Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[PatekPhilippe]

What I did was expose you for the liar and left wing loon you are.

That's all anyone needs to know. Go find another board that sympathizes with your wonton disregard of the truth.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Battle of Tora Bora was a military engagement that took place in Afghanistan in December 2001, during the opening stages of the war in that country launched following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The U.S. and its allies believed that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was hiding in the rugged mountains at Tora Bora, but despite overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to kill or capture him.


But Bush had better things to do like invade Iraq (a country that had NOTHING to do with 9-11) for oil.

Where exactly does it say that Pres. Bush stopped looking for him.

I just posted an interview with him, where he stated how important it was to him. He wasn't successful.

But at least OBL was hiding in a cave afraid to go out to use the bathroom lest he get hit by a missile. That wouldn't have happened under Gore.

Also, if Clinton simply accepted Sudan's offer to take custody of OBL, he would have been in an american prison for the last 15 years.

However, he was too busy getting his dick sucked by Lewinsky to care about these minor issues.

Sudan offered to hand bin laden to Saudi Arabia. Not the US. I know it's rather customary for people like you to never support your claims but every once in a while you should at least fake like you are honest or sincere. Let me show you what it looks like to support a claim:

"The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries."


"In 1999, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir referred elliptically to his government's early willingness to send bin Laden to Saudi Arabia."
U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed (washingtonpost.com)

Also, the first time the US charged bin laden with anything was in 1998. So tell us, how was Clinton supposed to take custody when that offer was never made to the US and since we had no charges against bin laden?

of course once again you tell only half of the story...the half that supports your distorted left wing spin.

The Saudi government refused to take Bin Laden into custody from The Sudan. Clinton and the CIA were heavily involved in the negotiations between the 2 countrys and when Clinton said he couldn't charge Bin Laden and bring him to the U.S. the deal fell apart.

After Bin Laden blew up the Khobar Towers IN 1996 and killed 19 American service members...Clinton couldn't find a single charge to bring against Bin Laden.

Bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996 once he found out he was going to be arrested in The Sudan and sent to Saudi Arabia for possible extradition to the U.S.A.

 

[CurveLight]

What do you think that Sudan twice offered to hand OBL to America, and Bill Clinton declined both times?

9-11 hadn't taken place and Clinton hadn't shot his mouth off to the American public that he was going to get him.

Actually the WTC was already bombed, and OBL was indicted for being a co conspirator.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Bill Clinton took the Sudan's offer to arrest and extradite OBL to the US?

That was in 1993 and no, bin laden was not indicted. But I must say it is appreciated how you willingly and fearlessly reveal the depths of your ignorance. We understand why you didn't know he was not indicted. It was only 17 YEARS ago and it's not like you have the internet to do any research before making claims.

 

[CurveLight]

Where exactly does it say that Pres. Bush stopped looking for him.

I just posted an interview with him, where he stated how important it was to him. He wasn't successful.

But at least OBL was hiding in a cave afraid to go out to use the bathroom lest he get hit by a missile. That wouldn't have happened under Gore.

Also, if Clinton simply accepted Sudan's offer to take custody of OBL, he would have been in an american prison for the last 15 years.

However, he was too busy getting his dick sucked by Lewinsky to care about these minor issues.

Sudan offered to hand bin laden to Saudi Arabia. Not the US. I know it's rather customary for people like you to never support your claims but every once in a while you should at least fake like you are honest or sincere. Let me show you what it looks like to support a claim:

"The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries."


"In 1999, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir referred elliptically to his government's early willingness to send bin Laden to Saudi Arabia."
U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed (washingtonpost.com)

Also, the first time the US charged bin laden with anything was in 1998. So tell us, how was Clinton supposed to take custody when that offer was never made to the US and since we had no charges against bin laden?

of course once again you tell only half of the story...the half that supports your distorted left wing spin.

The Saudi government refused to take Bin Laden into custody from The Sudan. Clinton and the CIA were heavily involved in the negotiations between the 2 countrys and when Clinton said he couldn't charge Bin Laden and bring him to the U.S. the deal fell apart.

After Bin Laden blew up the Khobar Towers IN 1996 and killed 19 American service members...Clinton couldn't find a single charge to bring against Bin Laden.

Bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996 once he found out he was going to be arrested in The Sudan and sent to Saudi Arabia for possible extradition to the U.S.A.

The claim was Sudan offered to hand bin laden to the US. You didn't provide any evidence supporting that claim. The US did not indict bin laden on any charges until 1998. Do you guys have any clue what it means to support your claims?

 

[CurveLight]

What I did was expose you for the liar and left wing loon you are.

That's all anyone needs to know. Go find another board that sympathizes with your wonton disregard of the truth.

You call me a liar with absolutely nothing to support that charge. Is this what you do when you get pwned? You simply invent things then call people a liar based on your fabrication?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ooooh.. Bin Laden was indicted. Well I feel safer already.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I din't know if curvebrain is a liar, but it certainly is a dumbfuck.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

BTW - "Claim" that Sudanese offerred Bin Laden came from a 2002 speech by Clinton himself.

 

[CurveLight]

BTW - "Claim" that Sudanese offerred Bin Laden came from a 2002 speech by Clinton himself.

I pointed out WHEN he was indicted to show the previous claims about him already being charged by 1996 were wrong. Can you keep up with the dialogue? If you have evidence showing Sudan offered bin laden directly to the US then please show it. The funny part is this: your camp constantly screams Clinton is a liar. How is it then you can trust anything he says? Is he suddenly trustworthy simply because he says something you like?

 

[CurveLight]

PP, here the deal in a snapshot.
Here you accuse me of not knowing there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. It was actually CMike that claimed there was a relationship as I will show in the next link.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1895803-post500.html


I started off by pointing out to CMike the 9/11 Commission said there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. So now that it is clear you are saying CMIke is a stupid mother ****** for thinking there was a relationship between alkida and iraq I'm curious to see how you address these facts and if you are honest enough to admit it was wrong to lay the accusation at my door?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1892723-post221.html

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

 

[CurveLight]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother ****** for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

 

[Liability]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother ****** for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

You make absolutely no sense.

A conclusion of the Commission that there is no evidence of a direct relationship or that there is no evidence of an operational relationship is NOT the same thing as evidence of NO relationship.

So, although you MAY have always maintained that there was never any link or relationship, all that means is that you have always spoken out of ignorance.

There was indeed a great deal of evidence that there were some links between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit regime.

IF you are hoping to cite the Commission "findings" as support for what YOU have "always maintained," then you are simply missing the fact that the cited Commission "conclusion" fails to support YOUR position in any way.

It is more than a little strange that you are so steadfastly obtuse.

 

[CurveLight]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother ****** for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

You make absolutely no sense.

A conclusion of the Commission that there is no evidence of a direct relationship or that there is no evidence of an operational relationship is NOT the same thing as evidence of NO relationship.

So, although you MAY have always maintained that there was never any link or relationship, all that means ius that you have always spoken out of ignorance.

There was indeed a great deal of evidence that there was some links between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit regime.

IF you are hoping to cite the Commission "findings" as support for what YOU have "always maintained," then you are simply missing the fact that the cited Commission "conclusion" fails to support YOUR position in any way.

It is more than a little strange that you are so steadfastly obtuse.

That is your strawman. Let me help explain how. You know what? You've proven to be not worth the time. All you do is throw insults, false information, and stale partisan phrases. I claimed there was no relationship and it's been proven by three high level investigations. You guys keep trying to hide behind dumbass words but you fail to realize the importance of the investigations. If there was no "direct" or "operational" relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq. Whatever kind of imaginary relationship you want to daydream about is wholly irrelevant. That's why it doesn't matter if there were contacts. The invasion was justified in part on the claim by the bush admin there was a relationship. After 6 years and several investigations that has been proven not true. Since you are a slave to FEAR I doubt you are capable of being honest.

 

[bodecea]

Curve's quotes in his first position.

"ROTFL! How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida? (only asking for the comedic value)"

"I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida"

"No, I didn't have to wait for that you dumbass. I always known there was no connetion"

Curve then changes his position.

"Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact. What was pointed out is there was never a relationship"

Curve then claims he has no new position.

"Don't have a new position since mine has always been the same. Is this your attempt to deflect from being proven wrong?


What a moron.

The poster is a code pink asshole who just got thoroughly embarrassed in front of the entire board....once again. Don't waste your time.

So, we won't see anymore comments by you on this thread because you don't want to waste your time?

 

[bodecea]

What I did was expose you for the liar and left wing loon you are.

That's all anyone needs to know. Go find another board that sympathizes with your wonton disregard of the truth.

So "don't waste your time" and "goodbye" are meaningless words when you use them. OK

 

[Liability]

* * * *

That is your strawman. Let me help explain how. You know what? You've proven to be not worth the time. All you do is throw insults, false information, and stale partisan phrases. I claimed there was no relationship and it's been proven by three high level investigations. You guys keep trying to hide behind dumbass words but you fail to realize the importance of the investigations. If there was no "direct" or "operational" relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq. Whatever kind of imaginary relationship you want to daydream about is wholly irrelevant. That's why it doesn't matter if there were contacts. The invasion was justified in part on the claim by the bush admin there was a relationship. After 6 years and several investigations that has been proven not true. Since you are a slave to FEAR I doubt you are capable of being honest.

Persisting in your misuse of a term of logic only underscores that which is already abundantly apparent. You are a confused stupid braying jackass lacking in any substance or credibility.

And your decision "not to bother" is just a cowardly way of you admitting that you can't refute what I just posted.

Your mere "opinion" that the sole possible justification for the invasion of Iraq would have been a claim and evidence supporting it that there WAS a direct or operational relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit regime is ridiculous on its face. You can believe that tripe, if you want. But your belief in such a silly position doesn't convert it into truth.

There were many reasons justifying the invasion of Iraq -- many valid one related to the war against the Islamofascists, in fact. ONE such reason was the relationship (non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime.

You bring nothing to the table, but it is fun to see you slink away so publicly.

 

[CurveLight]

* * * *

That is your strawman. Let me help explain how. You know what? You've proven to be not worth the time. All you do is throw insults, false information, and stale partisan phrases. I claimed there was no relationship and it's been proven by three high level investigations. You guys keep trying to hide behind dumbass words but you fail to realize the importance of the investigations. If there was no "direct" or "operational" relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq. Whatever kind of imaginary relationship you want to daydream about is wholly irrelevant. That's why it doesn't matter if there were contacts. The invasion was justified in part on the claim by the bush admin there was a relationship. After 6 years and several investigations that has been proven not true. Since you are a slave to FEAR I doubt you are capable of being honest.

Persisting in your misuse of a term of logic only underscores that which is already abundantly apparent. You are a confused stupid braying jackass lacking in any substance or credibility.

And your decision "not to bother" is just a cowardly way of you admitting that you can't refute what I just posted.

Your mere "opinion" that the sole possible justification for the invasion of Iraq would have been a claim and evidence supporting it that there WAS a direct or operational relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit regime is ridiculous on its face. You can believe that tripe, if you want. But your belief in such a silly position doesn't convert it into truth.

There were many reasons justifying the invasion of Iraq -- many valid one related to the war against the Islamofascists, in fact. ONE such reason was the relationship (non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime.

You bring nothing to the table, but it is fun to see you slink away so publicly.

I did show why you are wrong, several times. You claim there was some kind of relationship but years of investigations conclude there was no relationship. Whatever kind of relationship you want to claim existed is left unsubstantiated and with no evidence.

You want a great example of how you use strawmen? You just did it again. I said:


"The invasion was justified in part on the claim by the bush admin there was a relationship."

That was my claim but you try to change to:

"Your mere "opinion" that the sole possible justification for the invasion of Iraq would have been a claim and evidence supporting it that there WAS a direct or operational relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit regime is ridiculous on its face."

That is a perfect example. I never claimed it was the sole reason given for the invasion but you ignore that and create an argument (that would be the strawman) that I said it was the sole reason given.

You repeated yet another strawman fallacy. You said:

"ONE such reason was the relationship (non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime."

Can you provide a single quote from Bush or Cheney where they said it was a:

"...(non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime."

No you can't. That's two strawmen in a single post. Can you imagine how stupid it would have been for Bush to say:

"one of the reasons we need to invade iraq is because of the non-operational and indirect relationship between alkida and iraq."

You just got pwned.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

I did show why you are wrong, several times. You claim there was some kind of relationship but years of investigations conclude there was no relationship. Whatever kind of relationship you want to claim existed is left unsubstantiated and with no evidence.

Untrue. That there was some relationship isn't even subject to any doubt from any honest intelligent and informed person. Your denial is what is unsubstantiated. And more laughably yet, you still pretend that your cite to the Commission conclusion "supports" your moronic position. You remain a glaringly stupid imbecile.

You want a great example of how you use strawmen?

I'd settle to get you educated to the point where you use the term properly someday.

You just did it again.

Cannot have done something "again" when I never did it in the first place. And I have still not done so.

I said:


"The invasion was justified in part on the claim by the bush admin there was a relationship."

That was my claim but you try to change to:

"Your mere "opinion" that the sole possible justification for the invasion of Iraq would have been a claim and evidence supporting it that there WAS a direct or operational relationship between al qaeda and Saddam's illicit regime is ridiculous on its face."

That is a perfect example. I never claimed it was the sole reason given for the invasion but you ignore that and create an argument (that would be the strawman) that I said it was the sole reason given.

Wow. I ALMOST had to own up to having misread your post. But instead, I will just expose your deliberate lie. What you ACTUALLY wrote, you ******* lying retard, is: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq." And I properly responded to THAT idiotic claim you actually made, you ******* lying tool.

You repeated yet another strawman fallacy. You said:

"ONE such reason was the relationship (non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime."

Can you provide a single quote from Bush or Cheney where they said it was a:

"...(non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime."

No need. I never claimed that THEY had qualified their terminology, nor did I maintain that they had made the claim of any relationship explicitly prior to the invasion. Reading is fundamental.

No you can't. That's two strawmen in a single post. Can you imagine how stupid it would have been for Bush to say:

"one of the reasons we need to invade iraq is because of the non-operational and indirect relationship between alkida and iraq."

You just got pwned.

Not even a little and certainly not by you. Your baseless self-congratulation says a lot of strange things about you, none of them good. Nothing more.

And by the way, this entire deflection effort of yours is only marginally interesting. Aren't you pleased (to get back ON topic) that President Obama has finally come to realize that we ARE at war?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother ****** for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

but THERE WAS A LINK YOU ******* DUMBASS!!!!!!! It was said in the report from the Pentagon.

Some people can't even remember the lies they tell 15 posts back