Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Answer the question, Cad. Weren't you whining about personal attacks in the recent What's Wrong with P&N thread? Doesn't that make you a flaming hypocrite? Why are you evading this question? You have a chance to clear your name. Remove the doubt.

:laugh:


(PS. Get well soon.)

:laugh: sure whatever you say bow. My pointing out the fact better look up the word "fact" Sparky

that you go around spouting things like you are a psychic oops, that's another lie

is the truth. perhaps in Bushworld, where wrong is right, down is up, and obliterating is liberating

Hurts - no? ROFL. Not in the slightest

Stop posting like that and I won't have to point it out and inform people of your habits. i.e., stop saying things you disagree with, and you'll stop calling me a liar

Also, you have provided nothing to back up your assertions that will come back to haunt you

-and I pointed that out also.

Have you realized your post was pure BS yet? You go first. You have a 10K lead in BS posts.

Are you a liar bow? Compared to you? You have the crown. Are you a hypocrite? Weren't you whining about personal attacks in the other recent thread? Answer the question.

You know what you said to be untrue in you opinion

yet you still said it. truth hurts, huh Cad?

Are you going to continue to lie? Are you going to continue calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar? Weren't you whining about personal attacks in the other recent thread? Are you going to continue to be such a flaming hypocrite?

The FACT I do not think that word means what you think it means. I believe the word your are looking for is "opinion".

is that people did vote for Bush and not against kerry. Proof? (As in you don't have any, it's just your ill-informed and totally partisan opinion.) In the poll we did here, more people were voting "against" than "for". In talking to the people I know who selected Bush on the ballot, they were unhappy with Bush but were overwhelmingly voting against Kerry. Bush's approval rating on Iraq is 40% or less, IIRC. That was what user1234 was referring too, by the way, way back before you waded in with your signature personal attacks. (WWJD?) While none of this is irrefutable proof, it's a lot more than you have.

Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true. We'll have to frame that one on the Pot/Kettle Wall of Shame!

Come on bow - are you going to try some honesty today?Are you going to stop calling people liars just because you disagree with them?

CsG

I'm tired of playing your insipid games, Sir RoboCAD. You've become a pathetic parody of yourself. I'll leave you where I started:

Answer the question, Cad. Weren't you whining about personal attacks in the recent What's Wrong with P&N thread? Doesn't that make you a flaming hypocrite? Why are you evading this question? You have a chance to clear your name. Remove the doubt.

:laugh:


(PS. Get well soon.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
*tantrum snipped*

You might try to go back to what I said Bowfinger instead of continuing your dishonesty. How exactly do you know that people didn't vote for Bush? That's right you don't. I pointed that out to user1234. If you can't handle the truth and think it's a personal attack then so be it. I'm a hypocrite. Ofcourse in reality this would not be the case but in your fantasy world it may just be.

I too am tired of your endless dishonesty Bow. Here it is again so you can refocus yourself instead of continuing your little tantrum.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: user1234
[...]
Bottom line is most people agreed with his reasons and actions, that's why he got re-elected. ...

No, most people voted "for" Bush because he successfully demonized Kerry through a relentless campaign of character assassination. People voted against Kerry far more than they voted for Bush. This is evident in his low approval ratings.

Now again, focus. Try to be honest this time instead of playing your little dishonest psychic routine. Please try to back up your assertion with facts instead of what you wish was true.

Oh, and when you realize that you can't back up your statement you can come back here and take back what you said. No, no apology is needed(as that seems to be the a goal of the left these days) - you accepting reality is good enough.

CsG

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

What would be proof enough? An audio clip?

Transcript would be nice as audio clips are easily duped.

I have cheney on Sept 8th of 2002 telling meet the press there is no proof of Iraqi connections to 9-11.
I find it hard to believe that close to the war and that close to the vote on 1441 he would say such a thing if the administrations line was there is a connection.

You ingore transcripts, audio, video, articles, opinions...if someone presents you with another one you'll just ignore that too.

It's like half this nation has suffered some sort of mass hysteria that won't allow them to recognize the facts.

That's true. Now they are trying to revise history as well, just like the article in the OP.

The fact is that Bush never said there was any proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Never. He stated specifically on one occassion that there was no proof of a connection.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...ify/2003/0918proof.htm

Feel free to prove otherwise though. Merely claiming that someone is ignoring transcripts, etc. is not proving a thing however.

Bush linked Saddam with 9/11 without linking Saddam with 9/11. It is called FUD. Bush didn't need any "proof of a connection" to link Saddam with 9/11:

Hear your Master's Voice:

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. "

...

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

[Yeah but that doesn't mean that they are cooperating]

We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

[I guess they are cooperating after all...]

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

[Proof?]

And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

[Saddam Bad boy]

...

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

[Note the Weasel words "could")

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network."
...

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

...

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. [Oh, the irony]

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured. [Oh, the irony]

...

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

The White House

So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

 

[tooltime]

hussein was byond wrong. he put to death children, innocent people, whole communities

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tooltime
hussein was byond wrong. he put to death children, innocent people, whole communities

Of course we just call it collateral damage.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: user1234
[...]
Bottom line is most people agreed with his reasons and actions, that's why he got re-elected. ...

No, most people voted "for" Bush because he successfully demonized Kerry through a relentless campaign of character assassination. People voted against Kerry far more than they voted for Bush. This is evident in his low approval ratings.

People voted for Bush because of his moral values and beliefs(anti-abortion anti-gay values).The people that voted for Bush are mosty the South, the region of US with more strict and religous moral values unlike NE and the West.

Ha!!!! Bush is one of the most immoral people in a position of power in history. He's pro death, pro hatred, pro bigotry, pro repression, pro oppression, pro ultra wealthy, pro deceit, pro destruction of the environment, pro ignorance, and so FAR removed from anything Christ like that he could very well be considered the Anti-Christ. Our nation has NEVER been so reviled on a world wide basis as it has become under his leadership. Oh, but so long as he says "Praise JESUS, I'm a born again CHRISTIAN." You'll blindly and ignorantly be right there licking his feet, and following him straight into hell.

BTW, Kerry was anti-abortion too. He just didn't believe that it was the governments duty to impose what is a very personal decision between a woman, her bf/husbad, and her doctor.

And WHAT, pray tell, is a Gay value??? And what makes it so MORAL to be Anti it?

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice to see that you're back, TLC, with more of the usual hyperbole-

"One more thing. This country - which has been a hallmark of freedom, liberty, and democracy in the world - was established through the barrel of a gun. But ignore that fact too."

While true, to a point, that was done by the people who lived here, and not by an unwelcome outside army. Perhaps I should have said "imposed" rather than "spread" to disallow the opportunity for the picayune... the obfuscational, the blatant and desperate attempt to avoid addressing the more formidable content of the post.

Actually, it was done by people who came here from elsewhere. The "people who lived here" were displaced and often killed. There were battles and skirmishes over the years as well for territories that were not a part of the US at the time. Not to mention that it was the French who helped us secure our victory over the British. But let's ignore those little details to erect some artificial benchmark about how our liberty and freedom were gained from within in order to hold fast to the pretense that's that how it should be for everyone.

More people hate us and bear arms against us than before the invasion, and more sympathize with their cause than ever before. And there's the conflicting rationale of "drawing the terrorists to us" and that of "freeing the iraqi people" ostensibly by bringing a shitstorm of death and injury to their cities and streets... locking up their the citizenry w/o charge, bail or counsel, making the streets safe only for bandits, kidnappers, extortionists and armed Islamic whackjobs... all for the low, low price of$6B/mo... and the ongoing indeterminate expenditure of more young american blood...

Good Job! Four more years!

Those who bear arms against us in Iraq are still an almost insignificant percentage of the overall people in Iraq. I know the lefties have a penchant for overlooking that fact and pretending like the entire nation and people of Iraq are against the US. Not surprising though as lefties conveniently overlook so many facts that don't align with their shallow and myopic view of the political landscape.

Ha! Yeah, keep telling yourself that. We all know you have ulterior motives for supporting this reprehensible piece of crap infesting the White House. What is it? Which hatred, bigotry, greed, or otherwise despicable desire is it?

Perhaps YOUR the one who should stop deluding yourself that it's any more than a tiny percentage (if any) Iraqis that support the United States and our being there.

Yeah let's see, so my son, father, brother, husband, uncle, nephew, friend is out there trying to push out you, a foreign invader who has already killed countless numbers of my fellow countrymen, and I just can't WAIT for you to kill him!! Yes, PLEASE kill him and if you have to take out a few women and children while your at it, NO problem. Please just kill my friend, relative, or loved one! And when you DO, I'm going to be OH so very happy. I'm going to kiss you, and hug you, and say "Will you please be my friend. I love you SO much. Here would you like some oil? Yes? Oh please, here, take as much as you'd like. I'll give you our very close buddy-buddy discount! Oh by-the-way let me thank you again for killing 10s of thousands of my family, friends, and countrymen. Dear Allah! I just can't get over how utterly MORAL you people are! You surely sit at the right hand side of GOD!"

Moron.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: tooltime
hussein was byond wrong. he put to death children, innocent people, whole communities

Of course we just call it collateral damage.

You make no moral distiction between them?

CsG

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

Poor TLC.

Still twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid the fact that Saddam was not a threat, still relying on personal attacks, strawmen and rhetorical devices to avoid the truth.

The people opposing the illegal invasion were correct all along.

Saddam was not involved directly nor indirectly in 9/11. Saddam did not have huge amounts of WMD's nor did he pose a threat to the US. Nor did he have a link to al-Qaeda. This is contrary to the main justifications for the invasion, as can be seen in his speech, that Bush presented before the war.

Sorry but you cannot weasel your way out of reality.

P.S. Don't blame me that you bought Bush's FUD. That is your problem not mine.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

Poor TLC.

Still twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid the fact that Saddam was not a threat, still relying on personal attacks, strawmen and rhetorical devices to avoid the truth.

The people opposing the illegal invasion were correct all along.

Saddam was not involved directly nor indirectly in 9/11. Saddam did not have huge amounts of WMD's nor did he pose a threat to the US. Nor did he have a link to al-Qaeda. This is contrary to the main justifications for the invasion, as can be seen in his speech, that Bush presented before the war.

Sorry but you cannot weasel your way out of reality.

P.S. Don't blame me that you bought Bush's FUD. That is your problem not mine.

Nobody here is going to admit it. That's why you see them grasping for straws so much. It's like talking points issued by the administration and its various mouth peices. What they say is true because it's said a lot. That's why you saw so much baseless comments repeated throughout the media about Kerry until it was jack hammered into your brain. Not surprisingly a lot of people bought into it. Kerry may be a two faced politician (is there a different kind?) and has zero ability to grab the attention of the nation and would have been a completely underwhelming President but at least he didn't pretend to be something he wasn't and didn't deserve the sponsored character assassination on him.

Step 1. Fundraise

Step 2. Issue talking points that grab the fickle American TV viewer's attention

Step 3. Purchase political "experts" and present them to the media that pounce on breaking news from Step 2

Step 4. Take office

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice to see that you're back, TLC, with more of the usual hyperbole-

"One more thing. This country - which has been a hallmark of freedom, liberty, and democracy in the world - was established through the barrel of a gun. But ignore that fact too."

While true, to a point, that was done by the people who lived here, and not by an unwelcome outside army. Perhaps I should have said "imposed" rather than "spread" to disallow the opportunity for the picayune... the obfuscational, the blatant and desperate attempt to avoid addressing the more formidable content of the post.

Actually, it was done by people who came here from elsewhere. The "people who lived here" were displaced and often killed. There were battles and skirmishes over the years as well for territories that were not a part of the US at the time. Not to mention that it was the French who helped us secure our victory over the British. But let's ignore those little details to erect some artificial benchmark about how our liberty and freedom were gained from within in order to hold fast to the pretense that's that how it should be for everyone.

More people hate us and bear arms against us than before the invasion, and more sympathize with their cause than ever before. And there's the conflicting rationale of "drawing the terrorists to us" and that of "freeing the iraqi people" ostensibly by bringing a shitstorm of death and injury to their cities and streets... locking up their the citizenry w/o charge, bail or counsel, making the streets safe only for bandits, kidnappers, extortionists and armed Islamic whackjobs... all for the low, low price of$6B/mo... and the ongoing indeterminate expenditure of more young american blood...

Good Job! Four more years!

Those who bear arms against us in Iraq are still an almost insignificant percentage of the overall people in Iraq. I know the lefties have a penchant for overlooking that fact and pretending like the entire nation and people of Iraq are against the US. Not surprising though as lefties conveniently overlook so many facts that don't align with their shallow and myopic view of the political landscape.

Ha! Yeah, keep telling yourself that. We all know you have ulterior motives for supporting this reprehensible piece of crap infesting the White House. What is it? Which hatred, bigotry, greed, or otherwise despicable desire is it?

My motivation is different. It's disgust.; disgust at the current brainless, ideological lemmings who pretend to call themselves liberals

Perhaps YOUR the one who should stop deluding yourself that it's any more than a tiny percentage (if any) Iraqis that support the United States and our being there.

"If any"

Ignorant comments like that negate any credibility your statements might have held. It's what I've come to expect from the Saddam/insurgent apologists though.

Yeah let's see, so my son, father, brother, husband, uncle, nephew, friend is out there trying to push out you, a foreign invader who has already killed countless numbers of my fellow countrymen, and I just can't WAIT for you to kill him!! Yes, PLEASE kill him and if you have to take out a few women and children while your at it, NO problem. Please just kill my friend, relative, or loved one! And when you DO, I'm going to be OH so very happy. I'm going to kiss you, and hug you, and say "Will you please be my friend. I love you SO much. Here would you like some oil? Yes? Oh please, here, take as much as you'd like. I'll give you our very close buddy-buddy discount! Oh by-the-way let me thank you again for killing 10s of thousands of my family, friends, and countrymen. Dear Allah! I just can't get over how utterly MORAL you people are! You surely sit at the right hand side of GOD!"

Moron.

Please ask your son, father, brother, husband, uncle, nephew, friend why - if they are actually trying to push out the foreign invaders - are they also killing so many fellow Iraqis? Why are the insurgents brutally beheading their own people? Why are they slaughtering their own brothers by the score?

Then please let me know. I'm really curious to know the answer to that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

Poor TLC.

Still twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid the fact that Saddam was not a threat, still relying on personal attacks, strawmen and rhetorical devices to avoid the truth.

The people opposing the illegal invasion were correct all along.

Saddam was not involved directly nor indirectly in 9/11. Saddam did not have huge amounts of WMD's nor did he pose a threat to the US. Nor did he have a link to al-Qaeda. This is contrary to the main justifications for the invasion, as can be seen in his speech, that Bush presented before the war.

Sorry but you cannot weasel your way out of reality.

P.S. Don't blame me that you bought Bush's FUD. That is your problem not mine.

Changing to a whole new course I see? Wassamatter? The last line of ridiulous reasoning did't work out for you?

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie. Wiggle as you and others may about it, trying to discount what links there were, it's still a flase statement. It's the same sort of truth twisting you blame Bush for. So as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than he is.

 

[Engineer]

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie. Wiggle as you and others may about it, trying to discount what links there were, it's still a flase statement. It's the same sort of truth twisting you blame Bush for. So as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than he is.

I'll make sure I pass this information to my Senator's to pass to the Pres. since they have already denied Sadaam having any links with Al Qaeda. I'm sure that your information is much better, than say, the CIA (probably is based on the WMD Bushshit that we all know to be a fvcked up mess now).

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

Poor TLC.

Still twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid the fact that Saddam was not a threat, still relying on personal attacks, strawmen and rhetorical devices to avoid the truth.

The people opposing the illegal invasion were correct all along.

Saddam was not involved directly nor indirectly in 9/11. Saddam did not have huge amounts of WMD's nor did he pose a threat to the US. Nor did he have a link to al-Qaeda. This is contrary to the main justifications for the invasion, as can be seen in his speech, that Bush presented before the war.

Sorry but you cannot weasel your way out of reality.

P.S. Don't blame me that you bought Bush's FUD. That is your problem not mine.

Changing to a whole new course I see? Wassamatter? The last line of ridiulous reasoning did't work out for you?

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie. Wiggle as you and others may about it, trying to discount what links there were, it's still a flase statement. It's the same sort of truth twisting you blame Bush for. So as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than he is.

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie.

And just what link is that?

Your Master said that he "cannot make the claim" that there exists a direct link between Saddam and al- Qaeda. But you obviously can. Show us the proof.

"Q: Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT [BUSH]: I can't make that claim." Press conference in the White House, Jan 31, 2003

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

If you're so secure in your convictions Chicken, why did you turn tail and run away when you were cornered in the other thread? Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it is overwhelmingly fellow Bush supporters who were "blind and brainwashed" about the connection-that-wasn't between Iraq and 9/11. Just where, exactly, did your fellow "delusional sheep" get this disinformation, I wonder? Why did Bush get so much of your "moron" vote?

It's been a busy week so I lost track of that thread. I don't have any kind of habit of running from discussions in here, so that a pretty poor accusation. For the rest, see below.

You also keep dodging the fact that your final deception, that Bush publicly denied a connection, did NOT happen until months after we invaded Iraq. I wonder why you ran rather than addressing this?

::sigh::

I've been dodging it, have I? Hmmm. OK. Want an answer? Here it goes:

I didn't realize the was some artificial time limit imposed, first of all. Was it you who decided when Bush should make this public pronouncement about Saddam not being involved in 9/11? If so, when should he have done it?

Second of all, what did it really change? Haven't recent polls showed people still believe the same thing, despite the fact that Bush stated otherwise back in '03? What does that tell you? It tells me is that these people simply don't know what Bush says. They surely don't get their information from listening to Bush either, because if they did THEY'D KNOW FVCKING BETTER. Simple logic would tell you that.

So much for the Bush Jedi mind trick theory.

Ta ta.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: Glpster

Originally posted by: russianpower

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: user1234
[...]
Bottom line is most people agreed with his reasons and actions, that's why he got re-elected. ...

No, most people voted "for" Bush because he successfully demonized Kerry through a relentless campaign of character assassination. People voted against Kerry far more than they voted for Bush. This is evident in his low approval ratings.

People voted for Bush because of his moral values and beliefs(anti-abortion anti-gay values).The people that voted for Bush are mosty the South, the region of US with more strict and religous moral values unlike NE and the West.

Ha!!!! Bush is one of the most immoral people in a position of power in history. He's pro death, pro hatred, pro bigotry, pro repression, pro oppression, pro ultra wealthy, pro deceit, pro destruction of the environment, pro ignorance, and so FAR removed from anything Christ like that he could very well be considered the Anti-Christ. Our nation has NEVER been so reviled on a world wide basis as it has become under his leadership. Oh, but so long as he says "Praise JESUS, I'm a born again CHRISTIAN." You'll blindly and ignorantly be right there licking his feet, and following him straight into hell.

BTW, Kerry was anti-abortion too. He just didn't believe that it was the governments duty to impose what is a very personal decision between a woman, her bf/husbad, and her doctor.

And WHAT, pray tell, is a Gay value??? And what makes it so MORAL to be Anti it?

In liberal eyes Bush is the antichrist.But they cannot EVER prove it. All they have are their flames and sweares and personal beliefs(pro bigotry:roll: --------proof please? ) with no proof whatsoever.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

Poor TLC.

Still twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid the fact that Saddam was not a threat, still relying on personal attacks, strawmen and rhetorical devices to avoid the truth.

The people opposing the illegal invasion were correct all along.

Saddam was not involved directly nor indirectly in 9/11. Saddam did not have huge amounts of WMD's nor did he pose a threat to the US. Nor did he have a link to al-Qaeda. This is contrary to the main justifications for the invasion, as can be seen in his speech, that Bush presented before the war.

Sorry but you cannot weasel your way out of reality.

P.S. Don't blame me that you bought Bush's FUD. That is your problem not mine.

Changing to a whole new course I see? Wassamatter? The last line of ridiulous reasoning did't work out for you?

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie. Wiggle as you and others may about it, trying to discount what links there were, it's still a flase statement. It's the same sort of truth twisting you blame Bush for. So as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than he is.

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie.

And just what link is that?

Your Master said that he "cannot make the claim" that there exists a direct link between Saddam and al- Qaeda. But you obviously can. Show us the proof.

"Q: Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT [BUSH]: I can't make that claim." Press conference in the White House, Jan 31, 2003

Can you possibly fathom that I'm saying Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda but that didn't mean he was involved in 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission Report states that Saddam had ties with al Qaeda. If you insist I will post the relevant portions here if you're actually THAT ignorant about its contents However, that doesn't mean I'm saying he was involved in 9/11.

How difficult is that to comprehend?

::sheesh!::

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: GrGr


Your Master said that he "cannot make the claim" that there exists a direct link between Saddam and al- Qaeda. But you obviously can. Show us the proof.

"Q: Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT [BUSH]: I can't make that claim." Press conference in the White House, Jan 31, 2003

A little intellectual dishonesty never hurt anybody. Surely, pointing it out couldn't be a bad thing either.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Engineer

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie. Wiggle as you and others may about it, trying to discount what links there were, it's still a flase statement. It's the same sort of truth twisting you blame Bush for. So as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than he is.

I'll make sure I pass this information to my Senator's to pass to the Pres. since they have already denied Sadaam having any links with Al Qaeda. I'm sure that your information is much better, than say, the CIA (probably is based on the WMD Bushshit that we all know to be a fvcked up mess now).

Hopefully your Senator already knows. I'd expect him to if he was up on things. Maybe he should school you?

As that's not likely, allow me to point out some significant sections of the 9/11 Commission Report for you:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

Do you understand that not having a "collaborative operational relationship" is different from having ties? If they didn't have ties there would have been no discussions between them in the first place. Hell, if Bush knew Saddam had a collaborative relationship with al Qaeda, he sure wouldn't have wasted all his time on the WMD bullsh*t.

 

[GrGr]

My my, we really are down to parsing the language aren't we. The difference between "collaborative relationship" and "ties".

This is simply more FUD. If they have ties they may one day have a "collaborative relationship", no?

OH the FEAR. OH, the UNCERTAINTY, OH the DOUBT.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr
So you see Bush did a pretty effective job of linking Saddam with 9/11.

Maybe for morons like you.

Sorry TLC but the fact remains that Bush's case for the US invasion of Iraq as seen above was built on conjecture, lies, propaganda, paranoia, fantasies, suggestio falsi, supressio veri, weasel words etc. I thougth you have repeatedly said that you hate FUD?

Isn't FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT what Bush used to sell his invasion of Iraq?

And to prove it you build yor case on conjecture that Bush used Vulcan mind-meld tricks to convince everyone. So many people believe Hussein was involved what you're claiming must be true, eh? Well, except for the FACT that you can't prove that other than by waving some faulty causation statement around, claiming it's an obvious correlation, and then ranting that anyone else who doesn't accept such silliness is clearly blind.

You are a goofball. Your paranoid fantasies are laughable. If anyone is blind and brainwashed it's you and the delusional sheep who think just like you.

Poor TLC.

Still twisting like a worm on a hook to avoid the fact that Saddam was not a threat, still relying on personal attacks, strawmen and rhetorical devices to avoid the truth.

The people opposing the illegal invasion were correct all along.

Saddam was not involved directly nor indirectly in 9/11. Saddam did not have huge amounts of WMD's nor did he pose a threat to the US. Nor did he have a link to al-Qaeda. This is contrary to the main justifications for the invasion, as can be seen in his speech, that Bush presented before the war.

Sorry but you cannot weasel your way out of reality.

P.S. Don't blame me that you bought Bush's FUD. That is your problem not mine.

Changing to a whole new course I see? Wassamatter? The last line of ridiulous reasoning did't work out for you?

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie. Wiggle as you and others may about it, trying to discount what links there were, it's still a flase statement. It's the same sort of truth twisting you blame Bush for. So as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than he is.

You still refuse to accept that the bald-faced statement that Saddam did not have a link to al Qaeda is a lie.

And just what link is that?

Your Master said that he "cannot make the claim" that there exists a direct link between Saddam and al- Qaeda. But you obviously can. Show us the proof.

"Q: Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT [BUSH]: I can't make that claim." Press conference in the White House, Jan 31, 2003

Can you possibly fathom that I'm saying Saddam had a connection to al Qaeda but that didn't mean he was involved in 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission Report states that Saddam had ties with al Qaeda. If you insist I will post the relevant portions here if you're actually THAT ignorant about its contents However, that doesn't mean I'm saying he was involved in 9/11.

How difficult is that to comprehend?

::sheesh!::

There was no "collaborative relationship". End of story.

Also what does the 9/11 report have to do with the invasion of Iraq? The 9/11 report was published in the summer of 2004 and did not bring any new facts to bear on the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. The fact remains that Iraq was not a threat, it did not "collaborate" with terrorists (except for harboring Abu Nidal).

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

And:

"9/11 Commission report "Overview of the Enemy"
Bin ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting with Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There's been reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. The two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."


TLC: The 9/11 Commission Report states that Saddam had ties with al Qaeda. If you insist I will post the relevant portions here if you're actually THAT ignorant about its contents However, that doesn't mean I'm saying he was involved in 9/11.

GrGr: Is the GOP spin below an accurate take on your position? If not please elaborate exactly which "ties" Saddam had with Al Qaeda.

GOP.com
Monday, June 21, 2004
9-11 Commission Staff Report Confirms Administration's Views of al-Qaeda/Iraq Ties


A 9-11 Commission staff report supports the Bush Administration's longstanding conclusion that there was no evidence of "collaboration" between Iraq and al-Qaeda on the 9-11 attacks against the United States. The Administration has never suggested that Iraq "collaborated" or "cooperated" with al-Qaeda to carry out the 9-11 attacks.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." (9-11 Commission Staff Statement 15, June 16, 2004)

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with...September 11th." (President Bush, September 17, 2003)

The Administration has said, however, that it was worried about a number of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, including contacts between senior Iraqi intelligence officers and senior members of al-Qaeda.

"I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden's people." (9-11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, June 16, 2004)?

"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. (CIA Director George Tenet, Letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Graham, October 7, 2002)

The Commission's investigation does not dispute that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda occurred. Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton have said that there "definitely" were a number of contacts. Chairman Kean called these contacts "shadowy" -- and the Administration agrees with him. These were contacts between a deadly terrorist organization that was seeking support and a country that the Administration knew had supported other terrorist organizations.

"[Y]es, there were contacts between Iraqi and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." (9-11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, June 16, 2004)

"Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime... A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994." (9-11 Commission Staff Statement 15, June 16, 2004)

"Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." (9-11 Commission Staff Statement 15, June 16, 2004)

Chairman Kean called these contacts "shadowy" -- and the Administration agrees with him. These were contacts between a deadly terrorist organization that was seeking support and a country that the Administration knew had supported other terrorist organizations.

Bah, more FUD. That is only more of the "reports of shadowy meetings" crap.

It's the link that links Saddam with Al-Qaeda without linking Saddam with Al-Qaeda, at least not in that way only in this way. Saddam cooperated with Al-Qaeda without cooperating with Al-Qaeda except when he didn't cooperate but was cooperating. Al-Qaeda on the other hand did not cooperate with Saddam except when they were reportedly cooperating after having not cooperated before reportedly shadowy meetings reportedly gave solid reporting that Saddam was not cooperating with Al-Qaeda when he was cooperating with Al-Qaeda who were not cooperating with Saddam except when they were, or not.

edit: typo

 

[Glpster]

Originally posted by: russianpower

In liberal eyes Bush is the antichrist.But they cannot EVER prove it. All they have are their flames and sweares and personal beliefs(pro bigotry:roll: --------proof please? ) with no proof whatsoever.

Ha! I did a little searching and wouldn't you know, I found ** THIS ** .
(May want to turn speakers down on annoying music)

Rather interesting, and certainly something that a fundamentalist evangelical could get into.

Oh and Bigotry? You ask. Ummmm... Pushing an AMENDMENT to our CONSTITUTION to exlude gay couples from government recognition of their long term love and commitment to one another. The ONLY time ever that our constitution would be amended to specifically take a constitutional protection AWAY from a specific group of people! Outrageous!

Proof positive.

Oh right! They don't HAVE a constitutional protection to be treated equally under the law. That's just what those CRAZY activist judges (mostly republican appointees with generally conservative rulings by-the-way), came up with.

Or maybe it's that marriage isn't about marrying a love, a soul mate, a life-long companion, it's about marrying a set of genitals (or endorsing particular religious beliefs). Ahhhh.... Rigggghhhhttt. How could I have missed that!