how old are you? 13?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Algore would have invaded Iraq
- Thread starter Gord
- Start date
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #62
Richard Clarke served his country under many presidents, he served with honor.
Prove he did not if you claim so.
Prove he did not if you claim so.
he had said that Bush changed the whole way we looked at terrorist, and changed it from a watch out for them to an eliminate them, vs what he claimed later that bush did nothingRichard Clarke served his country under many presidents, he served with honor.
Prove he did not if you claim so.
so, either he lied at first, or he lied later
either way, he lied
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #64
What you just said barely makes any sense. Now prove what you claim.
nope, not gonna waste my time trying to find something from 8 years ago for you to play ignorant fucking games withWhat you just said barely makes any sense. Now prove what you claim.
you dont want to deal with truth, you are nothing but a moron filled with ABDS
- Thread starter
- #66
I've already posted them twice, once specifically to you. But since you didn't even bother to read them, I will return the favor and ignore your posts as well.What were the consequences of not going to Iraq in your mind?
- Thread starter
- #67
Yup I think you nailed it - this is just a kid.how old are you? 13?
Tuatara
Gold Member
I noticed neither one has been able to present these Richard Clarke lies or when he contradicted himself. I was going to delve into Gord's post but if he can't even back up his first claim then there is no point.
i already didI noticed neither one has been able to present these Richard Clarke lies or when he contradicted himself. I was going to delve into Gord's post but if he can't even back up his first claim then there is no point.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #70
I've already posted them twice, once specifically to you. But since you didn't even bother to read them, I will return the favor and ignore your posts as well.
Give me a post number?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #71
i already did
No you made unsubstanciated claims.
Care to prove anything you say?
thus proving you dont have a clueNo you made unsubstanciated claims.
Care to prove anything you say?
Tuatara
Gold Member
I didn't see a quote of a reference to any publication, letter. speech or document. I saw your interpretation of nothing specific.i already did
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #74
Post 15?
Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:
1. Saddam had refused to live up to the conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the final in a long list of UN resolutions Saddam had ignored since 1991 (*1).
Hans Blix told the world that the inspections were working
2. The UN Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption, with Saddam buying off international players to get around UN sanctions against Iraq (*2).
Why does this made invasion necessary
3. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was hiding quantities of WMDs and desired to develop more (*3). No it did not, the intell was cherry picked.
4. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had harbored, trained and funded international terrorists in the past and desired to do so again (*4).No it did not, the intell was cherry picked.
5. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had in the past, and was continuing to mass murder the Iraqi population (*5).More Iraqis died because of the invasion.
7. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was not cooperating with agreed upon UN sanctions on Iraq, and the Oil for Food Program, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as a result of malnutrition and a lack of medicine and healthcare (*6).The above answers cover this one.
8. 71% of congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (*7). Among the many reasons given to justify the attack on Iraq the Resolution included:Bush failed to use all diplomatic options as requested by the resolution
Here's the situation in March, 2003 that you and the president were faced with:
1. Saddam had refused to live up to the conditions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the final in a long list of UN resolutions Saddam had ignored since 1991 (*1).
Hans Blix told the world that the inspections were working
2. The UN Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption, with Saddam buying off international players to get around UN sanctions against Iraq (*2).
Why does this made invasion necessary
3. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was hiding quantities of WMDs and desired to develop more (*3). No it did not, the intell was cherry picked.
4. Intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had harbored, trained and funded international terrorists in the past and desired to do so again (*4).No it did not, the intell was cherry picked.
5. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam had in the past, and was continuing to mass murder the Iraqi population (*5).More Iraqis died because of the invasion.
7. Evidence and intelligence pointed to a conclusion that Saddam was not cooperating with agreed upon UN sanctions on Iraq, and the Oil for Food Program, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths as a result of malnutrition and a lack of medicine and healthcare (*6).The above answers cover this one.
8. 71% of congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (*7). Among the many reasons given to justify the attack on Iraq the Resolution included:Bush failed to use all diplomatic options as requested by the resolution
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #75
I didn't see a quote of a reference to any publication, letter. speech or document. I saw your interpretation of nothing specific.
Fact and proof just ruin his argument which is why he ignores them and never uses them.
fuck off liarFact and proof just ruin his argument which is why he ignores them and never uses them.
because it is a waste of timeI didn't see a quote of a reference to any publication, letter. speech or document. I saw your interpretation of nothing specific.
it is as i said it was
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #78
A 30 year terror specialist who served under several presidents is a bad man because DC says so?
Wow, Im sure that is enough evidence for anyone.
Who needs facts?
Wow, Im sure that is enough evidence for anyone.
Who needs facts?
the facts are that he contradicted himselfA 30 year terror specialist who served under several presidents is a bad man because DC says so?
Wow, Im sure that is enough evidence for anyone.
Who needs facts?
you choose to ignore the facts
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #80
lets see your proof he did?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 131
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 410
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 173
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 124
- Replies
- 2K
- Views
- 66K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8029
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-