Dishonest, much?Miss Demeanor wrote:You mean we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring the WMDs they didn't possess to AQ?DrDetroit wrote: Fortunately, we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring wmd's or wmd technology to terrorists now...somethng that definitely would continue to linger as a threat if you guys were in Office.
Good to know, I'll sleep much better tonight.
Sorry, but your analysis based on hindsight is bullshit. I love watching you people take data from after the fact and apply it to the decision making process that happened before the fact.That is an excellent point. Of course it would stand to reason that we would then desire to confront nations that actualy HAD SOME WMDs.
Lying yet again?Yet, if we read the Downing Street Memo, it is obvious that there was not WMD production going on in Iraq.
Lying, again?No it wasn't. The WMD lie was a convienent fiction.
Yeah, they weren't terrorists before coming to the United States...In the United States you dolt. That's where they took their flying lessons, that's where they bought their box cutters and that's where they got their plane tickets.
In addition to Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan.Rich Saudis.
Once again you are compelled to simply blatantly lie to make an argument. Why?They NEVER trained in Iraq.
Can you say you're a dumbfuck?BSmack wrote:And this Shaboom Shabah guy is what? Can you say Chalabi?mvscal wrote:Shut the fuck up, moron.BSmack wrote:They NEVER trained in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... odada.html
Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001.
Obviously you've found a new favorite catch phrase--nice.DrDetroit wrote:Dishonest, much?Miss Demeanor wrote:You mean we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring the WMDs they didn't possess to AQ?DrDetroit wrote: Fortunately, we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring wmd's or wmd technology to terrorists now...somethng that definitely would continue to linger as a threat if you guys were in Office.
Good to know, I'll sleep much better tonight.
What, the UN reports just didn't cut it for you??Miss Demeanor wrote:Obviously you've found a new favorite catch phrase--nice.DrDetroit wrote:Dishonest, much?Miss Demeanor wrote: You mean we don't have to worry about Iraq transferring the WMDs they didn't possess to AQ?
Good to know, I'll sleep much better tonight.
But how is my statement dishonest?
Can you provide me with a list of all of all of the wmd's we've found in Iraq?
Who's giving him credibility? The Bushites were the ones that insisted he possessed them and that according to Rumsfeld "knew where they were". Yet, to date none have been found.DrDetroit wrote:
It's sickening that 1) you give this guy credibility; and 2) that you would such tripe.
BSmack wrote:Oh, I can generalize just as much as you. Anybody with a clue knows that Bush had more than one reason for attacking Iraq. In fact, here's a few off the top of my head.DrDetroit wrote:Once again we have a lefty just being his typical intellectual dishonest self. The US did not invade Iraq only because Saddam was butchering hundreds of thousands of people. Why is it that the left refuses to assess the entire case Bush made for war and instead choose to attack each factor as though it was in a vacuum?? Dishonest, much?
1. Avenge Daddy BS
2. Generate business for campaign contributors BS
3. Establish American hegemony in the middle east BS
4. Divert public attention from the Saudis who actualy fund al Queda BS
5. Divert public attention from the shitty ass economy BS
6. Divert public attention from the train wreck that is our North Korea policy CONCUR
There's just a few.
You are by insisting that Iraq didn't possess wmd's. To believe that you have to believe that Saddam did indeed destroy his wmd's and that he scrapped all wmd development programs.Miss Demeanor wrote:Who's giving him credibility?DrDetroit wrote:
It's sickening that 1) you give this guy credibility; and 2) that you would such tripe.
Moved to Syria? Perhaps as we have data that shows dozens of semi-trucks crossing the border just before the invasion. That's reasonable, is is it not (bearing in mind that he shipped his air force to Iran prior to GWI)?The Bushites were the ones that insisted he possessed them and that according to Rumsfeld "knew where they were". Yet, to date none have been found.
What do you suppose happened to them?
You can keep running this charade as long as you like.No, I think it relates more to a "lack of credibility" on the part of Bush Administration.
I'm not insisting anything. Bush and the rest insisted they possessed them and to date, none have been found--that's a fact, it's not presumption, it's not speculation, it's fact. Now, produce anything that disputes this FACT and I'll give Bush the credit you feel he deserves.DrDetroit wrote:
You are by insisting that Iraq didn't possess wmd's. To believe that you have to believe that Saddam did indeed destroy his wmd's and that he scrapped all wmd development programs.
Link?Unfortunately for you people, the Iraqi Survey Group determined that wmd programs were still operating.
So now you're SPECULATING what might have happened to them. Again, the Bushites claimed they KNEW where they were. Rumsfeld didn't say "We think" he said "we know". I've asked this before and I feel compelled to ask it again: If they KNEW where these most destructive of weapons were, why wouldn't they keep them under survelience? Again, these are the weapons that Bush insisted posed the biggest threat the world has ever known, yet they didn't feel it necessary to know where they were every second of every day? Why do you suppose that is?Moved to Syria? Perhaps as we have data that shows dozens of semi-trucks crossing the border just before the invasion. That's reasonable, is is it not (bearing in mind that he shipped his air force to Iran prior to GWI)?
They could. Then maybe you might explain to me why Saddam possessed all of these weapons, yet chose not to employ them when he knew the US was coming for him. Why do you suppose that is?Also, not every square inch of Iraq has been searched. Hence they coudl remain hidden.
Yet the Bushites chose to ignore the UN when they said not to attack. They use a UN resolution to invade, yet ignore the UN when they tell him not to. Why do you suppose that is.However, it's all a moot point for the reason Mvscal stated...Saddam was obligated to demonstrate that he destroyed the weapons catalogued by the UN and to dismantle his wmd programs. He refused to comply.
Which charade is that? Simply supply a list of the wmds found to date in Iraq in Iraq and I won't bring it up again.You can keep running this charade as long as you like.
And where did the information they led them to these conclusions come from? Apparently, every country was wrong.FACT is that every major nation's intelligence community independently concluded prior to the invasion that Iraq possessed wmd and were operating wmd programs.
I'm trying to make some sense of this last sentence, but again I'm not well versed in gibberish. I think what you're implying is that I'm somehow accusing Bush of lying--which again, is a total bunch of horseshit.Now, what that means is that you're sitting there trying to tell us that the supposedly stupid President Bush knew what these intelligence communities did not.
Can you please explain that?
Weren't they the ones that suggested continuing on with the inspections rather than invading?mvscal wrote:UNMOVIC for the most part.Miss Demeanor wrote:And where did the information they led them to these conclusions come from?
Idiot...can you ever stay on track?Miss Demeanor wrote:Weren't they the ones that suggested continuing on with the inspections rather than invading?mvscal wrote:UNMOVIC for the most part.Miss Demeanor wrote:And where did the information they led them to these conclusions come from?
Settle down tiger.DrDetroit wrote:Idiot...can you ever stay on track?Miss Demeanor wrote:Weren't they the ones that suggested continuing on with the inspections rather than invading?mvscal wrote: UNMOVIC for the most part.
Will do Mister LeafDrDetroit wrote:Cut it out.
Obviously it doesn't matter--hence we invaded.What does it matter what UNMOVIC recommended re: inspections? They are not policymakers, they are technicians. They do their job, report their conclusions and then promptly shut the fuck up so the policymakers can make a decision
But hes a reel good spellur.DrDetroit wrote:No, honesty is not a matter of spin. The only spin right here is you attempting to call Bush a hypocrite on the nation-building issue as you respond to a point being made about Bush's support for regime change in Iraq.
Oh, btw, the taking points nonsense that you run is just that...nonsense. You're unable to articulate a coherent and honest take so you either question a poster's motives or your simply charcaterize his posts as merely following the talking points.
This is why you consistently get punked around here. You're out of your element.
You forgot to slip in the phrase, "mushroom cloud" in that post.mvscal wrote:What for? To continue the runaround for another decade? I'm sure that's exactly what they had in mind. That was their gravytrain.Miss Demeanor wrote:Weren't they the ones that suggested continuing on with the inspections rather than invading?mvscal wrote: UNMOVIC for the most part.
Saddam was supposed to have completely inventoried and destroyed all weapons and programs under our supervision not later than the end of 1992. What possible excuse or reason could there be to still be fucking around with this jerkoff ten years later?
Read any of their reports and you come away with the inescapable conclusion that Saddam was concealing something. Dubya, quite rightly, concluded that that was a totally unacceptable risk in the post 9/11 world.
Saddam was given one final chance to come clean and cooperate openly, but he continued to fuck around and play games. That was the wrong motherfucking answer.