1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[red states rule]

Your opinion, not based in fact. Your words. Bush spoke of WMD'S that EVERYONE believed Saddam had, he spoke of programs that Saddam had had before and after the invasion was proven he was going to return to once sanctions were lifted. He talked of Saddam Hussein trying to make a deal with Al Qaeda something also proven before and after the invasion. NO your OPINION is not supported by facts, while mine is. I provided you a quote to back it up.

So did your Dems

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998

“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 2002
http://basilsblog.net/2006/12/08/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-democrats/

 

[M14 Shooter]

find a quote from a democrat who suggests "CUTTING" and "RUNNING".
I'll wait.

Find a quote form the Bush administration that says "Iraq was involved in 9/11".
I'll wait.

 

[red states rule]

Find a quote form the Bush administration that says Iraq was involved in 9/11.
I'll wait.

The naval convoy just took a direct hit

 

[maineman]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48970-2004Jun17?language=printer

I could go on, but you get the point....

 

[red states rule]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48970-2004Jun17?language=printer

I could go on, but you get the point....

There are MANY links to Saddam and al Queda, but the administartion never said Saddam was involved with 9-11

That is what you were asked to show

 

[RetiredGySgt]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48970-2004Jun17?language=printer

I could go on, but you get the point....

Yet none of them provide any link to actual 9/11 talk. In fact the Government was clear that they had NO such links. Did Bush et al talk of a link between al Quaeda and Iraq? Yes BUT not in regards 9/11. Of course that distinction is lost on someone that can not even figure out that voting to abandon an ally in a fight is cutting and running.

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48970-2004Jun17?language=printer

I could go on, but you get the point....

Yes - that you cannot provide a quote from the bush administration that claims Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Thanks foir proving what we already knew.

 

[red states rule]

Yes - that you cannot provide a quote from the bush administration that claims Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Thanks foir proving what we already knew.

You REALLY did not expect him to back up his claim, did you?

 

[maineman]

Yet none of them provide any link to actual 9/11 talk. In fact the Government was clear that they had NO such links. Did Bush et al talk of a link between al Quaeda and Iraq? Yes BUT not in regards 9/11. Of course that distinction is lost on someone that can not even figure out that voting to abandon an ally in a fight is cutting and running.

and when America thinks about AQ, they think about it in terms OTHER than 9/11????

And when team Bush continually connected Saddam and AQ, you think that had NOTHING to do with the fact that 70% of America then thought that Saddam had planned 9/11?

and wouldn't that fall under the category of something intended or serving to convey a false impression? And given the fact that Bush needed to get America behind his plan to forget all about OBL and go after Saddam, that false impression certainly served a useful purpose, did it not?

 

[red states rule]

and when America thinks about AQ, they think about it in terms OTHER than 9/11????

And when team Bush continually connected Saddam and AQ, you think that had NOTHING to do with the fact that 70% of America then thought that Saddam had planned 9/11?

Provide a link where Pres Bush said Saddam was involved in 9-11

You made the charge - back it up or retract it

 

[M14 Shooter]

and when America thinks about AQ, they think about it in terms OTHER than 9/11????

And when team Bush continually connected Saddam and AQ, you think that had NOTHING to do with the fact that 70% of America then thought that Saddam had planned 9/11?

Correltation vs causation, Skippy.

Even if you were able to prove the former, you need to prove the latter for your claim to mean anything.

 

[maineman]

Correltation vs causation, Skippy.

Even if you were able to prove the former, you need to prove the latter for your claim to mean anything.

I don't need to PROVE anything. I am voicing my OPINION. You got a different one? good for you. Can you PROVE that I am incorrect in MY opinion?

 

[red states rule]

I don't need to PROVE anything. I am voicing my OPINION. You got a different one? good for you. Can you PROVE that I am incorrect in MY opinion?

Translation - you can't prove your rant so now you do into defense mode

Typical

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't need to PROVE anything. I am voicing my OPINION.

Which, of course, gets us back to the idea that you believe what tiy WANT to believe, regardless what sort of evidence you have to substantiate that belief.

Translation:
Partisan bigotry is all Skippy needs.

Can you PROVE that I am incorrect in MY opinion?

Yes. You continue to refuse to support your "opinion" in any meaningful way.

 

[maineman]

Translation - you can't prove your rant so now you do into defense mode

Typical

no. translation: I am stating my opinion. you are stating yours.

 

[maineman]

Provide a link where Pres Bush said Saddam was involved in 9-11

You made the charge - back it up or retract it

wrong. I have never said that Bush ever stated that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

I have stated that he created the false impression that Saddam was involved.

Too subtle for you?

 

[red states rule]

wrong. I have never said that Bush ever stated that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

I have stated that he created the false impression that Saddam was involved.

Too subtle for you?

you were asked to provide a quote from Pres Bush saying Saddam was involvred in -11, and your links fell flat

Much like most of your "facts"

 

[maineman]

you were asked to provide a quote from Pres Bush saying Saddam was involvred in -11, and your links fell flat

Much like most of your "facts"

I have never said that Bush directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

I have always opined that Bush created the false impression that there was a link between them....and the quotes bear that out...as does the fact that 70% of Americans believed Saddam planned it.

 

[red states rule]

I have never said that Bush directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

I have always opined that Bush created the false impression that there was a link between them....and the quotes bear that out...as does the fact that 70% of Americans believed Saddam planned it.

Your own words MM


not "other" words....YOUR words. NOT democrat's words. get it????

and I don't get to define what a lie is, the dictionary does. and the dictionary says that one definition of a lie is "something intended or serving to convey a false impression". Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have stated that he created the false impression that Saddam was involved.

Prove this.

Please note that the statement "he created the false impression that Saddam was involved" is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Remember that you will need to show causation, not correlation.
Hopefully that's not too subtle for you, Skippy

Its pretty clear that you're only interested in believing what you want to believe, regardless if you know why you believe it.

Partisan bigotry at its finest.