The Atomic bombs

[Shogun]

I don't have to prove anything about Bill's motivation to deflect attention away from blowjobgate. You asked if WE knew then and I stated that WE did not know anymore THEN than when your presidential vote put the words MOBILE CHEM LAB into your vocabulary. Nice strawman though. Do you get this frustrated and desperate very often?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't have to prove anything about Bill's motivation to deflect attention away from blowjobgate.

You assert that the information he gave us was false -- that, contrary to our claims, we did -not- know the WMDs and WMD programs were there.

Show that to be the case, or admit that your aergument is unsound.

Your choice.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, feel free to google up the ghost of your parties pitchfork throng in the late 90s and go rent Wag The Dog. You can dodge and evade that Clinton didn't hit a damn thing in 98 just like it chaffes than YOU can't show me an actual mobile chem lab this side of 2001.


you know.. DESPITE intel...


Can you confirm prove that we DID destroy a nuclear weapon facility in 98 since your argument insists that Clinton verified that Saddam had WMDs? If you want to take the pussy way out of this thread and refuse to prove your point then, i guess, that's your prerogative. It IS awfully hilarious to see you, all of a sudden, defending Billies actions in the 90s just because it is prudent to defend your opinion despite the reality of hindsight and a total lack of evidence.. For real.. You make me laugh today.

 

[Shogun]

A few months later, the accusations of Clinton's use of the military arose anew when the United States and Britain launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing campaign against Iraq. That operation came as House debated Clinton's impeachment.

Cohen testified he was called to the House on the day the operation began to defend Clinton against a "boiling" rage.

"I put my entire public career on the line to say that the president always acted specifically upon the recommendation of those of us who held the positions of responsibility to take military action," he said. "And at no time did he ever try to use it or manipulate it to serve his personal ends."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, feel free to google up the ghost of your parties pitchfork throng in the late 90s and go rent Wag The Dog. You can dodge and evade that Clinton didn't hit a damn thing in 98 just like it chaffes than YOU can't show me an actual mobile chem lab this side of 2001.

So...
-You cannot prove that Bill Clinton lied.
-Thus, you cannot prove that we did NOT know the weapons were there in 1998.
-Therefore, you have nothing to challenge the argument that we -did- know they were there in 1998.
-And thus, since you CAN prove that you destroyed something you used to have, your 'impossible condition" argument fails.

Not that you'll ever admit it.

Have a good day, junior. Let me know when you have somethng substantial to say. I won't hiold my breath.

 

[Shogun]

So...
-You cannot prove that Bill Clinton lied.

no more than you can PROVE he was telling the truth... You know.. like how Bush was telling the truth about MOBILE CHEM LABS... hehehehe... that's gotta be like salt in your wounded vagina.


-Thus, you cannot prove that we did NOT know the weapons were there in 1998.

w-w-w-what about your OWN intel that condi was busy waving around like a doomsday preacher? I don't guess you were awake the day they covered double negatives in engrish class? Like I;ve said before.. I CANT PROVE THAT YOU DON'T LOVE SUCKING COCK EITHER.. must be true then, eh?


-Therefore, you have nothing to challenge the argument that we -did- know they were there in 1998.


Sure I do. The TOTAL LACK of evidence that he hit anything even remotley proven to be a chem lab or WMD facility.. hell, the ONLY fucking thing that became significant then was the aspirin factory in sudan. After all, had CLINTON hit anything of relevance in Iraq then SURELT Powell wouldn't have retracted himself and SURELY pre-9/11 cheney wouldn't have claimed Iraq to be such a non-threat, eh?

We knew, in 98, about as much as we knew about MOBILE CHEM LABS, as it turns out. You know, that pesky fucking HINDSIGHT thing?

Your pretzel logic is fun to watch though.


-And thus, since you CAN prove that you destroyed something you used to have, your 'impossible condition" argument fails.

Not that you'll ever admit it.


Work on that cognitive process you've got there, dude. You might be slightly ARTISTIC! hehehehehe...

But, hey, ill give you a chance to throw down the DOUBLE WAMMY and PROVE that we KNEW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Clinton hit nuke labs in 98, which PROVED that Saddam had them when the bush machine was running up the war. Hell, I remember when Saddam wanted to DEBATE the WMD part with Bush when one of the MSM anchors interviewed him. Can you guess what kind of a giant pussy your president turned out to be? hmm... I guess it would take a few extra scooby snacks to get people like you to swallow the hook, line AND sinker if he had to actually FACE who he was ACCUSING with PROOF beyond the rabid foam on your lips..




For real.. if YOU are so confident that there were WMDs in iraq then let's see YOUR evidence beyond trying pull a Clinton and deflecting the argument.



Have a good day, junior. Let me know when you have somethng substantial to say. I won't hiold my breath.


Like I said, you can be a giant walking pussy about proving YOUR accusation about WMDs but, since we both know you can't, I'll stick around and laugh at you for all of a sudden being Clintons little champion as if it's not obvious what kind of a strawman you are running to hide behind.


Indeed, mr. mobile chem lab... Let ME know when you want to peek out from behind that skirt you are hiding behind. I"VE posted emough evidence to cast three shades of doubt but, apparently, you think it's my job to prove something in which your entire position is predicated upon.

Again, i'm sure you were gone that day in debate class.

 

[Shogun]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A long-awaited report which concluded Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion has intensified the debate about the decision to go to war.

The CIA report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, said Iraq's WMD program had essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/07/wmd.report.reax/index.html


A day after the chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, President Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam Hussein was "systematically gaming the system" and the world is safer because he is no longer in power. ( Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/wmd.iraq/index.html


(CBS/AP) Faced with a harshly critical new report, President George W. Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein.

"America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison," Mr. Bush said in a surprise statement to reporters as he prepared to fly to Wisconsin.

"Much of the accumulated body of our intelligence was wrong and we must find out why," Mr. Bush said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/iraq/main666327.shtml

 

[doniston]

I didn't ask you if YOU knew.
Stop dancing.
Grow a pair.
Answer the question.

Perrhaps you should start by asking reasonal question. Your stupid "Setup" ones aren't the least bit funny or appreciated.

 

[Shogun]

oh I dunno..


made me laugh today..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Perrhaps you should start by asking reasonal question. Your stupid "Setup" ones aren't the least bit funny or appreciated.

I'm sorry that you dont understand the question, and/or why its important.
In the future, I'll try to talk down to your level - but, as I'll have to get pointers from the 3 yrs old, my response time will be a little slow.

In the meantime, what, exactly, given the argument, is unreasonable in asking if we knew Irad had WMDs and WMD programs in December 1998?

 

[Shogun]

I told you.

Because we knew about as much THEN as you didn when pointing at MOBILE CHEM LABS with big glossy SAT Pics with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.


Not to mention that you are, hilariously enough, all of a sudden jumping on Clintons nutsack NOW instead of criticizing his actions as wagging the dog THEN.


WE didn't know then just like YOU didn't know when bush was rattling the sabre and acting like SADDAM had to prove what hindsight eventually makes us see is not only a laughable criteria but illustrates perfectly how your UNCONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS is merely the springboard for impossible standards...


you know, like proving that you DONT like schlobbing the ole knob.

hehehehehehe....

 

[AllieBaba]

"Acting like Saddam".

Hmmm..more evidence of the liberal inability to distinguish between behavior which is insane and harmful, and behavior which is not approved by them.

Did Bush train his children to kill and torture? Hmmm..why no, he didn't.

Did Bush gas any American towns? No again.

Has Bush authorized the murder of US citizens, sleeping peacefully in their beds at night? No.

Has Bush had cabinet members imprisoned, tortured and killed? Nope, again.

So, how exactly are Bush and Saddam the same? Oh, that's right. In your poor deluded fantasy.

 

[Shogun]

"WE didn't know then just like YOU didn't know when bush was rattling the sabre and acting like SADDAM had to prove what hindsight eventually makes us see"


You really aren't that bright, are you?

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh well. It was still a good point. I'll save it for later....

 

[Shogun]

what.. that you totally misread my sentence?


yea, way to really bring in that home run!

 

[AllieBaba]

I've no doubt you will eventually make it relevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, how exactly are Bush and Saddam the same? Oh, that's right. In your poor deluded fantasy.

The only way you can reach the conclusion that Bush and Saddam are the same is start with "I Hate Bush!" and work backwards from there.

 

[Shogun]

I've no doubt you will eventually make it relevant.

I guess it's not too hard to see why your usual postings are so stupid then, eh?

 

[Shogun]

The only way you can reach the conclusion that Bush and Saddam are the same is start with "I Hate Bush!" and work backwards from there.

OR by totally misreading my sentence entirely and being called out on it....


Here is a visual interpretation of her ability to comprehend Engrish: