Who Said It?

[MaggieMae]

The UN was against it which is pretty much the rest of the world and all you list is GB and the czech republic. LOL
BTW what intelligence are you referring to?? Can you cite it or is this merely more of your usual works of fiction as you present opinion as fact while failing to substantiate what you post??

Are you really this in need of getting slapped?
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq
Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs. Show me one that did not believe that.
As for the report of Czech intelligence on al Qaeda, I cannot help you out of your ignorance. You will need to discover it on your own.

And once again you saying it doesn't make it so. Your OPINIONS are not fact and the FACT that you continue to fail to substantiate your own claims makes my arguments for me.

The funny thing is that you make this claim

"Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs."

Even as you fail to provide anything to substantiate it and then demand that I prove your claim wrong. LOL How about you prove your own claims instead of asking me to do your work for you??

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you really this in need of getting slapped?
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq
Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs. Show me one that did not believe that.
As for the report of Czech intelligence on al Qaeda, I cannot help you out of your ignorance. You will need to discover it on your own.

And once again you saying it doesn't make it so. Your OPINIONS are not fact and the FACT that you continue to fail to substantiate your own claims makes my arguments for me.

The funny thing is that you make this claim

"Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs."

Even as you fail to provide anything to substantiate it and then demand that I prove your claim wrong. LOL How about you prove your own claims instead of asking me to do your work for you??

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

 

[rightwinger]

And once again you saying it doesn't make it so. Your OPINIONS are not fact and the FACT that you continue to fail to substantiate your own claims makes my arguments for me.

The funny thing is that you make this claim

"Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs."

Even as you fail to provide anything to substantiate it and then demand that I prove your claim wrong. LOL How about you prove your own claims instead of asking me to do your work for you??

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

 

[The Rabbi]

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Did anyone say the majority of Dems voted for the war?
Most Dems (and thanks for conceding the point that most Dems supported the war) supported it right up until it became politically expedient to declare it lost and the president lied to them.
Thanks for agreeing with the basic point here. Go out and misconstrue some other thread.

 

[Richard-H]

First of all, Senators and Congressman get security briefings from Administration controlled intelligence agencies. The Bush Administration made sure that the intel info the Senate and congress were getting was carefully cherry-picked.

So, yes, liberal politicians made the grave mistake of believing in the the integrity of the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies that it controlled.

Second,

Violations of U.N. resolutions are not validation for unilateral invasion of a country. If so, then the United States would be obligated to declare war on itself. The U.S. is in gross violation of multiple U.N. Resolutions and of the Nuclear non-ploliferation agreement.

We should therfore, by "The Rabbi"'s logic have to invade ourselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Did anyone say the majority of Dems voted for the war?
Most Dems (and thanks for conceding the point that most Dems supported the war) supported it right up until it became politically expedient to declare it lost and the president lied to them.
Thanks for agreeing with the basic point here. Go out and misconstrue some other thread.

Rabbi..

I know your reading skills are better than this. Are you intentionally misleading or just playing games?

You state Dems "overwhelmingly supported the war" The numbers show you are intentionally lying once again

I said Dems supported Bush after 9-11 until iraq....you state this means they supported the war

Another intentional lie

 

[The Rabbi]

First of all, Senators and Congressman get security briefings from Administration controlled intelligence agencies. The Bush Administration made sure that the intel info the Senate and congress were getting was carefully cherry-picked.

So, yes, liberal politicians made the grave mistake of believing in the the integrity of the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies that it controlled.

Second,

Violations of U.N. resolutions are not validation for unilateral invasion of a country. If so, then the United States would be obligated to declare war on itself. The U.S. is in gross violation of multiple U.N. Resolutions and of the Nuclear non-ploliferation agreement.

We should therfore, by "The Rabbi"'s logic have to invade ourselves.

That is of course simply untrue. Every word.
THe intelligence committees of the House and Senate see everything the president sees. They have the ability to make independent investigations as well. Further not a single intelligence agency disputed the basics of what U.S. intelligence said.

Second, no one said UN resolutions are validation. But the specific ones passed had enforcement mechanisms that the UN simply refused to enforce, even when it became obvious that they would become a joke otherwise. What is the point of passing resolutions if you aren't going to enforce them?

 

[The Rabbi]

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Did anyone say the majority of Dems voted for the war?
Most Dems (and thanks for conceding the point that most Dems supported the war) supported it right up until it became politically expedient to declare it lost and the president lied to them.
Thanks for agreeing with the basic point here. Go out and misconstrue some other thread.

Rabbi..

I know your reading skills are better than this. Are you intentionally misleading or just playing games?

You state Dems "overwhelmingly supported the war" The numbers show you are intentionally lying once again

I said Dems supported Bush after 9-11 until iraq....you state this means they supported the war

Another intentional lie

You're the one who wrote "most Dems supported Bush". We've already established that an overwhelming number--an absolute majority in the Senate--voted for the war. A very large number of Dems in the House did so too.
And they continued to do so up until the war became unpopular and they bailed.
What is difficult about this? I mean other than admitting that the Democrats are the party of feckless weasels who will gladly declare defeat and do anything else just to stay in power?

 

[froggy]

Don't tell me now, but i think he was the guy that jumped up and said "mission accomplished".

 

[Richard-H]

First of all, Senators and Congressman get security briefings from Administration controlled intelligence agencies. The Bush Administration made sure that the intel info the Senate and congress were getting was carefully cherry-picked.

So, yes, liberal politicians made the grave mistake of believing in the the integrity of the Bush administration and the intelligence agencies that it controlled.

Second,

Violations of U.N. resolutions are not validation for unilateral invasion of a country. If so, then the United States would be obligated to declare war on itself. The U.S. is in gross violation of multiple U.N. Resolutions and of the Nuclear non-ploliferation agreement.

We should therfore, by "The Rabbi"'s logic have to invade ourselves.

That is of course simply untrue. Every word.
THe intelligence committees of the House and Senate see everything the president sees. They have the ability to make independent investigations as well. Further not a single intelligence agency disputed the basics of what U.S. intelligence said.

Second, no one said UN resolutions are validation. But the specific ones passed had enforcement mechanisms that the UN simply refused to enforce, even when it became obvious that they would become a joke otherwise. What is the point of passing resolutions if you aren't going to enforce them?

Sure, the Senate has intelligence operatives all over the world. They also control hundreds of intel satellites and have direct controll multiple black ops battalions.

NOT.

Congress does have the power to investigate the intelligence recieved from the administration controlled intelligence organizations. In the case of the Iraqi WMD intel, they should have investigated much, much further, but unfortunately, they chose to rely on the integrity of the Bush administration - which we all now know was a big mistake.

It is the decision of the U.N., not the United States to determine the level that a U.N. resolution should be enforced. In fact, the U.N. was enforcing this resolution - there were U.N. weapons inspectors all over Iraq for many, many years. They just didn't find any WMDs. BECAUSE THERE WEREN"T ANY!

So what your saying is that the U.S. has the right to unilaterally envoke the enforcement of any U.N. resolution to the maximun level against countries THAT HAVE NOT VIOLATED THAT RESOLUTION.

Just if you think that there is some remote possibilty, or if you may have imagined, or even dreamed that they could have maybe, despite all proof, violated that resolution, even though they had not. Correct?

That's about as STUPID as the whole policy of PREEMPTION!

Let's see, wasn't the principle of PREEMPTION the very same principle that was the basis of the German invasions of Belgium and France in BOTH the first AND second world wars?

Another FUCKING BRILLIANT REPUBLICAN IDEA!

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, Dick. Why don't you respond to what I actually wrote rather than your twisted misinterpretation of what I wrote? Cool idea, eh?

 

[MaggieMae]

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

The Iraq invasion has been discussed to death for seven years. I really don't know what Rabbi's intent is other than, as I said, he wants to start another fight.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

The Iraq invasion has been discussed to death for seven years. I really don't know what Rabbi's intent is other than, as I said, he wants to start another fight.

The aspect of Democratic malfeasance has not been discussed nearly enough. Many of the major figures in the Democratic party said exactly what Bush said. Many of them supported Bush and the war. Only when the war became messy and difficult--as wars are wont to do--did they cut and run and accuse the administraiton of "lying" even though they had said the exact same thing at the time.

 

[drsmith1072]

Are you really this in need of getting slapped?
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq
Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs. Show me one that did not believe that.
As for the report of Czech intelligence on al Qaeda, I cannot help you out of your ignorance. You will need to discover it on your own.

And once again you saying it doesn't make it so. Your OPINIONS are not fact and the FACT that you continue to fail to substantiate your own claims makes my arguments for me.

The funny thing is that you make this claim

"Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs."

Even as you fail to provide anything to substantiate it and then demand that I prove your claim wrong. LOL How about you prove your own claims instead of asking me to do your work for you??

yawn.
Is this the best you can do?

Coming from a moron like you who can only post non-responsive BS because he knows he has nothing REAL to offer that is pretty hilarious.

As usual you over extend yourself by making things up as you go along and then when asked for substance you can only personally attack those who dare to question your unsubstantiated OPINIONS.
In the end you have NOTHING and your avoidance and attempts to tear down the messenger show that to be the case.

 

[drsmith1072]

Are you really this in need of getting slapped?
Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq
Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs. Show me one that did not believe that.
As for the report of Czech intelligence on al Qaeda, I cannot help you out of your ignorance. You will need to discover it on your own.

And once again you saying it doesn't make it so. Your OPINIONS are not fact and the FACT that you continue to fail to substantiate your own claims makes my arguments for me.

The funny thing is that you make this claim

"Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs."

Even as you fail to provide anything to substantiate it and then demand that I prove your claim wrong. LOL How about you prove your own claims instead of asking me to do your work for you??

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

So he is willing to make a fool out of himself and expose himself as nothing but an ignorant troll just to start an argument?? How sad. I do agree that he THINKS he has all of the facts but the FACT that he starts attacking the messenger when asked for substance shows that he does not have the facts. If he did then he could easilly present them

My guess is that he knows that he has NOTHING and would rather trash the thread than admit it. If people stop reading the thread then how can they tell if he got owned?

 

[drsmith1072]

And once again you saying it doesn't make it so. Your OPINIONS are not fact and the FACT that you continue to fail to substantiate your own claims makes my arguments for me.

The funny thing is that you make this claim

"Virtually every intelligence agency believed Iraq had WMDs."

Even as you fail to provide anything to substantiate it and then demand that I prove your claim wrong. LOL How about you prove your own claims instead of asking me to do your work for you??

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

LOL He is demanding that you prove him wrong even though he has failed to prove his own arguments LOL now that is hilarious.

 

[drsmith1072]

Doc, I think you got lured into another one of Rabbi's traps. See he's becoming less and less credible in just about every thread he jumps into, so he opened this one hoping he could light a flame and cause a huge argument over something he THINKS he has all the correct facts for. Unfortunately, he's wrong even here. But he got his argument. The Rabbi is the type of Internet Troll who's sole enjoyment is to enrage in order to maintain his own rage. It must suck to be such an angry person all the time.

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Yes that was already proven but that doesn't stop rabbi from spinnning now does it? LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Yes that was already proven but that doesn't stop rabbi from spinnning now does it? LOL

Of course no one disputed that. But don't let reality stop you. It never has before.

 

[drsmith1072]

Sezx the woman on iggy.
Well, go ahead and disprove that Democrats were overwhelmingly for the war, believed that Saddam had WMDs and were supporters of the president up until the war started to take more than 15 minutes (called "fair weather friends" in most circles).
I'll take almost anything credible as proof that is not the case. Go ahead.

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Did anyone say the majority of Dems voted for the war?
Most Dems (and thanks for conceding the point that most Dems supported the war) supported it right up until it became politically expedient to declare it lost and the president lied to them.
Thanks for agreeing with the basic point here. Go out and misconstrue some other thread.

Ok rabbi, you seriously need to learn how to read.

Someone said the majority of the dems did not vote to give W authority for the invasion and then you tried to split hairs and focus on how the dems in the senate voted while basically ignoring how the dems in the house voted.

Then to top it all off, rightwinger, saying that dems supported bush after 9/11 does not equate to supporting the war in iraq so he conceded nothing.

The iraq war started in march of 2003 and 9/11 occured in 2001 and the war with iraq and the public debating of the invasion did not start immediately following 9/11. Which leads us back to one of your previous false claims in which you tried to claim that we, as a country, debated the invasion of iraq for 18 months prior to the invasion which would have meant that we started debating the invasion of iraq right after 9/11 but even you know that is not the case and yet you still LIED about it.
Oh well this post of yours is nothing but a glaring example of how dishonest you are and how you have no integrity. GJ. LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

Didn't we already prove the majority of Dems voted against the war?

Most Dems supported Bush after 9-11 and up until he invaded Iraq......then the real Bush came out along with the ineptness of his strategy

Did anyone say the majority of Dems voted for the war?
Most Dems (and thanks for conceding the point that most Dems supported the war) supported it right up until it became politically expedient to declare it lost and the president lied to them.
Thanks for agreeing with the basic point here. Go out and misconstrue some other thread.

Ok rabbi, you seriously need to learn how to read.

Someone said the majority of the dems did not vote to give W authority for the invasion and then you tried to split hairs and focus on how the dems in the senate voted while basically ignoring how the dems in the house voted.

Then to top it all off, rightwinger, saying that dems supported bush after 9/11 does not equate to supporting the war in iraq so he conceded nothing.

The iraq war started in march of 2003 and 9/11 occured in 2001 and the war with iraq and the public debating of the invasion did not start immediately following 9/11. Which leads us back to one of your previous false claims in which you tried to claim that we, as a country, debated the invasion of iraq for 18 months prior to the invasion which would have meant that we started debating the invasion of iraq right after 9/11 but even you know that is not the case and yet you still LIED about it.
Oh well this post of yours is nothing but a glaring example of how dishonest you are and how you have no integrity. GJ. LOL

Quibble. Prevaricate. Mis-read.
Do you have anything to refute the notion that an overwhelming number of Democrats supported the war, agreed with the basic intelligence, and then when things started to go south claim Bush "lied us into war"? If not, shut the fuck up and post elsewhere.