When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[Billo_Really]

then why did the UK parliament vote to authorize and fund british troops into Iraq?

seems to me that you are the ******* liar in this thread. your bush-hate has killed most of your active brain cells.

Don't change the subject!

Intel indicated he didn't have WMD's and Bush knew this yet said the opposite.

 

[Billo_Really]

.

Multiple Choice Question

Who has the final and ultimate decision-making authority to send American troops into combat?

a) The American Commander in Chief
b) The American Congress
c) The United Nations
d) Oprah Winfrey
e) My Dentist Jerry


Answer: _____

.

let me rephrase your question:

who has the authority to declare war and fund its execution?

the president
congress
Oprah
Farrakhan
Rev Jim

There was no declaration of war from Congress.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Multiple Choice Question

Who has the final and ultimate decision-making authority to send American troops into combat?

a) The American Commander in Chief
b) The American Congress
c) The United Nations
d) Oprah Winfrey
e) My Dentist Jerry


Answer: _____

.

let me rephrase your question:

who has the authority to declare war and fund its execution?

the president
congress
Oprah
Farrakhan
Rev Jim

I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid my question. It happens every time I ask it.

.

 

[Billo_Really]

I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid my question. It happens every time I ask it.

.

I answered your question!

What'd I win?

 

[Redfish]

then why did the UK parliament vote to authorize and fund british troops into Iraq?

seems to me that you are the ******* liar in this thread. your bush-hate has killed most of your active brain cells.

Don't change the subject!

Intel indicated he didn't have WMD's and Bush knew this yet said the opposite.

You claimed that british intelligence had proof that Saddam did not have WMDs, and yet parliament authorized and funded british involvement in Iraq. Seems to me that the brits must not have believed their own intel.

or, as someone said earlier, they and Bush looked at all the intel and made a judgement as to which was most probably accurate---------they may have gotten it wrong, but your attempt at rewriting history fails once again.

 

[Redfish]

.

Multiple Choice Question

Who has the final and ultimate decision-making authority to send American troops into combat?

a) The American Commander in Chief
b) The American Congress
c) The United Nations
d) Oprah Winfrey
e) My Dentist Jerry


Answer: _____

.

let me rephrase your question:

who has the authority to declare war and fund its execution?

the president
congress
Oprah
Farrakhan
Rev Jim

I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid my question. It happens every time I ask it.

.

Congress----------the president cannot pursue a war unless congress funds it.

you know that, but your partisan bullshit forces logical thought out of your head.

 

[Billo_Really]

You claimed that british intelligence had proof that Saddam did not have WMDs, and yet parliament authorized and funded british involvement in Iraq. Seems to me that the brits must not have believed their own intel.

or, as someone said earlier, they and Bush looked at all the intel and made a judgement as to which was most probably accurate---------they may have gotten it wrong, but your attempt at rewriting history fails once again.

You people claimed all the intel said one thing, when it didn't.

 

[Redfish]

.

Multiple Choice Question

Who has the final and ultimate decision-making authority to send American troops into combat?

a) The American Commander in Chief
b) The American Congress
c) The United Nations
d) Oprah Winfrey
e) My Dentist Jerry


Answer: _____

.

let me rephrase your question:

who has the authority to declare war and fund its execution?

the president
congress
Oprah
Farrakhan
Rev Jim

There was no declaration of war from Congress.

congress authorized and funded the Iraq action, Bush could not have done it if congress had not authorized and funded it. democrats in congress voted in favor of both the authorization and the funding.

 

[Redfish]

You claimed that british intelligence had proof that Saddam did not have WMDs, and yet parliament authorized and funded british involvement in Iraq. Seems to me that the brits must not have believed their own intel.

or, as someone said earlier, they and Bush looked at all the intel and made a judgement as to which was most probably accurate---------they may have gotten it wrong, but your attempt at rewriting history fails once again.

You people claimed all the intel said one thing, when it didn't.

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

 

[editec]

THIS argument has nothing to do with reality.

It has everything to do with the MEANING of the phrase Weapons of MASS Destruction.

Everybody thought that Saddam had chemical and possibly biological weapons.

Not everybody thinks those are WMDs.

FWIW, I think biological weapons COULD BE WMDS.

I do not think there is any chemical weapon that rises to the level of killing power to justify calling one a WMD.

So this is really not a debate about what happened.

Its a debate about what a WMD actually means.

 

[Mac1958]

let me rephrase your question:

who has the authority to declare war and fund its execution?

the president
congress
Oprah
Farrakhan
Rev Jim

I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid my question. It happens every time I ask it.

.

Congress----------the president cannot pursue a war unless congress funds it.

you know that, but your partisan bullshit forces logical thought out of your head.

I see.

So the President has no choice. If Congress approves funding for a war, the President has no choice but to go to war.

Yes?

.

 

[Redfish]

I can certainly understand why you would want to avoid my question. It happens every time I ask it.

.

Congress----------the president cannot pursue a war unless congress funds it.

you know that, but your partisan bullshit forces logical thought out of your head.

I see.

So the President has no choice. If Congress approves funding for a war, the President has no choice but to go to war.

Yes?

.

OK, you are putting out a theoretical situation where a sitting president would decide not to implement a war or military action that was authorized and funded by congress. Nice intellectual question, but not pertinent to this thread.

The lefties in this thread have claimed that Bush lied about intel and put US troops into a war that congress did not approve of or fund--------that is simply inaccurate.

 

[expatriate]

What you said was utter trite nonsense.

Your only game.

What I said refuted you entirely.

So, now you whine like the complete ***** you are.

Go **** a rasp, asshole.

you have not refuted ME ...[.]

Yes. You have been refuted. Repeatedly.

You endlessly repeat your disproved idiocy and imagine you have won all manner of debates and the brass ring of the interwebz.

But, in reality, you are just a moron and you remain totally unpersuasive.

Disproved? You have disproved NOTHING I have said. I realize that, from your perspective, merely saying so does the trick, but in reality, that is not the case. I have stated that, grammatically, there is a substantive difference between stating an opinion and asserting a fact. I have suggested that stating an opinion about Saddam's stockpiles would not have been a lie, but asserting as fact with absolute certainty knowing of the actual existence of uncertainty was a lie. Have you disproven that?

I have asked you to explain any possible rationale that Saddam may have had that would have caused him to give weapons to an organization whose purpose was his own demise. You have failed to offer up any plausible answer.

All you seem to do is to suck Dubya's dick and insult people with whom you disagree. That's really not participating in an argumentative discussion in any sort of adult manner.

Maybe you could grow up and try again?

 

[Mac1958]

Congress----------the president cannot pursue a war unless congress funds it.

you know that, but your partisan bullshit forces logical thought out of your head.

I see.

So the President has no choice. If Congress approves funding for a war, the President has no choice but to go to war.

Yes?

.

OK, you are putting out a theoretical situation where a sitting president would decide not to implement a war or military action that was authorized and funded by congress. Nice intellectual question, but not pertinent to this thread.

The lefties in this thread have claimed that Bush lied about intel and put US troops into a war that congress did not approve of or fund--------that is simply inaccurate.

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I see.

So the President has no choice. If Congress approves funding for a war, the President has no choice but to go to war.

Yes?

.

OK, you are putting out a theoretical situation where a sitting president would decide not to implement a war or military action that was authorized and funded by congress. Nice intellectual question, but not pertinent to this thread.

The lefties in this thread have claimed that Bush lied about intel and put US troops into a war that congress did not approve of or fund--------that is simply inaccurate.

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

;

It's a ******* stupid question.

That figures.

Consider the source.


,

 

[expatriate]

You claimed that british intelligence had proof that Saddam did not have WMDs, and yet parliament authorized and funded british involvement in Iraq. Seems to me that the brits must not have believed their own intel.

or, as someone said earlier, they and Bush looked at all the intel and made a judgement as to which was most probably accurate---------they may have gotten it wrong, but your attempt at rewriting history fails once again.

You people claimed all the intel said one thing, when it didn't.

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

 

[Mac1958]

OK, you are putting out a theoretical situation where a sitting president would decide not to implement a war or military action that was authorized and funded by congress. Nice intellectual question, but not pertinent to this thread.

The lefties in this thread have claimed that Bush lied about intel and put US troops into a war that congress did not approve of or fund--------that is simply inaccurate.

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

;

It's a ******* stupid question.

That figures.

Consider the source.


,

Yet another dodge.

No surprise.

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You people claimed all the intel said one thing, when it didn't.

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

We've been through this lots of times.

YOU are the liar.

President Bush and folks in his Administration DID say that there was "no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Even if that was incorrect, however, that is not a valid basis on which to claim that it was a "lie." You remain a dishonest bullshit flinging asshole liar.

Fact.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

;

It's a ******* stupid question.

That figures.

Consider the source.


,

Yet another dodge.

No surprise.

.

,

No dodge at all.

Stupid questions are stupid. You, being sublimely stupid, seem unable to ask any "question" that is not just stupid.

;

 

[Redfish]

You people claimed all the intel said one thing, when it didn't.

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

sure they did, so did clinton, gore, kerry, hillary, the UK, the UN, france, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, italy, the EU, the US congress, and the UK parliament.

they may have all been wrong, but it was not just "team bush".