US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  

Bring it on.

This is a discussion on Bring it on. within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks The following is mirrored from its source at: UNObserver & International Report ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arming Iraq and the Path to ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics


Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 07:29 AM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,326
Thanks: 30
Thanked 944 Times in 634 Posts
Rep Power: 263
RetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religion
RetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
The following is mirrored from its source at:
UNObserver & International Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arming Iraq and the Path to War
by John King
U.N. Observer & International Report
31 March 2003


2003-03-31 | This is an accurate chronology of United States'
involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. It is
a powerful indictment of the current bush administration attempt
to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals our
ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to
regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of
Iran.


A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is
no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran
war.[8]

February 1982. Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan
removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.[1]

December 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to
Iraq.[9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed
information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for
battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.[4]

November 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S
would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from
losing its war with Iran.[1][15]

November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch
in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq.
Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S.
government, purchased computer controlled machine tools,
computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and
aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's
missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.[14]

October 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States
weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq.
These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.[16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given
intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using
chemical weapons against the Iranians.[1]

December 20 1983. Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian and now Defense
Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US
friendship and materials support.[1][15]

July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to
calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.[19]

January 14 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States
shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use
items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances
and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can
have a military application.[2]

March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all
Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical
weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country
refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's
use of these weapons.[10]

May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological
exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least
21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.[3]

May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons
grade botulin poison to Iraq.[7]

March 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower
Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for
hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an
illegal war in Nicaragua.

[17]http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/armIraqP2W.txt
And yet none of that is chemical weapons. Come on provide us that list of chemical weapons or admit your full of bullshit.

By the way the Helicopters that we sold to them were unarmed, civilian models.
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links Remove advertisements
Advertisement
  #152 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 07:32 AM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,326
Thanks: 30
Thanked 944 Times in 634 Posts
Rep Power: 263
RetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religion
RetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
OK, dimbulb, show me one word I have posted that demeans the service of our men and women in the military. You are creating a strawman to support criminals. The administration that started this war on the basis of lies are the criminals. The bozos that blindly support them are equally culpable.

As for your physical threats. LOL
You have yet to provide ANY evidence we got lied into war, once again MORON if Bush lied then Clinton and his entire Administration lied, as well as most of the rest of the World. Including all the democrats that voted for the war and every appropriations bill since that vote. The 3 or 4 investigations launched over the years to INCLUDE a Democratic one all found no evidence of lies.

Be specific provide us one shred of evidence Bush lied. You keep claiming it, it can not be that hard can it?
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)
Reply With Quote
  #153 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 07:36 AM
jillian's Avatar
Princess
Member #3135
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Other Side of Paradise
Posts: 23,209
Thanks: 673
Thanked 1,003 Times in 769 Posts
Rep Power: 550
jillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religion
jillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religionjillian could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
You have yet to provide ANY evidence we got lied into war, once again MORON if Bush lied then Clinton and his entire Administration lied, as well as most of the rest of the World. Including all the democrats that voted for the war and every appropriations bill since that vote. The 3 or 4 investigations launched over the years to INCLUDE a Democratic one all found no evidence of lies.

Be specific provide us one shred of evidence Bush lied. You keep claiming it, it can not be that hard can it?
He doesn't have to PROVE something that EVERYONE except for a few deadenders know is true.... THEY LIED ABOUT WMD's.

Having this argument is simply silly.

But any time you'd like, I'm sure we can all agree they should start investigating to get your "evidence".

Cool, eh?
__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place - David Letterman

O, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd; / She was a vixen when she went to school, / And though she be but little, she is fierce. — Shakespeare

Reply With Quote
  #154 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 07:37 AM
RetiredGySgt's Avatar
Registered User
Member #5176
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,326
Thanks: 30
Thanked 944 Times in 634 Posts
Rep Power: 263
RetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religion
RetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religionRetiredGySgt could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by jillian View Post
He doesn't have to PROVE something that EVERYONE except for a few deadenders know is true.... THEY LIED ABOUT WMD's.

Having this argument is simply silly.

But any time you'd like, I'm sure we can all agree they should start investigating to get your "evidence".

Cool, eh?
Already BEEN done twice, once by the Democratically controlled Congress. And guess what they decided? Why they decided there was no EVIDENCE anyone lied to anyone. Nice try though.
__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)
Reply With Quote
  #155 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 07:51 AM
Registered User
Member #14272
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 779
Thanks: 22
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Rep Power: 6
Gord could be town mayor
Gord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by jillian View Post
He doesn't have to PROVE something that EVERYONE except for a few deadenders know is true.... THEY LIED ABOUT WMD's.

Having this argument is simply silly.

But any time you'd like, I'm sure we can all agree they should start investigating to get your "evidence".

Cool, eh?
OK let's start. Your party in the senate just produced a report that "substantiates" the prewar administration claims:

Quote: Originally Posted by Gord View Post
The recent U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under a Democrat majority released a report in June 2008 called, "Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information". These were its conclusions:

"Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community."

"Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information."

"Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information."

"Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves."

"Statements ... regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence."

"Statements ... that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be use to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community."

"Statements ... regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information."

"Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa'ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments."

So basically a Democrat majority, after-the-fact report concludes that prewar "Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials" "were generally substantiated by intelligence information" available at the time. In other words, congress was not misled by the administration into approving the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

In conclusion, the prewar intelligence that suggested that Saddam would be a future threat has been confirmed.
Reply With Quote
  #156 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 08:43 AM
Red Dawn's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11488
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Liberal Socialist Paradise
Posts: 3,224
Thanks: 64
Thanked 103 Times in 82 Posts
Rep Power: 42
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Gord View Post
OK let's start. Your party in the senate just produced a report that "substantiates" the prewar administration claims:
I knew there was a reason you "forgot" to provide a link in your post.

I went to the actual report, unlike you. You went to a right wing blog.

What is your standard for honesty? That if Bush only lied 20% of the time, he's still your hero?

Quote:
Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al qaida had a partnership or that iraq had provided al qaida with weapons training were NOT substantiated by the intelligence.

Conclusion 14: The intelligence community did NOT confirm that muhammed atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

Conclusion 15: Statements by the president and the vice president indicating that saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attack against the united states were CONTRADICTED by available intelligence.
Reply With Quote
  #157 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 09:16 AM
Red Dawn's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11488
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Liberal Socialist Paradise
Posts: 3,224
Thanks: 64
Thanked 103 Times in 82 Posts
Rep Power: 42
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
so, bush totally lied about saddam's relationship and intentions with respect to al qaeda.

And he exaggerated and misled on WMD. Bushco stated with certainty that they "knew for a fact" saddam had wmd and nuclear programs. When in fact, it wasn't "known for a fact".

Hey dude, how would you feel if a doctor told you that he knew "for a fact" that you had testicular cancer, and he had to cut off your dick or you would die.

And after your dick was cut off, you later found out that he didn't "know it for a fact", and that there was some disagreement among medical experts?

Would you be defending the doctor that cut off your dick? I think not! You just happen to be in love with George Dumbya Bush!
Reply With Quote
  #158 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 09:18 AM
Registered User
Member #14272
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 779
Thanks: 22
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Rep Power: 6
Gord could be town mayor
Gord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayorGord could be town mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by Red Dawn View Post
I knew there was a reason you "forgot" to provide a link in your post.

I went to the actual report, unlike you. You went to a right wing blog.

What is your standard for honesty? That if Bush only lied 20% of the time, he's still your hero?
Quote:
Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al qaida had a partnership or that iraq had provided al qaida with weapons training were NOT substantiated by the intelligence.

Conclusion 14: The intelligence community did NOT confirm that muhammed atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

Conclusion 15: Statements by the president and the vice president indicating that saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attack against the united states were CONTRADICTED by available intelligence.
That's because the intelligence community didn't have any intelligence at all. The bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee report from the summer of 2004 found that:

Quote:
Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al Qaeda. [...] The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not have a focused human intelligence (HUMINT) collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. [...] The CIA had no [redacted] credible reporting on the leadership of either the Iraqi regime or al Qaeda, which would have enabled it to better define a cooperative relationship, if any did in fact exist.
Any possible connection between Saddam and al Qaeda was not apparent because no CIA intelligence had been gathered on the matter. In fact the CIA and other agencies had never penetrated the inner circles of either Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden:

Quote:
In a stunning moment of candor, an "IC analyst" provided this characterization of the collection effort on Iraq: "I don't think we were really focused on the CT [counterterrorism] side, because we weren't concerned about the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] going out and proactively conducting terrorist attacks. It wasn't until we realized that there was the possibility of going to war that we had to get a handle on that."
The administration relied on media reports and foreign intelligence because U.S. intelligence could tell them nothing about Iraq's connections to al Qaeda.
Reply With Quote
  #159 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 10:40 AM
Red Dawn's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11488
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Liberal Socialist Paradise
Posts: 3,224
Thanks: 64
Thanked 103 Times in 82 Posts
Rep Power: 42
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by jillian View Post
[u]He doesn't have to PROVE something that EVERYONE except for a few deadenders know is true.... THEY LIED ABOUT WMD's.[/n]

Having this argument is simply silly.

But any time you'd like, I'm sure we can all agree they should start investigating to get your "evidence".

Cool, eh?




That dude posted some narrative from a rightwing blog, and didn't provide the link for obvious reasons.

The senate report he's refering to, specifies numerous times Bush didn't tell the truth, wasn't substantiated by the intelligence, or was flat out contradicted by the intelligence. If you only lie 20% of the time, that makes it all okay? LOL

In the cases where there was intelligence to support bush's statements, bush ALWAYS expressed the absolute worst case scenario, and neglected to mention that there were disagreements and caveats. He always tried to make it sound like it was a known fact; beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD, was allied with al qaeda, was going to give al qaeda WMD.


You're right about one thing. Bush voters are still madly in love with their hero. The 22% dead enders will defend bush's lies to the grave. Its just silly to argue with people who voted for Bush not just once, but twice, and continue to defend every mistake and lie he ever made.

Its almost homoerotic the way these dudes defend their hero with every fiber of their being!

Last edited by Red Dawn; 01-16-2009 at 10:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #160 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 03:35 PM
DiveCon's Avatar
Dive Control Specialist
Member #11636
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Richmond, ME
Posts: 28,477
Thanks: 6,134
Thanked 1,061 Times in 861 Posts
Rep Power: 172
DiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religion
DiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
And yet none of that is chemical weapons. Come on provide us that list of chemical weapons or admit your full of bullshit.

By the way the Helicopters that we sold to them were unarmed, civilian models.
not only that, but what that moron he was quoting listed "defender helocopters"
that is a lie, what they sold were CIVILIAN helocopters that Saddam got the FRENCH to turn into military
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #161 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 03:39 PM
DiveCon's Avatar
Dive Control Specialist
Member #11636
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Richmond, ME
Posts: 28,477
Thanks: 6,134
Thanked 1,061 Times in 861 Posts
Rep Power: 172
DiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religion
DiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religionDiveCon could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by Red Dawn View Post



That dude posted some narrative from a rightwing blog, and didn't provide the link for obvious reasons.

The senate report he's refering to, specifies numerous times Bush didn't tell the truth, wasn't substantiated by the intelligence, or was flat out contradicted by the intelligence. If you only lie 20% of the time, that makes it all okay? LOL

In the cases where there was intelligence to support bush's statements, bush ALWAYS expressed the absolute worst case scenario, and neglected to mention that there were disagreements and caveats. He always tried to make it sound like it was a known fact; beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD, was allied with al qaeda, was going to give al qaeda WMD.


You're right about one thing. Bush voters are still madly in love with their hero. The 22% dead enders will defend bush's lies to the grave. Its just silly to argue with people who voted for Bush not just once, but twice, and continue to defend every mistake and lie he ever made.

Its almost homoerotic the way these dudes defend their hero with every fiber of their being!
WRONG, moron
being "not substantiated" still doesnt equal "lie"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 03:40 PM
AllieBaba's Avatar
Registered User
Member #6709
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 21,124
Thanks: 268
Thanked 734 Times in 595 Posts
Rep Power: 212
AllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religion
AllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religionAllieBaba could successfully start his own religion
Quote: Originally Posted by jillian View Post
He doesn't have to PROVE something that EVERYONE except for a few deadenders know is true.... THEY LIED ABOUT WMD's.

Having this argument is simply silly.

But any time you'd like, I'm sure we can all agree they should start investigating to get your "evidence".

Cool, eh?
Everyone doesn't know it, and it has never been proven. And to take the ridiculous stance that "we don't have to prove it because everyone believes it anyway" as proof that there is no evidence.

There was no evidence that the world was flat, and everyone believed that, too. Didn't make it true.
__________________
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #163 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 03:53 PM
Banned
Member #11706
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,796
Thanks: 1,080
Thanked 272 Times in 226 Posts
Rep Power: 0
PubliusInfinitum could be state senator
PubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senator
Question

Quote: Originally Posted by jillian View Post
He doesn't have to PROVE something that EVERYONE except for a few deadenders know is true.... THEY LIED ABOUT WMD's.
Well actually... He does... As do YOU... That you 'feel, that they lied'... you have no actual evidence to bring which actually supports those 'feelings.' Which in effect exposes you and your feelings as being... well... (how to delicately phrase this?)... FULL OF SHIT!

Quote:
Having this argument is simply silly
.

Yeah... it really is, in that until you advance evidence in support of this drivel, there IS NO ARGUMENT. There is only you advancing long discredited assertions of no value, credibility or validity; meaning everytime you girls advance this crap, YOU LOSE THE MOMENT YOU ADVANCE IT... and that you're not sufficiently equipped, intellectually speaking, to recognize that INCONTESTABLE FACT, is irrelevant.

Quote:
But any time you'd like, I'm sure we can all agree they should start investigating to get your "evidence".
ROFLMNAO... AHH is THAT how it works? Start off with a BASELESS ASSERTION and use those Baseless Assertions to begin an investigation to 'get your evidence...'

And THIS friends is a BEAUTIFULLY precise illustration of the tyrannical traits of the ideological left...

This imbecile is actually setting aside the bedrock principle of Western Jurisprudence: Innocent until proven guilty, where EVIDENCE OF A CRIME PRECEDES AN INVESTIGATION and wants to establish investigations IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME HAS TAKEN PLACE.

ROFLMNAO... a nd there's the basis of "The Audacity of Hope?"



Quote:
Cool, eh?
Very...
Reply With Quote
  #164 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 04:07 PM
Banned
Member #11706
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,796
Thanks: 1,080
Thanked 272 Times in 226 Posts
Rep Power: 0
PubliusInfinitum could be state senator
PubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senatorPubliusInfinitum could be state senator
Quote: Originally Posted by Old Rocks View Post
OK, dimbulb, show me one word I have posted that demeans the service of our men and women in the military.
Show me where I said ya did...

Quote:
You are creating a strawman to support criminals.
I'm stating incontrovertible facts...

Quote:
The administration that started this war on the basis of lies are the criminals. The bozos that blindly support them are equally culpable.
Well you've been repeatedly challenged to show ANY LIES advanced by this administration, let alone lies regarding the basis of the GWOT and the Campaign in Iraq within that war; and you've failed at every opportunity to show ANY VALID EVIDENCE of any such lies... thus YOU LOSE EVERY TIME YOU SPOUT THIS DRIVEL...

But feel free to lose as many times as ya feel ya need to... it seems to be your gift.


Quote:
As for your physical threats. LOL
There is nothing in the record where I've advanced physical threats against you, which ironically is a KICKASS example of a strawman; GOOD JOB!

Now do you intend to show evidence of the US sending Iraq WMD? Cause that is yet ANOTHER MYTH which is evaporating with every second you fail to show evidence which might support it...
Reply With Quote
  #165 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2009, 04:57 PM
Red Dawn's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11488
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Liberal Socialist Paradise
Posts: 3,224
Thanks: 64
Thanked 103 Times in 82 Posts
Rep Power: 42
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Red Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond reputeRed Dawn has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by DiveCon View Post
WRONG, moron
being "not substantiated" still doesnt equal "lie"

Wow, you are deeply, madly, and hopelessly in love with Dumbya.

Are you planning on defending your hero with all your heart and soul until death do you part?


BushCo. said over and over that saddam would give his wmd to al qaeda.

The senate report said the intelligence contradicted that assertion.

What sounds more likely...

that it was all just a terrible misunderstanding?

Or that BushCo dishonestly was exploiting and manipulating america's fears about 9/11.


If you could put your man-crush on bush aside for one minute, I think you'd conclude, like most of the non-bush loving country has, that option number 2 is more likely

Last edited by Red Dawn; 01-16-2009 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links Remove advertisements
Advertisement
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

» Search Forums

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Apple iPad Forum
» Premium Sponsors
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.1.0

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Please visit these our friends at the following forums:
Photography Forum - Celebrity Gossip and News - Conceal Carry and Hand Gun Forum - Parrot Forum - iPhone News - iPhone Forums - Motorola Droid Forum


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Ad Management by RedTyger