- Banned
- #341
and you are saying, therefore, that seeking and developing are synonymous with possessing?
Question for Iraq war supporters
- Thread starter mattskramer
- Start date
and you are saying, therefore, that seeking and developing are synonymous with possessing?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
YES. what do you think "seeking" means? Further that is ONLY one of the quotes. I like how you just ignore all the rest.
- Banned
- #343
What do I think SEEKING means? I think it means LOOKING FOR something. I don't need to LOOK for something I ALREADY HAVE.
POSSESSING IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH SEEKING.
ALL but one of the other quotes has the same level of ambiguity regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's. I am not at all surprised that you act selectively ignorant about the english language.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
The selective ignorance is your drivel, but then I bet you just loved the line " It depends on what the word is means"
- Banned
- #345
It is the difference for you between seeking some intelligence and having stockpiles of it. You can continue to approach the words of politicians and statesmen with the educational tools provided a kindergartner, but don't expect to not be ridiculed for your ignorance. Seeking is not having. developing programs is not the same as having stockpiles.
Bush needed to convince us of the immediacy of the threat. There was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's....his people had met with 9/11 hijackers BEFORE 9/11.... AQ could strike again at any moment and attack us with the some of the stockpiles of WMD's that we were absolutely certain Saddam had at his disposal and was willing and ready to give them to the demons that had attacked us. That was his pitch and it worked... But you refuse to acknowledge all that.
Koolaid soaked pathetic lying ignorant prick.
Alpha1
NAVY
- Jun 3, 2007
- 1,719
- 193
- 48
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
WE KNOW...thats pretty plain, not we think or we suspect...Gore says WE KNOW..in other words, HE IS CERTAIN....and being certain he has NO FUCKIN' DOUBT....about Saddams "stored, secret, supplies" of WMD
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Sen. Robert Byrd (D) Oct. 3, 2002
Now Sen. Byrd is "confident"....The dictionary says :confident-full assurance; sure: 2. sure of oneself; having no uncertainty , correctness..
again, pretty plain, having NO UNCERTAINTY, in otherwords, having NO FUCKIN' DOUBT Saddam has stockpiles od WMD......
He (Saddam) has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Now lets apply some common sense here....Waxman says Saddam has refused to destroy is chem and bio weapons....What possible reason would Waxman have for making that statement if he didn't believe Saddam possessed those weapons in the first place? The answer is Of course, none....Waxman obviously believes Saddam has those weapons and needs to destroy them......and all the spin won't change that FACT of logical reasoning....
He(Saddam)has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members & It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare. Hillary Clinton (D) Oct. 10, 2002
Is Hillary Clinton actually claiming,
that Saddam gave AID to al Qaeda?
that Saddam gave COMFORT to al Qaeda?
that Saddam gave SANCTUARY to al Qaeda?
You bet your ass she is.....
and Hillary says Saddam will CONTINUE TO INCREASE HIS CAPACITY TO WAGE BIO AND CHEM WARFARE?
Well simple logic says, IF he will continue to increase his capacity, then his MUST have some capacity to increase in the first place.....
Why you would continue to make a fool of yourself is puzzling, your lack of simple reading comprehension is pitiful....
WE KNOW...thats pretty plain, not we think or we suspect...Gore says WE KNOW..in other words, HE IS CERTAIN....and being certain he has NO FUCKIN' DOUBT....about Saddams "stored, secret, supplies" of WMD
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Sen. Robert Byrd (D) Oct. 3, 2002
Now Sen. Byrd is "confident"....The dictionary says :confident-full assurance; sure: 2. sure of oneself; having no uncertainty , correctness..
again, pretty plain, having NO UNCERTAINTY, in otherwords, having NO FUCKIN' DOUBT Saddam has stockpiles od WMD......
He (Saddam) has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Now lets apply some common sense here....Waxman says Saddam has refused to destroy is chem and bio weapons....What possible reason would Waxman have for making that statement if he didn't believe Saddam possessed those weapons in the first place? The answer is Of course, none....Waxman obviously believes Saddam has those weapons and needs to destroy them......and all the spin won't change that FACT of logical reasoning....
He(Saddam)has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members & It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare. Hillary Clinton (D) Oct. 10, 2002
Is Hillary Clinton actually claiming,
that Saddam gave AID to al Qaeda?
that Saddam gave COMFORT to al Qaeda?
that Saddam gave SANCTUARY to al Qaeda?
You bet your ass she is.....
and Hillary says Saddam will CONTINUE TO INCREASE HIS CAPACITY TO WAGE BIO AND CHEM WARFARE?
Well simple logic says, IF he will continue to increase his capacity, then his MUST have some capacity to increase in the first place.....
Why you would continue to make a fool of yourself is puzzling, your lack of simple reading comprehension is pitiful....
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
No, I am not. Iraq is not my problem. It is a ME problem. It is not a US problem, but you made it so. I only become interested in those things when the western world takes an interest in ALL regimes that subjugate its subjects under the yoke of dictatorship. I'm not interested in cherrypicking.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
And what are you? The bastion of fairness and unbiased opinion?
- Banned
- #349
"in other words"? In OTHER words????? LOL
You can take the third and fourth definitions of words to try to make the statements of democrats appear to state absolute certainty - in other words - if you need to....
I don't need to take "other words" to make the case that Team Bush LIED by expressing absolute certainty when such certainty did NOT exist.
As I stand on the tee of the long downhill par three sixth hole at my home course looking over the water hazard and on to the green surrounded by sandtraps, I am always confident that I can put my tee shot onto the green. I am NEVER absolutely certain. I never have NO doubt. Confident - yes. Absolutely certain - never.
And beyond that, Bush WAS the CinC...and he DID use the public opinion that his lies created to INVADE, CONQUER and OCCUPY Iraq. That is a distinction clearly his alone.
"Known"??? If you look into it, in most cases this is really "believed". The only way you know such a thing is to actually inspect and see it, and this didn't happen.
Where Bush (including Chaney and other Administration representatives) lied was about things like the African Uranium, the supposed AQ connection, etc... And these clearly were lies. Falsehoods knowingly reported as truths = lies.
Gunny
Gold Member
Lies? Incorrect assumptions would be more like it. In both cases, evidence DOES exist. Whether or not you agree with conclusions based on assumptions is one thing ... branding them a lie via Monday morning quarterbacking quite another.
You can deny whatever you please, and that is your right, but the fact remains Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac sitting on exactly what it takes to purchase whatever he pleased (oil).
Saddam did in fact have ties to AQ. Does that mean he was supporting AQ, or providing them a safe haven? IMO, no to the first, and he turned the blind eye in the second.
Of course, when the US turned a blind eye toward Saddam, let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. We KNEW, period. When Saddam does it to AQ members it's "where's your evidence?" CLEARLY a double standard.
To think Saddam would not continue to pursue his goal of nuclear power IMO is being an ostrich. I'm just surprised he didn't con France out of that along with their UN vote via lucrative oil contracts.
Gunny
Gold Member
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,124721,00.html
Feith was basically a political operative, not involved in intelligence gathering, and Bush "listened" to Feiths reporting and acted on it, instead of the intelligence community reports. He was paying this man to take "inappropriate actions" and then listen to them. This is not my opinion, this is the finding of the inspector general of the defense department. Do you think military.com is a communist site?
"Know to have existed and not shown to be destroyed" Can you show this?
That does not prove he had any of them left. They could have been used in battle with Iran or on the Kurds and not documented as having been used.
I post links to substantiate what I have asserted, so where are your links to substantiate what you assert here?
What was the extent of the problem, and was it worth going to war over?
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Yes. Both UN inspection agencies (from 1998 and from 2003) had lists of delcared weapons that were not shen to have been destoryed by Iraq.
In 1998 or later?
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Or if the other guys says he had it.
There was no "incorrect assumption" concerning the African Uranium lie. The Administration knew this was a lie before they ever presented it. They had received conclusive reports to this effect and pretended they had not. This was what was behind the whole Valerie Plains debacle and subsequent Scooter Libby case.
If what you are saying is that someone can cherry pick from available information and use what they like no matter how weak and unsupported it might be and without regard to the quality of the source, while at the same time ignoring contrary information no matter how strong and well supported it might be or how good the source is, and then present the desired information as fact and not be lying, then we just have a different definition of the word "lie". (wow that's a long sentence!
)
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Yuu mean the yellowcake thing?
Can you quote the specific claim to that effect?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Like him or hate him...Trump is doing a pretty good job at taking over the world.
- Latest: MostBoringManInTheWorld
