Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Are you fucking kidding me???DrDetroit wrote:B, Bush was not obligated to reconicle facts to the policy.
The policy existed long before he took office.
Are you having difficulty understanding the significance of that?
I'm not sure, but I think this might be doctored.Tom In VA wrote:Has anyone id'd exactly what this photo depicted ?
A missile that had a range capable of striking you know who.Tom In VA wrote:
Has anyone id'd exactly what this photo depicted ?
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
What you interpret the article to say and what it says are clearly two different things. Shouldn't you be spreading rumors about how a plane never hit the pentagon?OK, last try.
From YOUR article --
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Back to my question....how in THE FUCK did you get "fixed means that you switch the places of words in a sentence in British slang" ?
THAT was the question, you blithering fucking idiot. Not "what was the policy" not "were certain facts used to support the policy"....the question was "HOW IN THE FUCK DID YOU WARP THE BRITISH SLANG 'FIXED' INTO MEANING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS SAID??????"
Thanks for that, Beavis. We all read it the first time.That clear it up for you?
Dude said that "facts were being fixed to support a policy." You said that since he used the British slang(:hugefuckingrolleyes:-btw) "fixed" that it suddenly means he was trying to say "the facts supported the policy."
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID!
No habla conspiracese.I was just trying to figure out which elementary school class you failed to be able to pull THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN out of that?
Comprende?
Just dinging the Dems for constantly running the above argument.mvscal wrote:Some major stockpiles of chemical weapons would have been nice.DrDetroit wrote:No nuclear weapons, no wmd's...right?
Sin,
Democrats
--Intellectually honest individual
Who has the nukes over there, you knucklehead?Tom In VA wrote:Marty,
You're correct. The stability of the Mid-East would be at great risk had Saddam nuked Israel.
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
Who suggested this?See You Next Wednesday wrote:So the fact that the PResident's own Commission siad the intelligence was dead wrong was a glossing over as well?
Regime change was certainly a policy consideration well before W, and the ide a of going to war might have even been one of many actions under consideration. But actually making the decision to go to war was all Bush's and his neo-con buddies idea.
I agree, Tenet did not deserve the Medal of Freedom.And if I was President and my intelligence community failed me to such a huge degree as this one did, then I would looking to roll heads instead of putting Medals of Freedom around them. To me that is pretty damning.
mvscal wrote:You mean would it be easier to take the heat for "finding nothing" than admit that France, Russia, Germany and China were violating the arms embargo with the full knowledge of the United Nations and then be forced to do something about that?Tom In VA wrote:Mvscal,
Correct. But I am curious, is there any "strategic" capital gained from letting the world know we did not find any stockpiles, when perhaps we did ?
Possibly. I guess it really isn't any more far fetched than the idea of Saddam maintaining a bluff over WMDs he allegedly destroyed.
Seriously, dude, I know you're smarter than that. Why do you post that garbage? If you want to say Iraq was a mistake or a quagmire, or whatever else, fine. But comparisons to Vietnam, other than that both were a police action/war, are just dumb.
