathetic....

Its amazing how sparing with you is so much like talking to Apple about biology and his views on why abortion is so needed in our society....
Click to expand...

You ain't laughing. On some level, you know how much koolaid you drink, especially for Bush.

On most other topics, it's bad. On Iraq, it truly requires suspension of disbelief. And I always think how you were w/ the righties who kept saying Dems were on the wrong side of history when Saddam's statue fell, and it looked like a good decision. It was all about how decisive Bush was, and how he made the bold choice to invade.

Now, it's this whole huge group who - along with Bush - "allowed" the war to happen, like war is something that can just truck along on its own. It's amazing to read.
 
Onceler said:
You ain't laughing. On some level, you know how much koolaid you drink, especially for Bush.

On most other topics, it's bad. On Iraq, it truly requires suspension of disbelief. And I always think how you were w/ the righties who kept saying Dems were on the wrong side of history when Saddam's statue fell, and it looked like a good decision. It was all about how decisive Bush was, and how he made the bold choice to invade.

Now, it's this whole huge group who - along with Bush - "allowed" the war to happen, like war is something that can just truck along on its own. It's amazing to read.
Click to expand...


The Dems were and are on the wrong side of history.....Iraq is a total success....Saddam is out, and the people free to govern themselves....costly, yes...but a success.....
how they turn out in the future remains to be seen.....

It may yet turn out that the country might revert to a dictatorship or a militant Islamic state or some other anti-American entity......but the future is irrelevant to the war and its outcome..........just as Libyas future will not diminish Obamas roll in successfully ousting Qaddafi....

You'll understand better as you mature....
 
failure.jpg
 
webbway said:
[h=1]Star Wars’ Carrie Fisher: Ted Kennedy asked if I would have sex with Chris Dodd[/h]
Not so long ago, in a District of Columbia not so far away, Sen. Ted Kennedy was more than a little perverted to Star Wars actress Carrie Fisher.
According to her latest book, “Shockaholic,” Fisher was on a date in 1985 with former Sen. Chris Dodd in Washington, D.C. The two were joined for dinner by the late Kennedy, who proceeded to ask some rather frank questions.


“Suddenly,” Fisher writes, “Senator Kennedy, seated directly across from me, looked at me with his alert, aristocratic eyes and asked me a most surprising question. ‘So,’ he said, clearly amused, ‘do you think you’ll be having sex with Chris at the end of your date?’”
According to Fisher, “Chris Dodd looked at me with an unusual grin hanging on his very flushed face.”


Fisher, being the trained actress she was, responded coolly: “Funnily enough, I won’t be having sex with Chris tonight. … No that probably won’t happen. … Thanks for asking, though.”


But the “Lion of the Senate” didn’t stop there.


“’Would you have sex with Chris in a hot tub?’ Senator Kennedy asked me, ‘Perhaps as a way to say good night?”
“’I'm no good in water,’ I told him.”


http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/10/s...dy-asked-if-i-would-have-sex-with-chris-dodd/

:palm:

I am so glad he is dead, too bad it took so long for him to die.
Click to expand...

Ted Kennedy sucked!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
did you just link it or did you read it.......where in there did you find Blix saying there were no WMD in Iraq?.......over and over again he said that without cooperation from Iraq they weren't going to find any and that Iraq was not cooperating....
Click to expand...

I read it. He stated that everything they had access to so far showed no WMD. He left open the possibility that inspectors hadn't seen everything there is because of Iraq being a closed society.

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming... "

"The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at the site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities..."

"Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the council, I said that it is seen from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process. Most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains. And we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected as well as two presidential sites and private residences..."

"While we were in Baghdad, we met a delegation from the government of South Africa. It was there to explain how South Africa gained the confidence of the world in its dismantling of the nuclear weapons program by a whole-hearted cooperation over two years with IAEA inspectors. I just learned that Iraq has accepted an offer by South Africa to send a group of experts for further talks..."

"How much, if any, is left of the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed..."

"At the recent meeting in Baghdad as in several earlier occasions, Dr. ElBaradei and I had encouraged the Iraqi side to enact legislation to implement prohibition of weapons of mass destruction. This morning we had a message that a presidential decree has now been issued containing prohibitions with regard to importation and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. We have not yet had time to study the details of the text of the decree..."

At the meeting in Baghdad on the 8th and 9th of February, the Iraqi side addressed some of the important outstanding disarmament issues and gave us a number of papers, for instance, regarding anthrax and growth material, the nerve agent VX and missile production. Experts who were present from our side studied the papers during the evening of the 8th of February and met with Iraqi experts in the morning of the 9th of February for further clarification.

"...Although no new evidence was provided in the papers, and no open issues were closed through them or the expert discussions, the presentation of the papers could be indicative of a more active attitude focusing on important open issues..."

(Continued)
 
and....

Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.
Click to expand...

The declaration submitted by Iraq on the 7th of December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is, perhaps, the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
Click to expand...

With respect to the casting chambers, I note the following: UNSCOM ordered and supervised the destruction of the casting chambers which had been intend for use in the production of the proscribed 2000 missile system. Iraq has declared it has reconstituted these chambers. The experts have confirmed that the reconstituted casting chambers could still be used to produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 kilometers. Accordingly, these chambers remain proscribed.
Click to expand...

The Iraqi side suggested that the problem of verifying the quantities of anthrax and two VX precursors which had been declared unilaterally destroyed might be tackled through certain analytical methods. Our researchers are suggesting this, but they are not hopeful that it could prove possible to assess the amount of materials poured into the ground years ago. Documentary evidence and testimony by staff that dealt with the items still appears to be needed.
Click to expand...

and....

Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination under UNSCOM of the IAEA supervision, large amounts of weapons, weapons and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete when inspectors were withdrawn, almost eight years later, at the end of 1998.
Click to expand...

and, in 2003 cooperation had not yet begun......12 YEARS after disarmament had been required under the cease fire agreement.....
 
Onceler said:
You ain't laughing. On some level, you know how much koolaid you drink, especially for Bush.

On most other topics, it's bad. On Iraq, it truly requires suspension of disbelief. And I always think how you were w/ the righties who kept saying Dems were on the wrong side of history when Saddam's statue fell, and it looked like a good decision. It was all about how decisive Bush was, and how he made the bold choice to invade.

Now, it's this whole huge group who - along with Bush - "allowed" the war to happen, like war is something that can just truck along on its own. It's amazing to read.
Click to expand...

You have a classic case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I just realized it and it explains your cultic like thinking.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and....









and....



and, in 2003 cooperation had not yet begun......12 YEARS after disarmament had been required under the cease fire agreement.....
Click to expand...

Nothing in Blix's report suggests that Iraq is a continuing threat to the US, which is how bush sold the invasion to the country. And, neither is there any language in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that suggests Iraq is a threat to the US.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States...

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States...

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...
 
Alias said:
You have a classic case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I just realized it and it explains your cultic like thinking.
Click to expand...

Bush himself has said he was the decider, and has talked about the decision to invade many times.

The idea that it was some inevitable thing that he had no control over after Dems "voted for war" is preposterous. Again, you are among the crowd who told us again & again that the Dems were on the "wrong side of history" after Saddam's statue fell. The fact that they were now such a huge part of the decision speaks volumes regarding how you now feel about the decision (Bush's) to invade.
 
Onceler said:
Bush himself has said he was the decider, and has talked about the decision to invade many times.

The idea that it was some inevitable thing that he had no control over after Dems "voted for war" is preposterous. Again, you are among the crowd who told us again & again that the Dems were on the "wrong side of history" after Saddam's statue fell. The fact that they were now such a huge part of the decision speaks volumes regarding how you now feel about the decision (Bush's) to invade.
Click to expand...


"Bush himself has said he was the decider, and has talked about the decision to invade many times."//.........exactly....

and this is why the Congress knew exactly what they were voting for when they said YES to giving Bush the Authority to use military force in Iraq....

Thanks for making that clear........

TO USE MILITARY FORCE is the classic definition of WAR.....The AUTHORITY to use it is to CONDONE, ALLOW, and PERMIT a war to take place....
 
bravo said:
"Bush himself has said he was the decider, and has talked about the decision to invade many times."//.........exactly....

and this is why the Congress knew exactly what they were voting for when they said YES to giving Bush the Authority to use military force in Iraq....

Thanks for making that clear........

TO USE MILITARY FORCE is the classic definition of WAR.....The AUTHORITY to use it is to CONDONE, ALLOW, and PERMIT a war to take place....
Click to expand...

Exactly. Bush made the decision. It was Bush's war.
 
christiefan915 said:
Nothing in Blix's report suggests that Iraq is a continuing threat to the US, which is how bush sold the invasion to the country. And, neither is there any language in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 that suggests Iraq is a threat to the US.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States...

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States...

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...
Click to expand...


Hans Blix ........

He is not a citizen of the US and has no allegiance to the US

He is not a US Intelligence agent

He is not a CIA agent

He is not an FBI agent

He is not US military

Hans Blix is a Swedish diplomat and politician for the Liberal People's Party.....and hardly interested in what policy is in the interest of the United States.

Bush did not write the NIE of the 16 intelligence agencys that confer to give advice to the President
Bush did not manufacture the intelligence that came from the UK, or Germany or France, etc....
Bush did not force the entire UN to vote unanimously (16+ times) to condemn Saddam and his WMD...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top