Who Said It?

[rightwinger]

Making things up again as usual?
Olympia Snow and Susan COllins were almost guaranteed votes for Democratic legislation. Since Obama came in even they have voted with the GOP.
The Iraq War Resolution itself was opposed by 6 Republicans in the House nad 1 in the Senate.
Another loser comment from you, contradicted by facts.

Imagine that!

And you still had fingers left over

Thanks for acknowledging that you are dead wrong. I realize that doesn't come easily to you so you have to express it in personal insult.
On to the next thread.

No...I'm acknowledging that having fewer republicans than you can count on ten fingers does not indicate bipartisanship

 

[The Rabbi]

Imagine that!

And you still had fingers left over

Thanks for acknowledging that you are dead wrong. I realize that doesn't come easily to you so you have to express it in personal insult.
On to the next thread.

No...I'm acknowledging that having fewer republicans than you can count on ten fingers does not indicate bipartisanship

"democrats voted for this bill. Republicans voted for this bill." -Nancy Pelosi on the health care bill which passed the House with 1 GOP vote.

 

[drsmith1072]

Really?
We spent 18 months debating the war and trying various solutions. Where is 18 months a rush to anything?
Democrats including Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright were saying exactly what George Bush was saying about Saddam's WMD. There was no disagreement on this point. If there was, the only disagreement was how to deal with it.
Inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam and then restricted by him to where their findings were completely unreliable. Iraq never accounted for WMD they were known to have had after the Gulf War.
It was the feckless weasel Democrats that abandoned their earlier positions and calls to do something when the war turned unpopular. The GOP and Pres Bush were consistent throughout.

18 months?? So are you saying that W was planning and debating on invading Iaq immediately after 9/11??? I have to ask because 9/11 was in 2001 and 18 months after that W chose to kick out the inspectors before they could finish their jobs and explain how no WMDs were there and W would have lost his primary justification for his invasion which occured in march of 2003. So are you sure you know what you are talking about??

The mere fact that W kicked the inspectors out in order to invade BEFORE they could finish their job which put W in violation of a UN resolution is a perfect example of W's rush to invade. The rest of the world wasn't buying W's spin so BEFORE the inspector finished their job and found that there were NO WMDs W decided to kick them out, invade and go against the UN which is one of the very reasons he claimed justified his invasion of iraq.

As for "There was no disagreement on this point." there was back in the 90s when clinton and his administration made those claims. Back then the right said that they were LIES and that clinton was "wagging the dog" to distract attention away from republicans hounding him.

The fact is that the UN inspectors were on the ground doing their job and W kicked them out before they could find out what W was willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to find out so he and his party could use the war in iraq as a political tool.

How can you HONESTLY claim a party that invaded afghanistan claiming that they would get bin laden and then pretty much abandoned both objectives in order to invade a country that was NOT a threat and had not attacked us were "consistent throughout?" So why is afghanistan still a problem and where is bin laden?? If the republicans were consistent throughout and never changed objectives then why weren't they still hunting bin laden and why didn't they finish the job in afghanistan???
You have now been corrected on you attempt to spin republicans consistency twice so will you be honest and admit it or will you continue to ignore being corercted and continue to spin??

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks for acknowledging that you are dead wrong. I realize that doesn't come easily to you so you have to express it in personal insult.
On to the next thread.

No...I'm acknowledging that having fewer republicans than you can count on ten fingers does not indicate bipartisanship

"democrats voted for this bill. Republicans voted for this bill." -Nancy Pelosi on the health care bill which passed the House with 1 GOP vote.

Imagine that?

And it was based on the proposed healthcare bill the Republicans proposed in 1993 and Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts. Yet they all voted against it once Obama supported it

Bipartisanship my ass

 

[drsmith1072]

Wrong -a-roo

Bush could not start squat without the approval of Hillary Kerry and Reid.

So guess what. Hillary Kerry and Reid said "go for it" before Bush said "I'm going for it"

I bet you are in the 66% that beleive Obama was the one who signed the first TARP bill.

First off....the majority of Democrats voted not to give him the authority

Secondly....Bush was not ordered to invade by Congress he was given authority if he saw it necessary. UN weapons inspectors told him it was unlikely there were WMDs and could prove it if they had a few more weeks. Bush invaded before they could give him proof

It was 82 Democrats in the House and a majority of Democrats in the Senate who voted for the resolution. Since the resolution was titled "Authorization for the use of military force against Iraq of 2002" the purpose should not have been mysterious to anyone.
The inspectors had been kicked out previously. THey were kicked out by Saddam on other occasions. They were systematically barred from inspecting known sites. Eventually their inspection became a farce--there was not even the pretense of it being open honest and transparent.
No, Rozman has it right. When the war looked popular, the Democrats were all on board. When it started to get tough they began the "Bush lied us into war" meme. Some people still haven't seen past that one.

So in other words rightwinger was correct that a majority of democrats voted not to give authority but you decided to split hairs and be dishonest about it and seperate the votes in the house from the votes in the senate as if you believe that by doing so you are proving rightwinger wrong when in fact all you are accomplishing is making yourself look dishonest. However, my guess is that you are used to that.

I just love the fact that you are trying to argue that because saddam kicked the inspectors out in the past that makes it ok that W did it too. LOL Fact is that they were finding the same NOTHING that W sacrificed thousands of live to find out. If only W hadn't rushed into it and let them finish their jobs but then he and his party couldn't exploit the war for political gain now could they??

As for popularity goes, is that why conservatives started crticizing obama, a sitting president during a time of war, and his choices in Iraq and afghanistan which is something they once called treasonous and un-American?? So why is it that you aren't as critical of the right when they flip flop and get wishy washy??

 

[drsmith1072]

What a fantasy.
A majority fo Dems in the Senate voted for it. An overwhelming number in the House voted for it as well. Whether those numbers constitute a majority of Dems or not is irrelevant. Bush has a better record of bipartisan support than Obama does.

The presence of WMD was not the determing factor in the invasion. Iraq's repeated violation of UN resolutions and that body's refusal to enforce them was the reason.

Thanks for clarifying that you were presenting a fantasy. It let's readers know not to take your drivel seriously. LOL

One vote made out of self presevation does not "a record of bipartisan support" make. If nothing else, the recent history of congress shows that demcorats have many different voices as part of their party where as conservatives pretty much speak uniformly with one voice or else. To top it off the republicans even have a designation for those who dare sway from that singular voice and that is RiNO. If republicans are truly known for bipartisanship then why do they have a category to separate, call out and criticize those who dare vote against the party line?? Why the recent attempts to purge said RiNOs from the party?

Oh and thanks for trying to rewrite history as you try to claim that the threats of mushroom clouds over our cities wasn't repeated as a justification for the war and who can forget yellow cake from nigeria, or how about those mobile chemical plants that never really existed and all of that other BS presented by curveball and regurgitated without question by the bush administration in its run up and build up to support its invasion.

The funniest thing of all is that you are actually trying to claim that US went against the UN to invade iraq for going against the UN. Do you realize how moronic you sound??

NVM the fact that a majority of the resolutions against iraq were WMD related.

So are you sure about your claim that "The presence of WMD was not the determing factor in the invasion." because based on the FACTS and the REAL history of it, that was basically all W used to justify the invasion.

 

[The Rabbi]

What a fantasy.
A majority fo Dems in the Senate voted for it. An overwhelming number in the House voted for it as well. Whether those numbers constitute a majority of Dems or not is irrelevant. Bush has a better record of bipartisan support than Obama does.

The presence of WMD was not the determing factor in the invasion. Iraq's repeated violation of UN resolutions and that body's refusal to enforce them was the reason.

Thanks for clarifying that you were presenting a fantasy. It let's readers know not to take your drivel seriously. LOL

One vote made out of self presevation does not "a record of bipartisan support" make. If nothing else, the recent history of congress shows that demcorats have many different voices as part of their party where as conservatives pretty much speak uniformly with one voice or else. To top it off the republicans even have a designation for those who dare sway from that singular voice and that is RiNO. If republicans are truly known for bipartisanship then why do they have a category to separate, call out and criticize those who dare vote against the party line?? Why the recent attempts to purge said RiNOs from the party?

Oh and thanks for trying to rewrite history as you try to claim that the threats of mushroom clouds over our cities wasn't repeated as a justification for the war and who can forget yellow cake from nigeria, or how about those mobile chemical plants that never really existed and all of that other BS presented by curveball and regurgitated without question by the bush administration in its run up and build up to support its invasion.

The funniest thing of all is that you are actually trying to claim that US went against the UN to invade iraq for going against the UN. Do you realize how moronic you sound??

NVM the fact that a majority of the resolutions against iraq were WMD related.

So are you sure about your claim that "The presence of WMD was not the determing factor in the invasion." because based on the FACTS and the REAL history of it, that was basically all W used to justify the invasion.

I wonder if you were even alive at the time? Were you in solitary confinement and couldn't read newspapers or watch TV?
Because your recollection of the events is completely off.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Colin Powell, at a meeting with Egypt's Foreign Minister on 2/24/01

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Condoleezza Rice, 7/29/01, on CNN

 

[drsmith1072]

What a fantasy.
A majority fo Dems in the Senate voted for it. An overwhelming number in the House voted for it as well. Whether those numbers constitute a majority of Dems or not is irrelevant. Bush has a better record of bipartisan support than Obama does.

The presence of WMD was not the determing factor in the invasion. Iraq's repeated violation of UN resolutions and that body's refusal to enforce them was the reason.

Thanks for clarifying that you were presenting a fantasy. It let's readers know not to take your drivel seriously. LOL

One vote made out of self presevation does not "a record of bipartisan support" make. If nothing else, the recent history of congress shows that demcorats have many different voices as part of their party where as conservatives pretty much speak uniformly with one voice or else. To top it off the republicans even have a designation for those who dare sway from that singular voice and that is RiNO. If republicans are truly known for bipartisanship then why do they have a category to separate, call out and criticize those who dare vote against the party line?? Why the recent attempts to purge said RiNOs from the party?

Oh and thanks for trying to rewrite history as you try to claim that the threats of mushroom clouds over our cities wasn't repeated as a justification for the war and who can forget yellow cake from nigeria, or how about those mobile chemical plants that never really existed and all of that other BS presented by curveball and regurgitated without question by the bush administration in its run up and build up to support its invasion.

The funniest thing of all is that you are actually trying to claim that US went against the UN to invade iraq for going against the UN. Do you realize how moronic you sound??

NVM the fact that a majority of the resolutions against iraq were WMD related.

So are you sure about your claim that "The presence of WMD was not the determing factor in the invasion." because based on the FACTS and the REAL history of it, that was basically all W used to justify the invasion.

I wonder if you were even alive at the time? Were you in solitary confinement and couldn't read newspapers or watch TV?
Because your recollection of the events is completely off.

WOW it's amazing how you actually believe that you claiming something makes it so. How about you present a valid counter argument instead of presenting your opinions as you pretend that they even remotely factually based. LOL Funny how you failed to actually refute anything that i said but still claim that i was "completely off". Care to be specific??

As usual when called out for your BS you cut and run even as you pretend that you won the debate despite that FACT that you have only presented your unsubstantiated OPINIONS. The FACT remains that WMDs were a core part of W's justification for the invasion (i gave examples) and for you to pretend that is not the case just shows that you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant. So, are you stupid or just dishonest??

 

[The Rabbi]

Smarter and better informed than you. So to you I must be stupid because you cant understand it.
The UN passed many resolutions on Iraq and refused to enforce any of them. Bush went to Congress and asked for authority to enforce them. Read the resolution as to what the goals were. Democrats voted for the resolution, a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
When the war started to become unpopular Democrats, including some who voted for the resolution, then turned against it and pretended that Bush had "lied us into war" despite the fact they had exactly the same intelligence as Bush did.

 

[rightwinger]

Smarter and better informed than you. So to you I must be stupid because you cant understand it.
The UN passed many resolutions on Iraq and refused to enforce any of them. Bush went to Congress and asked for authority to enforce them. Read the resolution as to what the goals were. Democrats voted for the resolution, a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
When the war started to become unpopular Democrats, including some who voted for the resolution, then turned against it and pretended that Bush had "lied us into war" despite the fact they had exactly the same intelligence as Bush did.

Bush got the intelligence he asked for. He kept sending Tennet back until he got the report he wanted. The rest of the world knew Iraq was not a threat and told us we were fools for going in there

 

[The Rabbi]

Smarter and better informed than you. So to you I must be stupid because you cant understand it.
The UN passed many resolutions on Iraq and refused to enforce any of them. Bush went to Congress and asked for authority to enforce them. Read the resolution as to what the goals were. Democrats voted for the resolution, a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
When the war started to become unpopular Democrats, including some who voted for the resolution, then turned against it and pretended that Bush had "lied us into war" despite the fact they had exactly the same intelligence as Bush did.

Bush got the intelligence he asked for. He kept sending Tennet back until he got the report he wanted. The rest of the world knew Iraq was not a threat and told us we were fools for going in there

the rest of the world? Like Britain? Czech Republic, which still maintains its intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda is correct?
Do you get tired of writing fiction on this board?

 

[drsmith1072]

Smarter and better informed than you. So to you I must be stupid because you cant understand it.
The UN passed many resolutions on Iraq and refused to enforce any of them. Bush went to Congress and asked for authority to enforce them. Read the resolution as to what the goals were. Democrats voted for the resolution, a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
When the war started to become unpopular Democrats, including some who voted for the resolution, then turned against it and pretended that Bush had "lied us into war" despite the fact they had exactly the same intelligence as Bush did.

HAHAHA

How about you PROVE it instead of merely claiming it AGAIN.

As usual and yet again you are left with NOTHING as you present your usubstantiated OPINIONS as if they are fact even as you ignore the FACTS.

How about you go back and actually address the content of my posts instead of avoiding what you know you can't counter??

Yes the UN passed resolutions and iraq went against them so who do you think should enforce their own resolutions??

Furthemore, don't you think it's a little moronic to claim that we invaded Iraq because they went against the UN even though by invading Iraq we went against the UN??
Back then right wing nut job s tried to calim that the UN was invalid so it's up to the US to enforce the resolutions of an organization that they deemd invalid. If the UN was invalid then so were any resolutions that came from it.

Do you not see the contradiction or are you once again being willfuilly ignorant??

 

[The Rabbi]

there is no contradiction. You make them up and then claim to have discovered air. I am not going back and rehashing what has been proven a thousand times already. Go look at the Iraq Resolution and then come back.
The U.N was a failure.
The Democratic Party is a failure.
Your comments are failures.

 

[drsmith1072]

Smarter and better informed than you. So to you I must be stupid because you cant understand it.
The UN passed many resolutions on Iraq and refused to enforce any of them. Bush went to Congress and asked for authority to enforce them. Read the resolution as to what the goals were. Democrats voted for the resolution, a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
When the war started to become unpopular Democrats, including some who voted for the resolution, then turned against it and pretended that Bush had "lied us into war" despite the fact they had exactly the same intelligence as Bush did.

Bush got the intelligence he asked for. He kept sending Tennet back until he got the report he wanted. The rest of the world knew Iraq was not a threat and told us we were fools for going in there

the rest of the world? Like Britain? Czech Republic, which still maintains its intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda is correct?
Do you get tired of writing fiction on this board?

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??

 

[The Rabbi]

Bush got the intelligence he asked for. He kept sending Tennet back until he got the report he wanted. The rest of the world knew Iraq was not a threat and told us we were fools for going in there

the rest of the world? Like Britain? Czech Republic, which still maintains its intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda is correct?
Do you get tired of writing fiction on this board?

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.

 

[drsmith1072]

there is no contradiction. You make them up and then claim to have discovered air. I am not going back and rehashing what has been proven a thousand times already. Go look at the Iraq Resolution and then come back.
The U.N was a failure.
The Democratic Party is a failure.
Your comments are failures.

And yet there is a contradiction but you refuse to see it and continue to spin and LIE. WMD were a core aspect of W's justiofication for the invasion of iraq. That is a FACT based on his own SOTU addresses where he talked about yellow cake, mobile wepons plants, among others.

Then you go to the typical response of a someone who knows he lost but can't think of any other way to spin it and that is to claim that you are not going to go over it beause it has been proven before. That typical means that you you lost the deabte last time and would prefer to save yuorself the embarassment this time.

You tried to spin and you lost, now if you were only honest enough to admit it.

You tried to claim that "We spent 18 months debating the war and trying various solutions." before the invasion but that is flat out WRONG because that would have meant that we would have had to start debating it immediately following 9/11 and even you have to admit that was NOT the case.

Then you argued that we invaded iraq because they violated UN resolutions but our own invasion as we kicked out the inspectors was a violation of the very UN resolution that put the inspectors there. There in lies the contradiction that you chose to ignore.

You tried to claim that republicans were consistent and yet i showed examples that PROVED they were not and you refused to respond to the facts as you disheonstly tried to claim i was wrong even as you failed to address what I actually said.

You have lost every aspect of this debate and your continued avoidance of the facts only serves to further prove that to be the case.

Now watch you respond with some one line personal attack as you once again run away from the debate. Or would you actually like to try responding to the content of my posts instead of only attacking me??

 

[drsmith1072]

the rest of the world? Like Britain? Czech Republic, which still maintains its intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda is correct?
Do you get tired of writing fiction on this board?

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??

 

[rightwinger]

Smarter and better informed than you. So to you I must be stupid because you cant understand it.
The UN passed many resolutions on Iraq and refused to enforce any of them. Bush went to Congress and asked for authority to enforce them. Read the resolution as to what the goals were. Democrats voted for the resolution, a majority of Democrats in the Senate.
When the war started to become unpopular Democrats, including some who voted for the resolution, then turned against it and pretended that Bush had "lied us into war" despite the fact they had exactly the same intelligence as Bush did.

Bush got the intelligence he asked for. He kept sending Tennet back until he got the report he wanted. The rest of the world knew Iraq was not a threat and told us we were fools for going in there

the rest of the world? Like Britain? Czech Republic, which still maintains its intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda is correct?
Do you get tired of writing fiction on this board?

Like Canada who wouldn't even follow its closest ally into a useless war
Italy, Germany, France, the rest of NATO
Japan, Australia, New Zealand,India


Meanwhile....your "Coalition of the willing"

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

 

[The Rabbi]

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??

yawn.
Is this the best you can do?