Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 14, 2007 17:16
VIEWED: 19028
PAGE 15 of 27
Quote:I appreciate your willingness to recognize this leap. It lends far more credibility to your argument as a whole then those who feel compelled to pursue a single-minded assault on the character and person of Bush to validate what they obviously feel are a pretty weak arguments.
Originally posted by leadb:
So... I will agree it is leap to go from 'he's wrong' to 'he was trying to deceive us (or was incompetent)'. However, from the basic failure to be correct on the status of WMD, I've come to re-examine much of what Bush presented …
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What do you want? A lynching?
Originally posted by Storymark:
Are you honestly arguing that Bush can't be held accountable for the things he says, because, hey, he's just the guy in charge?
Quote:No. But I am serious.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Are you seriouse???
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
eh, forget it. I don't think it'll sink in anyway.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh hell, I'll say it anyway altho I really don't expect an answer: Finn- How did Bush earn such faith and trust? And is that faith so complete that he's beyond question?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because I don’t assume that someone is a lying son of a bitch, it means I think they are beyond question? I don’t think so. I don't think you're a lying son of a bitch, but some of your arguments are pretty questionable. Bush saw both sides of inconclusive evidence, he chose the side you didn’t and the Whitehouse argued that case. You assume he lied because he didn’t agree with you. I don’t believe that’s an appropriate reason to accuse someone of lying.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh hell, I'll say it anyway: Finn- How did Bush earn such faith and trust? And is that faith so complete that he's beyond question?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What do you want? A lynching?
No. But how about some accountability. I'm sick of all you Bushies letting him slide for everything. It's disgracefull.
Quote:Bravo, you found a typo. You must feel good about yourself.
No. But I am serious.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let's assume that he DIDN'T lie. He put "yellowcake" back into the SOTU twice, focused on aluminum tubes which would never have meet technical specs for nuclear centrifuge tubes, (You're a technical guy, right? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.) took the word of someone who had already been deemed unreliable by both the CIA and the DIA (Curveball), and completely blew off the UNMOVIC inspection process, ... all because he was convinced that Saddam had an active WMD manufacturing program and meaningful "stockpiles" of WMD.
Because I don’t assume that someone is a lying son of a bitch, it means I think they are beyond question? I don’t think so. I don't think you're a lying son of a bitch, but some of your arguments are pretty questionable. Bush saw both sides of inconclusive evidence, he chose the side you didn’t and the Whitehouse argued that case. You assume he lied because he didn’t agree with you. I don’t believe that’s an appropriate reason to accuse someone of lying.
In other words, let's assume he had an unshakable conviction that Saddam had WMD despite the fact that there was evidence to the contrary. Does that constitute an "imminent threat"?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck....
Could be a pig.
We need to run tests Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hero
You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?
Is there a secret base or giant stockpile? No. Thats silly. But a canister of sarin gas buried in the desert or in a forgotton cellar...you can't rule that out.
I note for the record that chlorine gas has been used in a small number of insurgent attacks since 2003.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bush never said the threat was imminent. In fact, in the SOTU address he argued that it was not imminent – suggesting instead that we should not wait until it does become imminent and take us off guard the way Al Qaeda did on 9/ll.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In other words, let's assume he had an unshakable conviction that Saddam had WMD despite the fact that there was evidence to the contrary. Does that constitute an "imminent threat"?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME