Originally posted by: Pabster
You guessed wrong.
Here's a quote from the speech:
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs..."
Do you define WMD as something other than that?
There was never doubt they had programs. Remember? We ground them down for 10 fvcking years. Are you retarded or what? The little emoticons after false claim only make you look even more so.
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: Pabster
You guessed wrong.
Here's a quote from the speech:
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs..."
Do you define WMD as something other than that?
There was never doubt they had programs. Remember? We ground them down for 10 fvcking years. Are you retarded or what? The little emoticons after false claim only make you look even more so.
Let's let this issue die, ars. I think Pab's done enough trolling for tonight.
I think this move by Reid was brilliant. I am very glad that we have him in there rather than Daschle. I bet Repubs wish that Daschle had never lost his seat.
Even faux news is covering the crap out of this development.
Jadow
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2003
- 5,962
- 2
- 0
I bet Repubs wish that Daschle had never lost his seat.
Allhough I do miss how Daschle would use that condescending attitude of his and start every single speech mentioning how he was "dissapointed" with whatever Republican thing was going on at the moment, I don't think many of us can say we wish he had never lost his seat.
Allhough I do miss how Daschle would use that condescending attitude of his and start every single speech mentioning how he was "dissapointed" with whatever Republican thing was going on at the moment, I don't think many of us can say we wish he had never lost his seat.
No, some seem bent on obfuscating the fact that Clinton attacked Iraq with WMD as logic behind it, admittedly so by his own words.
Those "own words" that were quoted only talked about a program, not the weapons themself. I'm totally open to the idea that we attacked due to WMD, but to say that the quote mentioned before proves this, is total BS.
No one is bent on that. I will quote myself again. Let this issue die, or I will keep fighting you on it.
And then you started arguing a lost cause.
He always came off as a weakling to me.
Well, Harry Reid does look weak, but his words are huge.
And you are BSing. Trying to differentiate between "program" and "weapons" is ridiculous. One can't exist without the other.
I suppose you like to separate the terrorists from their IEDs, as well?
You lost. You asked me to provide a quote (a paragraph, to be more precise) from Clinton with WMD reference. I did. Case closed.
The case has been closed. I've proven you wrong. Now move on.
You provided an irrelevent quote. There are many people here who have backed me up. I'm sure I could even get Zendari to back me up on this one.
When will you realize that a weapons program is not a weapon?
Keep the lies coming dude, I eat them for breakfast.
One cannot exist without the other? The weapon cannot exist without the process to make it, but why would it be impossible that a weapons program could exist without actually succeeding in making a weapon?
Your second point is a good attempt at obfuscation, but for what it's worth, why not? If I was in the armed forces fighting in Iraq, I bet specific intelligence would be appreciated more than "There's terrorists here, good luck!"
The funny thing is, you still haven't explained how I caught you on the lie that Clinton had never mentioned WMD. He did, and I proved it. Care to rebuff that, or you'd rather obfuscate with some word play, ala "weapon" and "program"?
Wow, it's just lie after lie after lie. I never said that Clinton never mentioned WMDs.
I said Clinton never said Iraq had WMDs, nor did he make any such conclusion during his presidency.
Keep the lies coming. I will throw them in your face.
You seem to like word play...
Weapons are part of a program. A program creates those weapons. What part of that do you fail to comprehend? And what is your point? Are you saying that someone who has a weapons "program" is inherently less dangerous (and less of a threat) than one with "weapons" and a "program"? Furthermore, how many "programs" are out there running which have no "weapons"?
It isn't obfuscation at all. Trying to separate WMDs from their "programs" designed to create and deploy them is laughable. As would be the inference I used in my previous quote with relation to terrorists.
Your words:
"It's funny that you cannot give me a single paragraph where Clinton says he has WMD's"
To which I provided a link to the transcript where Clinton uses those EXACT words to refer to Iraq. Now, what say you, and who is lying?
See above. Clinton DID say Iraq had WMDs, and his words are in the link I provided. Try reading.
Umm, someone with the actual weapon is inherently more dangerous than someone who is attempting to build a weapon.
Lets see, how many programs were out there which had no weapons?
Well, Iraq's program for one, and it was barely a program at that due to UN weapon inspections. Clinton was ridding Iraq of those fledgling programs.
It's not laughable, it's a huge difference. Someone who has a nuclear bomb is much scarier than someone who is trying to start developing it.
Wrong. Clinton says they have WMD programs, NOT WMD's. And you're back to square one, trying to argue a stupid argument that a "program" is a synonym for "weapon".
See everywhere. Clinton did not say Iraq had WMDs, he said they were developing a program, and that inspectors were not able to investigate.
I agree with all that; however, simply because a program exists to create weapons, does NOT mean that the program HAS CREATED weapons. That is my point. I don't know how many other programs are out there, and I doubt anyone really would be able to tell you with 100% knowedge. Also, soemone with the program to create WMD but without the WMD is inherantly less dangerous than someone who actually has the program and WMD for a simple reason--one person has the WMD, one does not.
Or this is an attempt to add complexity to a debate - the definition of obfuscation. FWIW, the analogy is a good one.
Heh.
It seems the left will never accept the truth about how widespread the belief of Saddam having WMDs was. It's like nothing any one of the democrats said before matters. Hell, they even try to spin the authorization vote. Nobody buys that BS that the vote didn't mean war, it's clear as day. It's pretty sad to see how deluded the left has become now since nothing they've tried has worked to destroy Bush. Even this desperate stunt will only serve to show Americans how inept today's left is.
I'd like to point out to all of those who are obviously ignorant of the facts that the Senate has gone into executive session to discuss matters related to U.S. security some 57 times since WWII, as was reported on various news programs tonight.
The right wing radicals here are laughingly trying to equate executive session with the secrecy in government perpetrated by the Bush administration when in fact the executive session that Frist called "a slap in the face" was called to counter the true slap in the face that is the Bush administration's government by secret cabal, incompetence, and cronyism.
The right wing radicals here are laughingly trying to equate executive session with the secrecy in government perpetrated by the Bush administration when in fact the executive session that Frist called "a slap in the face" was called to counter the true slap in the face that is the Bush administration's government by secret cabal, incompetence, and cronyism.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter