Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who,

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, December 12, 2008 18:12
VIEWED: 4732
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 9:43 PM

...heard it from another you been WMDin' around.

If the report from the Brits had said that Saddam had a nuke riding an ICBM ready to launch at the U.S. within the hour, would Bush have then just nuked Iraq?

When do we verify intel? When it SUITS US?

When do we count our chickens? Before or after the plot to deceive has been hatched? Before or after they come home to roost?

How many civilians died because Bush wanted his way with Saddam? How many American Troops died because he & Cheney rushed it through so opposition would be minimal? How do the spineless Congress peeps sleep at night knowing they let it happen?

But most importantly, how do peeps like AURaptor keep getting taken in aggression after aggression, believing that somehow killing is always the way to achieving stability on the world stage?

The confounded Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, December 8, 2008 9:47 PM

Waiting 10 + yrs for Saddam to comply with U.N. sanctions isn't , at least by my standards, " rushing into " any damn thing.

Killing stopped Hilter.

Brought an end to slavery in the U.S.

Gave birth to the greatest nation on Earth......

Give war a chance, Chris.

REORaptor is all

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Waiting 10 + yrs for Saddam to comply with U.N. sanctions isn't , at least by my standards, " rushing into " any damn thing.

Um, doodie head, the war was rushed into, the circumstances were around for a while, again your assessment is incorrect & juvenile.

Quote:

Killing stopped Hilter.

Brought an end to slavery in the U.S.

Gave birth to the greatest nation on Earth......

Ancient history, Are you saying we should never strive to 'evolve beyond that'?

Quote:

Give war a chance, Chris.

Spoken, er, I mean, typed like a true hawk. A chickenhawk at that, since you obviously didn't personally believe in war enough to go to Iraq yourself & espouse your views of freedom through war to the Iraqi peeps.

The condemning Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:21 PM

Quote:
Um, doodie head, the war was rushed into, the circumstances were around for a while, again your assessment is incorrect & juvenile.

I just love how you utterly ignore history and cover your eyes to the facts. 10 god damn years went by, and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations. He NEVER WAS GOING TO. We have 2 choices, forget all the crimes he had committed, look the other way ( hello, Cambodia ? ) and pretend none of it ever happened, or make a stand. Civilization demanded that we make a stand, even if you don't agree.

Fighting for one's rights isn't a lack of evolution, it's quite the opposite.

And Chickenhawks are hawks that hunt and eat chickens, partner. That bogus name game you pussies on the Left try isn't going to work on me. Sorry.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:24 PM

"... and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations ..."

Except, he did. No WMDs - remember ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

10 god damn years went by, and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations. He NEVER WAS GOING TO. We have 2 choices, forget all the crimes he had committed, look the other way ( hello, Cambodia ? ) and pretend none of it ever happened, or make a stand.

Oh, sorry, I thought we went to war with Iraq because, like, they had WMD & ties to the 9-11 attack and stuff.
I just hate how you utterly ignore history and cover your eyes to the facts.

Quote:
Civilization demanded that we make a stand, even if you don't agree.

I, uh, must've had my headphones on when that demand was voiced...

Quote:

Fighting for one's rights isn't a lack of evolution, it's quite the opposite.

What rights of ours was Saddam threatening, again?

The needling Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

And Chickenhawks are hawks that hunt and eat chickens

BTW, thanks for being consistent & avoiding the main question at the top of the thread- I knew you couldn't address it directly.

"If the report from the Brits had said that Saddam had a nuke riding an ICBM ready to launch at the U.S. within the hour, would Bush have then just nuked Iraq?" <----yeah, that one.

The torturing Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations ..."

Except, he did. No WMDs - remember ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Actually, you're wrong. The 17 UN Resolutions are just some of things he failed to live up to, there were also other things, like targeting US planes in the no fly zone, and dozens of other things, which go back to the cease fire ( remember, no peace treaty was signed ) from the 1st Gulf War.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:36 PM

Quote:
"If the report from the Brits had said that Saddam had a nuke riding an ICBM ready to launch at the U.S. within the hour, would Bush have then just nuked Iraq?"

Oh, I thought you meant the other one, which I thought was more rhetorical, so I didn't think needed an answer anyways.

Why would Bush need to nuke anything ? If he had intel, or anyone else had intel on a specific ICBM, we'd simply Cruise Missile the hell out of it.

Tactically, your question is pretty silly.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If he had intel, or anyone else had intel on a specific ICBM, we'd simply Cruise Missile the hell out of it.

Tactically, your question is pretty silly.

So, what direct threat concerning WMD was there again? You know, the one that made attacking at that moment so critical?

Boy did you fall into that one- I was sure you'd a seen that coming.

Tactically, you have no case, clue, or any other gorram thing, and you just proved it for all to see, heh heh.

The triumphant Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:45 PM

You spend so much time ignoring the facts, forgetting the history and instead try to weave some sort of alternate universe where your world view makes sense.

Dude, get over it. The war is over. Congress voted Bush the use of force, he used it, we fought, we won, and now we're moving on.

Why keep this shit going ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:53 PM

Quote:
Why keep this shit going ?

Oh yes, what we all fall back on when we are losing an argument...

You deflect with the best of 'em, 'Rappy.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, December 8, 2008 10:53 PM

Quote:
What rights of ours was Saddam threatening, again?

Our right to invade him! How can you not GET that?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

AURAPTOR

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:
Why keep this shit going ?

Oh yes, what we all fall back on when we are losing an argument...

You deflect with the best of 'em, 'Rappy.

The laughing Chrisisall

No deflection here, what so ever. I just fail to see what point is being served here. I answered your question, and still, all you do is ridicule my response. What purpose is served by my answering you at all ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I answered your question, and still, all you do is ridicule my response.

Why yes, I do seem to be doing that...

Quote:
What purpose is served by my answering you at all ?

Honestly, I enjoy seeing you dig yourself deeper & deeper into a pit of illogic; I'm twisted that way.

The entertained Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
What rights of ours was Saddam threatening, again?

Our right to invade him! How can you not GET that?

Oh, well, now that I KNOW...

The enlightened Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Civilization demanded that we make a stand, even if you don't agree.

Actually, most of the civilized world wanted us to stay the fuck out of it.

"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."

STORYMARK

Monday, December 8, 2008 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You spend so much time ignoring the facts, forgetting the history and instead try to weave some sort of alternate universe where your world view makes sense.

I love how you keep accusing others of your favorite tactic. It's my favorite thing about you.

So, what facts are we ignoring? What was the immanent threat you spoke of?

I shall await your answer with baited breath (knowing that I won't get one, but will receive another invective-riddled dodge).

"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."

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:09 AM

Hello,

This is a comment aside from the main discussion, but I wanted to interrupt.

The "if you believe in war so much, you'd join the army and be over there right now" argument is a bad one.

We would not expect every man and woman who approved of a military action to immediately sign up for the military. Nor would we expect every person who approved of a UN aid mission to immediately sign up for that mission. While joining the military is the most direct way to support a policy, it isn't the only way and it's not even necessarily the best way.

Obviously, industry and infrastructure must continue to operate. People can make positive contributions to the nation without picking up an assault rifle.

People against the war shouldn't be forced to leave government service, and people in favor of the war shouldn't be forced to sign up. Starship Troopers is the science-fiction novel where voting rights are tied to military service. We live in the United States.

Now, I'm all in favor for hearing arguments about a Constitutional ammendment to tie having an opinion to military service, but until that ammendment is passed, I'd like to stop seeing the 'why don't you join the army, then' statement.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The "if you believe in war so much, you'd join the army and be over there right now" argument is a bad one.

Of course it is, but it's a good way of dealing with an irritating person of limited cognitive function like AU.

The raucous Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:43 AM

Study: False statements preceded war
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_ on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study;_ylt=As9VGMLqrKY..TFOnwU_Az.s0NUE

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:52 AM

Lol. I hope this was humor.

Hitler committed suicide. His successor was then defeated by the soviets. Nothing in the war stopped the holocaust, in fact, it probably aided it. I suspect the peaceniks of the 30s were right, and we should have negotiated with the Germans for the safe release of the jews, to either the US or Israel, some safe haven. Instead, we all went balls to the wall with bombs and everyone died. Great success story.

War did nothing for Slavery, slavery was already banned, and all lincoln did was kill a million people. His successors got to end slavery, but it would have ended anyway, as it had everywhere else, except Brazil, 1881.

America is a great place. The United States is a flawed institution that probably deserves its place among the great evils of all time. Fortunately, it is made up of member states with a lot of fine traits. If only we could have a loose alliance like NATO and lose this whole govt. in DC.

DT, being unpatriotic, if patriotism is blind loyalty to an oligarchy in DC. I'm not from the capitol, and it's not technically one of the united states, so I see no reason that any of us should pay any attention to it, let alone loyalty.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 5:49 AM

Thank you DT.

Being very tired from dealing with a situation downright ugly enough to appall even me, I've just add on little question to the matter, since you've covered most of the rest.

Who helped install and propped up Saddam in the first place, and why ?

-Frem

PS. Not at liberty to discuss the "situation" locally no more, legal reasons.

HERO

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... and Saddam wasn't living up to his obligations ..."

Except, he did. No WMDs - remember ?

Except the ones they found. And the missiles. And the shooting at allied aircraft in the no fly zone every other day. Oh, and accounting for thousands of Kuwati civilian prisoners (and one American pilot). Not to mention allowing the inspectors full access (after all, trying to hide the extent of your weapons program was a violation, regardless of the motive). And so on.

People thought Iraq had these weapons. Iraq was hiding the fact they didn't have these weapons. Iraq did a better job of concealing the truth then we did of finding the truth. Therefore the invasion was ultimately Iraq's own fault.

Saddam was in a bad spot. If he revealed the truth, Iraq's international prestige and his government would have been severely weakened. Making him like Libya at best or overthrown at worst.

On the other hand he faced pressure from the US and its allies to fully disclose. But the US's allies had been systematically undermined by the giant oil bribes and the US had a history of blustering and saber rattling, but ultimately doing nothing (Clinton's 1998 air war, 30 days of bombing followed by...nothing).

Saddam gambled and lost.

H

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Honestly, I enjoy seeing you dig yourself deeper & deeper into a pit of illogic; I'm twisted that way.

But I'm not doing that. It's only something you're preprogrammed to say, no matter what I say, simply because I know the reasons why we went to war, and you chose to ignore them. I recite to you the history, and you come how cliam I'm " digging myself deeper and deeper into a pit of illogic ", all because you think the war was unjust. It's you who is stuck in an illogic loop, not I.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You spend so much time ignoring the facts, forgetting the history and instead try to weave some sort of alternate universe where your world view makes sense.

I love how you keep accusing others of your favorite tactic. It's my favorite thing about you.

So, what facts are we ignoring? What was the immanent threat you spoke of?

I shall await your answer with baited breath (knowing that I won't get one, but will receive another invective-riddled dodge).

The imminent threat is a straw dog which the Left loves to toss around, when ever they can't address the issue. Bush never said there was an immentent threat, and you know it. You keep replaying this lie, time after time after time..... " no, but his administration said it, blah blah blah " If I'm guilty of dodging anything, it's only because I've already gone over this, dozens of times, and yet you IDIOTS on the Left keep bringing up over and over and over again. Sorry, that dog won't hunt, buddy.

We gave Saddam and Iraq time to comply, they didn't, we followed up on our word to forcibly take Saddam out of power. And we did.

Deal.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The imminent threat is a straw dog which the Left loves to toss around, when ever they can't address the issue. Bush never said there was an immentent threat, and you know it.

It's been quoted for you, noodle-brain, and THIS is what I mean when I say 'a pit of illogic'. Keep tossing around phrases like 'The imminent threat is a straw dog' and 'I deal in facts only'... it's highly entertaining, please, go on.

The roaring Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Hitler committed suicide. His successor was then defeated by the soviets. Nothing in the war stopped the holocaust, in fact, it probably aided it. I suspect the peaceniks of the 30s were right, and we should have negotiated with the Germans for the safe release of the jews, to either the US or Israel, some safe haven. Instead, we all went balls to the wall with bombs and everyone died. Great success story.

War did nothing for Slavery, slavery was already banned, and all lincoln did was kill a million people. His successors got to end slavery, but it would have ended anyway, as it had everywhere else, except Brazil, 1881.

AURaptor cannot see or read this post- the chip does not allow it.

But nice to see ya around, DT!!!!

The welcome-back Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:55 PM

Quote:
It's been quoted for you

No it hasn't, not from Bush.

You're wrong, you know you're wrong, and yet you keep reveling in your wrongness as some sort of victory.

How lame.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We gave Saddam and Iraq time to comply, they didn't, we followed up on our word to forcibly take Saddam out of power.

Okay, I'll play this for a moment, even though it was only part of the whole thing-

"US Secretary of State Colin Powell said a month ago, 'The question isn't how much longer do you need for inspections to work. Inspections will not work.' (Independent, 23 Jan., p. 1)

Iraqi co-operation with inspectors is an obstacle to war. Therefore it must be rubbished. President Bush has sought to dismiss Iraqi compliance: 'Saddam Hussein can now be expected to begin another round of empty concessions, transparently false denials. No doubt he will play a last minute game of deception. The game is over.'"

AND:

"Certainly, paragraph 13 amounts to an implied threat of "serious consequences" if Iraq breaches its obligations in the future. But nothing in paragraph 13 suggests that the consequences would be decided upon and taken by anyone other than the body that has, under the procedure established in the immediately preceding paragraphs 11 and 12, been given responsibility for deciding how to respond to material breaches: that is, by the Security Council itself."
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Rai_Iraq-LastPush.htm

Ha! You lose on the main point; you lose on the ancillary point.
Basically, you lose.

The indomitable Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:05 PM

Chrissy, you're wrong, and I'm not playing this game again for, the 134th time.

Any memnber nation could have gone in and taken out Saddam for his non compliance. The US is a member nation of the U.N., acted fully with in its rights , did so, along w/ 30 some other nations, end of story.

I'm right, you're wrong.

I win, you lose.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No it hasn't, not from Bush.

Watch closely, I'll do it again:
(Closely now)

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."
"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late,"

Did you read it? Oh, you wanna say that the word 'imminent' was not used there, right? Wrong, gobbledegook mouth, the very fabric of what's being said (preventing sudden, suddenly emerge) is the definition of 'imminent', so play 'precision sophistry' if you want to, we all (Like, world all) know how entirely wrong you are on almost every point you've made on this issue.

*points & laughs*

The laughing Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:09 PM

Frem

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and GHW Bush specifically. Yeah, I know you know that. But no reason to be partisan, the plan started under the Carter admin, where democrats Wolfowitz and Perle were on the job. Okay, so the thing that I've become more certain of in my absense is that there are no parties. Just one party with two names.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Any memnber nation could have gone in and taken out Saddam for his non compliance. The US is a member nation of the U.N., acted fully with in its rights , did so, along w/ 30 some other nations, end of story.

ANY memnber?
Hey- I'm a member of the YMCA, so if they say another member is late with fees, that means I can round up some like-minded fellas & go to the guy's house and TAKE his money in the name of the place to which I am a member...cool!

Pathetic try, AU, your desperation does put a smile on my face, though.

The hysterical Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 3:21 PM

ROFL

I think you're right. I suspect Auraptor's chip malfunctioned in the explosion. He's right, he's definitely not a conservative or a liberal, he's a troll, with a tendency towards fascism.

As a troll, I apologize for feeding it. Ah, where is Pirate News when you need him.

As for real world events, someone just mentioned them. I don't think that anything au says has anything to do with real world events.

Also, to whoever posted that, the name of this forum is not "partisan politics." Can we ban partisan politics? It seems like a lot of arguing over nothing.

No one is commenting on pirates. I recall two years ago predicting this would be a major story, and that Church of the FSM was way off on piracy trends.

Anyway, good to be back. If I kick things about, it's probably because politics are starting to bore me. Seriously, this election, I couldn't tell the difference between the tickets. I don't think it made a difference.

I voted for McKinney, because that said lunatic conspiracy theorist, and Ron Paul wasn't running, so I had to vote for someone, and Nader was already in too much debt.

Only one thing really surprised me about Obama. Manny's and Volloy's? Please. I mean, you live in Hyde Park, but you're also rich. Have some class. Uno's or something. I mean, there are good restaurants here man. It is somewhat freakish to think that this means I was undoubtedly at some point eating toxic slush on the next table over from Obama.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:27 PM

Chris, you interpret what you want to be true. Not what is.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Any memnber nation could have gone in and taken out Saddam for his non compliance. The US is a member nation of the U.N., acted fully with in its rights , did so, along w/ 30 some other nations, end of story.

ANY memnber?
Hey- I'm a member of the YMCA, so if they say another member is late with fees, that means I can round up some like-minded fellas & go to the guy's house and TAKE his money in the name of the place to which I am a member...cool!

Pathetic try, AU, your desperation does put a smile on my face, though.

The hysterical Chrisisall

It's what the UN resolutions say, dim bulb. Has nothing to do with your YMCA dues. See? You interpret only what you WISH were true, not what is.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area ;

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

STORYMARK

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Bush may have not literally said the word imminent (though saying "Gravest threat today" is pretty fuckin' close), but plenty of his direct representatives did.

Which I know won't matter to Rappy, becuase the Pres isn't actually responsible for anything that happens under his watch, unless it's something good, and then only he gets credit.

And this is why we find you so very, very laughable.

"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."

RUE

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 6:53 PM

Rap,

So you are agreeing that Hussein was NOT a threat --- right ?

Select to view spoiler:

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm

In January 2003, Waas says, the president was handed a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate. "The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if 'ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime' or if he intended to 'extract revenge' for such an assault, according to records and sources." There was one exception, Waas says: The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said Saddam was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland" even if a U.S. invasion threatened his regime.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area ;

So, candy WRApper, you see attacking Iraq as using "all necessary means to...restore international peace and security in the area"

That's a Helluva way to interpret THAT.

BTW, thanks for handing me the means to further disgrace you, I appreciate it.

The BWAHAHAHAHA Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

And this is why we find you so very, very laughable.

I'm wipin' away tears of laughter my own self...if he had any brains at all he'd just refrain from posting & watch his new DVD "Bush, the Man, the Myth, the Miracle" over & over.

The on-the-floor Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 10:35 PM

Chris, your ignorance is ever increasing. Keep it up.

Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion.

Skidmark, Bush wasn't the only one who said Iraq was a fuckin' threat. Fuckin' read the fuckin' link, you fuckin' fuck.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out ." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Seriously, nothing new here is being brought up, just the same tired old shit, over and over again.

I'm done w/ this thread.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 10:43 PM

"Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion."

Except the people who did the NIE in 2003.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm done w/ this thread.

*And the crowd goes wild!!!*

STORYMARK

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Skidmark, Bush wasn't the only one who said Iraq was a fuckin' threat. Fuckin' read the fuckin' link, you fuckin' fuck.

Never said he was, you halfwit. You can't even keep track of the topic at hand (He didn't say that... oh, he did... well he wasn't the only one!). That's adorable.

Read what I wrote you blah blah blah blah blah (trying to keep things at your level here, for courtesy's sake).

But thank you for once again showing your aversion to discussing the topic at hand, and instead trying to deflect it, or, as they say, "move the goalposts".

"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."

SWISH

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:32 AM

Huh. The strongest argument Auraptor can make is a quote from the "rightwingnews" web site. Now I know he's Stephen Colbert, cause that's just too funny to be real!

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Huh. The strongest argument Auraptor can make is a quote from the "rightwingnews" web site. Now I know he's Stephen Colbert, cause that's just too funny to be real!

Slay the messenger much? You don't even care WHO said what, do you ? None of that fucking matters, because we know sure as hell no " unbiased " web site would give you that info, nooooo.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I'm done w/ this thread.

*Points to above...*

The mmmmmm Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:22 AM

Chris,
If you respond to Auraptor, you've failed the Turing test.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chris,
If you respond to Auraptor, you've failed the Turing test.

But but but bu-

RUE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:34 AM

So, since Rap responded, did HE fail the Turing test ?

Just wondering.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:54 PM

I used to think that AU worked for a defense contractor, and in a way, he does:
Auraptor is a sophisticate AI program that shoots down opposing points of view, or for that matter, points of view.
He may evolve into Skynet.

RUE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:30 PM

Rap
Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion.

Rue
Except the people who did the NIE in 2003.
***************************************************************

Rap,

You know, I hope, that the NIE is a report compiled by the CIA from all the various intelligence agencies on a particular topic, written in conference with those agencies. The 2003 NIE nearly unanimously said Hussein would not be a threat unless the US attacked Iraq, except for State Department intelligence, which said he would not be a threat even then.

Given your belief 'everyone knew' Hussein was a threat: what is it you tell yourself to shuffle away the NIE conclusion Hussein was NOT a threat ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:07 PM

bump

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SWISH

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:38 PM

"Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion."

Kind of like "everyone" knew that Roe v Wade was a bad decision. Rap never did explain how "everyone" doesn't include the majority of Supreme Court Justices who made the ruling. Perhaps Rap needs to look up the word "everyone". dictionary.com works nicely.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:00 PM

Rue, what did the director of the CIA tell Bush, BEFORE we went into Iraq ? What did Clinton's own SecDef say, of Iraq ? My fucking god, how the hell you imbeclies selectively look at ONLY what you want to look at.

SLAM DUNK

IRAQ HAD WMD!

game over.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out ." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Not " I'm sorta sure" , or that " Gee, I think MAYBE there might be ", but " I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THERE ARE WEAPONS " .

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:04 PM

Well, ahem, what the NIE said was they they didn't have hard information and that they were outlining a worst-case scenario.

Even given their worst-case scenario, they said Hussein was NOT a threat.

So, how do you mantain your belief 'everyone knew' he was a threat, in the face of the NIE which said he was not ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

IRAQ HAD WMD!

game over.

BUSH HAD TRUTHOPHOBIA!

game over.

The rebutting Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:49 PM

Dumbass, the NIE was covering it's ass, after saying there WAS WMD for 10 yrs, now Bush was calling them on their intel, and they didn't want to be the ones responsible for anything, only there's one TINY small problem. It's SPECIFICALLY their job TO know, and that's why so much $$, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS is paid to the intelligence agencies, for the purpose OF knowing. Everyone believed them when no one thought we'd go to war, and they LOVED that, but when Bush decides enough is enough, and we have to put an end to this threat, they do an about face and say " oh, there's no threat, none what so ever! ". So, we were caught w/ our pants down on 9/11, and we're suppose to believe these guys NOW ?

bullshit. The NIE was nothing more than a collective pant load , done by folks who were having their very worth called into question, and they failed. Failed MISERABLY, and they were trying to cover the mess.

Director Tenet - " SLAM DUNK "

SecDef Cohen - " I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THERE ARE WEAPONS " .

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:57 PM

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You have your timelines scrambled, implying the intelligence agencies went back in time.

Can you repeat this a little bit more coherently ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

STORYMARK

Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
My fucking god, how the hell you imbeclies selectively look at ONLY what you want to look at.

Easy, we just follow your example.

"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."

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:59 AM

Kinda' waiting Rap for you to unscramble your post.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:20 AM

Bump for Rap.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:35 AM

Why are we still talking about what's already been decided?

KWICKO

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:56 AM

Quote:
So, we were caught w/ our pants down on 9/11, and we're suppose to believe these guys NOW ?

So you can so easily dismiss the NIE that says Iraq was no threat, and then claim that we were caught with our pants down on 9/11, DESPITE the fact that there was an NIE just prior to 9/11 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the U.S." - and even mentioned airliners as possible weaopns!

So we see that ignoring the NIEs is something that historically hasn't had good results. Ignore the one about Bin Laden, and 9/11 occurs. Ignore the one about Iraq, and the Iraq war occurs.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

RIVERLOVE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:38 PM

Mr. Bin Laden was interviewed on 60 Minutes in the late 1990's from Afghanistan. He said then, very clearly, that he was at war with America. He called for a fiery death to America, and said he would reign death from the skies. Everyone dismissed his rantings as insaneness. Who ever would have thought he would pull it off. I guess he became more emboldened after his attacks on 2 US embassies and a US warship went off without any response from the US. Bush had the best opportunity to capture or kill him, but for some reason he failed. Almost seems like he was left in place to be a poster-boy for an endless war on terror. "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:53 PM

Hey RiverLove

Do you remember when shortly after 9/11 Bush said he had proof - he used that word, PROOF - that it was bin Laden ? Then, before the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban said it would be happy to turn bin Laden over under two conditions - that the US show some kind of PROOF bin Laden was involved, and that he be turned over to the ICC - a deal the US refused to consider. On his part, Bush moved the goalposts from bin Laden 'dead or alive', to bin Laden and his followers, to the Taliban, to supporters of terrorism wherever they were, to 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists'. During the invasion, the US let bin Laden slip away. Then after the Taliban was defeated, US troops spent nearly two years looking for PROOF it was bin Laden - proof, remember, that Bush claimed to have days after 9/11. And finally, Bush said he just didn't think about bin Laden very much anymore.

Maybe it was bin Laden. And then again, maybe it wasn't. Going by Bush's ACTIONS, it mostly looks like it wasn't.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mr. Bin Laden was interviewed on 60 Minutes in the late 1990's from Afghanistan. He said then, very clearly, that he was at war with America. He called for a fiery death to America, and said he would reign death from the skies. Everyone dismissed his rantings as insaneness. Who ever would have thought he would pull it off. I guess he became more emboldened after his attacks on 2 US embassies and a US warship went off without any response from the US. Bush had the best opportunity to capture or kill him, but for some reason he failed. Almost seems like he was left in place to be a poster-boy for an endless war on terror. "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Couple points:

First off, anyone who knew anything about terrorism KNEW that Bin Laden wasn't to be taken lightly, and they knew it at least as early as the first WTC bombing. That the mainstream media didn't pick up on the guy until the late 90s just shows how behind the curve they tend to be. If you ever watch things, REALLY watch current events, you'll notice things months (if not years) before you see it bandied about on the evening news.

Secondly, it's a common claim that the U.S. *could have* gotten Bin Laden while Clinton was in office, but "did nothing". It's a common claim, but patently untrue. How quickly people tend to forget the whole "wag the dog" episode, where Clinton was accused of launching Tomahawk cruise missile attacks merely to take attention away from the ongoing Whitewater investigation. In point of fact, Clinton launched no less than two, and probably as many as four or five, attacks specifically aimed at killing Bin Laden. Not capturing him, not turning him over to someone else, KILLING him outright. He failed, just as Bush failed, but it cost us a whole hell of a lot fewer American lives in the process.

Don't ever for a minute think that know one could have foreseen this. The fact that they COULD have, that they SHOULD have, and that they IGNORED it is the worse failure.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:04 PM

Manning memo proves Bush is guilty of murder
by Christian Dem in NC

Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM PST

Bugliosi refers to a meeting Bush held on January 31, 2003 with Tony Blair and six of Bush and Blair's top aides to discuss the Iraq issue. According to a memo summarizing the meeting that was written by David Manning (then Blair's foreign policy adviser and later British ambassador to Washington), Bush actually indicated that he was willing to provoke a confrontation with Saddam. This summary has never been disputed by the White House.

Among the ways Bush proposed to provoke a confrontation was to paint U2s to look like UN airplanes. The theory was that if Saddam tried to fire on them, it would justify military action. I have to say that in reading this, a chill went down my spine. The image I immediately got was of how Hitler started World War II--with a purported violation of the German border by Poland. SS men disguised as Polish soldiers were to stage a phony attack on a German radio station located right on the border, and leave drugged concentration camp inmates dying as "casualties."

This Manning memo got limited play in the press--it was mentioned only in passing in an NYT front-page story in March 2006. However, even without the plans to use U2 aircraft disguised in UN colors, the memo is absolutely damning and proves that the invasion of Iraq is a criminal act.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he (Bush) made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin." (emphasis mine)
It's one thing for a president to mislead his own people about a threat to the nation. But if Bugliosi and this NYT story are to be believed, then the invasion of Iraq is an American war of aggression, and all of the deaths of the American soldiers up to this point amount at the very least to second-degree murder. As Bugliosi puts it in his book:

(I)f a conspirator (or anyone for that matter) deliberately sets in motion a chain of events that he knows will cause a third-party innocent agent to commit an act (here, the killing of American soldiers by Iraqis), the conspirator is criminally responsible for that act.

As most of us know, Bush knew as early as 2002 that there was no evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat. ... So any assertion of our right to self-defense on Bush's part goes up in smoke. Without an American claim of self-defense, we can only assume that the Iraqis were well within their rights to defend themselves against an unlawful invasion--and under the law, this makes every American death a murder for which Bush is guilty. ...
***************************************************************

Regrettably, despite scouring the internet, I couldn't find the text of the 5 page memo.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:09 PM

Kwicko

While there is plenty of information that bin Laden generally was involved in anti-US terrorism, and while Clinton took him seriously, there's no data showing he was Bush's real target at any time. Bush seemed to treat him more as a pretext than anything else.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIVERLOVE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

While there is plenty of information that bin Laden generally was involved in anti-US terrorism, and while Clinton took him seriously, there's no data showing he was Bush's real target at any time. Bush seemed to treat him more as a pretext than anything else.

I can agree with the last part about Bush, but I cannot agree with the Clinton part. Clinton himself has stated that he didn't pursue the opportunity to get Bin Laden because he felt Americans didn't even know who Bin Laden was, and would not have had the national will to do it. That's typical Bill, very calculating, very poll-conscious. But the bottom line to this is that Bush dropped the ball. He had world sympathy and unity at home. First mistake was waiting 30 days to go into Afghanistan. Second mistake was sending in a pathetically pawlty force. Third mistake was cutting deals with opium warlords to try to help us. From there on the mistakes are too numerous to recite.

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:07 PM

Hey RiverLove

THANKS for the reply.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:08 PM

Rap

The US energy people realized the supposed centrifuge tubes were completely unsuited as 'centrifuge' equipment - one even said - in writing - that the best way to slow Hussein down would be to give him even more tubes to use for centrifuges. The yellowcake claim - even the Italians knew it was bogus. WMD claims - other intelligence agencies realized 'curveball' was - at best - not truthful. The presentation before the UN was DOA. No one was convinced, which is why the US never put its attack plans up for the required second vote. The inspectors were on the ground and finding no WMDs - not the thousands of litres of anthrax or facilities or anything. And so on.

In the end EVEN BUSH knew there was no rationale for war. Which is why Bush told Hussien the ONLY WAY left to avoid an attack was for Hussein and his government to leave in 48 hours.

Where can I find that in any UN resolution ? Just wondering b/c that has been given over and over as the basis for the attack on Iraq.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIVERLOVE

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:38 PM

Looking back in hindsight I think one can make a good case that Bush was indeed fixated to invade Iraq at all costs.

STORYMARK

Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:26 PM

And we'll never see Rappy in this thread again. Or, on the outside chance he does return, he will ignore this info. Again.

"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."

KWICKO

Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

While there is plenty of information that bin Laden generally was involved in anti-US terrorism, and while Clinton took him seriously, there's no data showing he was Bush's real target at any time. Bush seemed to treat him more as a pretext than anything else.

I can agree with the last part about Bush, but I cannot agree with the Clinton part. Clinton himself has stated that he didn't pursue the opportunity to get Bin Laden because he felt Americans didn't even know who Bin Laden was, and would not have had the national will to do it. That's typical Bill, very calculating, very poll-conscious. But the bottom line to this is that Bush dropped the ball. He had world sympathy and unity at home. First mistake was waiting 30 days to go into Afghanistan. Second mistake was sending in a pathetically pawlty force. Third mistake was cutting deals with opium warlords to try to help us. From there on the mistakes are too numerous to recite.

I think what Clinton meant when he said we "didn't go after" Bin Laden was that there was not the American support or will to go after him with an inasion-sized military force of 200,000 or so. In that, he was correct - America wouldn't have backed him at the time. But what WAS done was several attempts to kill Bin Laden - those were talked about openly, released to the press, and no secret was ever made about the fact that Clinton's people wanted Bin Laden dead, and damned quick. I'd wager there were alos incidents that *weren't* talked about; incedents where we shared info with the Israelis, for instance, in an effort to get THEM to capture Bin Laden and sock him away in a dank cell somewhere.

But the gist of it is, none of it came to fruition.

But Clinton did indeed TRY to get the sumbitch. I didn't care much for him, but on that score I'll give him a pass for trying to take Bin Laden out. (Anyone remember when we bombed that "baby formula factory" That was on intel that said Bin Laden was hiding there. He was probably hiding across town at a moustache factory...)

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

KWICKO

Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And we'll never see Rappy in this thread again. Or, on the outside chance he does return, he will ignore this info. Again.

Would you expect any less from him?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:24 AM

I don't ignore facts, that's y'all's department. What I do ignore are the misleading and distorted conclusions you idiots arrive at, simply because it fits your twisted world view that Bush is evil and Saddam wasn't.

Rue,

For the 10 millionth time, it wasn't OUR job to play hide and seek w/ Iraq and what ever WMDs it had,didn't have, it was Saddam's job to show he had discarded of the ones he admitted to having had, to show us HOW he discarded them, and , oh..... there's no point. I've see this play a hundred times before.

I'm out.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
it fits your twisted world view that Bush is evil and Saddam wasn't.

Candy WRApper, Bush was WRONG; Saddam was EVIL- there's a big difference.

Quote:

I'm out.

*And the crowd goes wild*

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:30 AM

Yeah, OK. Run away. As usual.

***************************************************************

It's not about the WMDs, it's about the THREAT ! It's not about the threat, it's about the MANDATE ! It's not about the mandate, it's about the WMDS !

Except, in the real world:
there were no WMDs
there was no threat
there was no mandate.

KWICKO

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:07 AM

And in another thread, 'RapTard posted this:

Quote:
...it may come as a shock to you, but when folks, like Presidents Elect, have such people as SPOKESPERSONS who do their speaking for them, all the spokespersons are allowed to say is what has been approved. In this case, that person being Barack Obama would be doing the approving in the first place.

Which, to my feeble mind, comes awfully close to saying that if Bush Administration wonks say that Saddam is "an imminent threat", then that's what Bush has told them to say, and that's what he's approved of them saying...

But I guess a spokesperson for Bush plays by a different set of rules, eh?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:14 AM

You're talking in circles. You absolutely refuse to accept reality.

There was a threat. It's beyond childish to claim there wasn't.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons." - Sec Def William Cohen.

You idiots continue to play monday morning qb, intermixing what we know NOW to what everyone thought, pre 2003. And when I say EVERYBODY, I specifically am talking about the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, and the intelligence people they put in place.

You mindless morons ignore all that, and for good reason. It makes you look bad. Facing reality makes you have to give up your ' Bush lied ' mantra. This silly game of denying the facts on your part grew old the minute you started it, 5 yrs ago.

That is why there's no point in talking to you. Not running away, but parrots are more original in their talking points than you pin heads.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And in another thread, 'RapTard posted this:

Quote:
...it may come as a shock to you, but when folks, like Presidents Elect, have such people as SPOKESPERSONS who do their speaking for them, all the spokespersons are allowed to say is what has been approved. In this case, that person being Barack Obama would be doing the approving in the first place.

Which, to my feeble mind, comes awfully close to saying that if Bush Administration wonks say that Saddam is "an imminent threat", then that's what Bush has told them to say, and that's what he's approved of them saying...

But I guess a spokesperson for Bush plays by a different set of rules, eh?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

It is different because this was a specific question, with a specific answer, and not a generalized point which the Bush administration was trying to get out.

Word of advice, keep your thoughts and your threads in order. Might make you seem more credible. This mixing of thread and point surely doesn't

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:20 AM

"You idiots continue to play monday morning qb, intermixing what we know NOW to what everyone thought, pre 2003."

No, I was saying the same things back then, before the unprovoked attack the US made on Iraq.

***************************************************************

What you are having such a hard time with, I think, is that some people thought more and to better effect than you did. You OTOH choose to trust people you shouldn't have trusted, and that burns you. You can't admit that other people were right, and you were wrong.

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're talking in circles. You absolutely refuse to accept reality.

If you're directing this bit to a mirror, good- you're beginning to let got of a smaller world.

Quote:

There was a threat. It's beyond childish to claim there wasn't.

A mugger is a threat, but, y'know, not if he has no access to you.

Quote:

You mindless morons ignore all that, and for good reason. It makes you look bad. Facing reality makes you have to give up your ' Bush lied ' mantra.

LOL, uh, not. I makes us repeat a truism.

Quote:
This silly game of denying the facts on your part grew old the minute you started it, 5 yrs ago.

This silly game of twisting the facts on your part grew old the minute you started it, 35 yrs ago.

Quote:

but parrots are more original in their talking points than you pin heads.

Pin heads, Ditto heads, doodie heads- dude, you & yours have the corner on those I'm afraid.

Like I said in the PM, hold tight to your little quarter-truths, it seems to be all you have to connect you in any way, however tenuously, to reality.

The uh-huh Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:50 AM

chris... .it's a fact, you know , but refuse to allow yourself to accept, because you hate Bush that much.

Must suck to be you.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:06 AM

Rap

What you are having such a hard time with, I think, is that some people thought more and to better effect than you did. You OTOH choose to trust people you shouldn't have trusted, and that burns you. You can't admit that other people were right because they thought, and you were wrong because you trusted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:15 AM

You can't prove a negative, Asshat.

And did you, or did you not, just state that Saddam needed to do that, which is factually impossible, to avoid being invaded by the same folk who sold him most of that shit ?

Come on, man, only reason we suspected he had it was that we were holding the reciepts, ya damn fool.

And every time you open your mouth on this topic you prove your absolute incompetence on the subject at hand - bio/chem WMD isn't something you can toss in a cardboard box and throw on a truck you nincompoop, it requires quite stringent care and safety procedures, leastways if you want the folk handling it to remain in service, and to avoid it from going bad, which is damn difficult in a desert environment.

Temperature, humidity, pressure, hell even shock and vibration to a degree can degrade this stuff, which makes the idea they loaded it on trucks and shipped it out quite laughable, especially in light of the fact that the same satellite which picked up the trucks, DID, yanno, see them unload - something with an eyeblinks worth of rational thought would have brought to your mind if you were ever even capable of such you ignorant dittohead.

What was in those trucks was LOOT, not WMD, some of So-Damn-Insane's folks who were not as loyal as he thought grabbed anything valuable that wasn't nailed down and hauled ass for the nearest border so as to not get mowed down by US Troops, and paid their passage and a couple bribes with them trucks fulla goodies - hell if anything you should THANK those assholes, cause it's stuff like that which left Saddams army just about leaderless (all the higher ups bailed out) and hit his ability to finance operations pretty hard, ya can't pay an army with no money, yanno.

But no, once again you show quite clearly that you're operating outside of your competence zone, although for you - that's anything outside of the pathetic plastic bubble world of the "reality" that exists only in your own head.

I'd further humilate you, but I am kinda busy right now and you're doing such a fine job yourself it's just not worth the bother.

-Frem

PS, Local: I am sooo very, very fired, imma check with the attorney and see how much of that I can relate, cause horrific that the middle was, the ending was just out and out wacky, not to mention downright funny if you've got the sense of humor to appreciate it - Blofeld couldn't have done it no better.

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
the ending was just out and out wacky, not to mention downright funny if you've got the sense of humor to appreciate it - Blofeld couldn't have done it no better.

*Waits with breath that is baited*

The curious Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Must suck to be you.

Sometimes, yanno, when the back acts up, or when I get waterboarded by the neighbourhood kids who've learnt from DC yahoos that it isn't torture, yeah, it can.

You pathetic pubescent pencil-neck pipsqueek, I'll break it down in tiny words for ya:

Pro-torture
Anti-freedom
Pro-misinformation
Anti-Goddamn piece of paper
Pro-rich buddies
Scumbags
Bush & Cheney

Got it?
No.
Voted for it?
Yep.

You child.

The BURNing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, December 12, 2008 5:02 AM

Quote:

There was a threat. It's beyond childish to claim there wasn't.

You say this, yet still cling to the notion that, according to Bush, he wasn't an IMMINENT threat.

But according to his spokespeople, he WAS an imminent threat.

So were his people lying? Did they misspeak? Or was it Bush who lied and misspoke? Or are Bush and his spokespeople, and the things they say, inextricably tied together?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

DREAMTROVE

Friday, December 12, 2008 5:21 AM

Bush wasn't an IMMINENT threat?
What do you mean.

Oops. sorry. misread :)

AURAPTOR

Friday, December 12, 2008 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

You pathetic pubescent pencil-neck pipsqueek, I'll break it down in tiny words for ya:

Pro-torture ( Absolutely, for throat cutting cowards who murder for Allah, every day of the damn week. You bet )
Anti-freedom ( That's you, not me )
Pro-misinformation ( Again, your dept., not mine )
Anti-Goddamn piece of paper ( Urban legend the Left loves to promote )
Pro-rich buddies ( Well, poverty DOES suck. I mean, c'mon. )
Scumbags ( Your family )
Bush & Cheney ( Fine President and V.P., who served w/ distinction )

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Pro-torture ( Absolutely, for throat cutting cowards who murder for Allah, every day of the damn week. You bet )

Stand up to be counted with the other enemies of humanity, why doncha?

Quote:

Anti-Goddamn piece of paper ( Urban legend the Left loves to promote )

So, he didn't say that? (Let me play your idiotic game for a second) PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T!!!

The stinging Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

But according to his spokespeople, he WAS an imminent threat.

So were his people lying? Did they misspeak? Or was it Bush who lied and misspoke? Or are Bush and his spokespeople, and the things they say, inextricably tied together?

Again Mike, this is AU here... and you're asking a four-part essay question?

'RAPtor is a child; I suggest you treat it as such.

The Vulcan Chrisisall

STORYMARK

Friday, December 12, 2008 6:03 PM

We all know the score.

It's a fact, Rappy knows it, but refuses to allow himself to accept, because he loves Bush that much.

"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."

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 12, 2008 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

It's a fact, Rappy knows it, but refuses to allow himself to accept, because he loves Bush that much.

The laughing Chrisisall