Remember who said what...

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
We didn't "blow them all up" no matter how much you try to say we did. We just don't know - because there was NO follow-up.

CkG

Cad, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to deflect criticism of Bush-lite.
[ ... ]
By the way, where did I say "blow them all up", and in what context? It wasn't this thread. Is this just another quote you invented for ease of diversion, or is it something real taken out of context?

Bow, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to blame of Bush or claim we "got them all". Ritter nor Kay know what we got or didn't get because NO ONE FOLLOWED UP. Keep trying to claim we did and I will continue to call you on it. Just because YOU continue to present that argument doesn't make it true. You, sMiLeYz, nor anyone else knows what we hit with those few hundred missiles, and claiming you do is dishonest.

CkG

Almost forgot - you somehow forgot to show us where I said the "quote" you cited above. Being a man of great integrity, I'm sure you don't want to leave that question hanging over your credibility.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
We didn't "blow them all up" no matter how much you try to say we did. We just don't know - because there was NO follow-up.

CkG

Cad, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to deflect criticism of Bush-lite.
[ ... ]
By the way, where did I say "blow them all up", and in what context? It wasn't this thread. Is this just another quote you invented for ease of diversion, or is it something real taken out of context?

Bow, I've refuted this before -- with you -- many times. Telling the same lies over and over still doesn't make them true, no matter how badly you want to blame of Bush or claim we "got them all". Ritter nor Kay know what we got or didn't get because NO ONE FOLLOWED UP. Keep trying to claim we did and I will continue to call you on it. Just because YOU continue to present that argument doesn't make it true. You, sMiLeYz, nor anyone else knows what we hit with those few hundred missiles, and claiming you do is dishonest.

CkG

Almost forgot - you somehow forgot to show us where I said the "quote" you cited above. Being a man of great integrity, I'm sure you don't want to leave that question hanging over your credibility.

"got them all" or "blew the all up" aren't direct quotes -they do however paraphrase what you have said, here and in the past. You keep trying to say that Clinton's bombings took care of it - which means - you think he blew them all up or got them all.

You can continue to try to claim I'm wrong but Clinton didn't follow up to see what he hit after lobbing a couple hundred missiles into Iraq. Therefore we don't know what we did or didn't hit, nor do we know what if anything was destroyed. Also, we don't know the extent of damage they did, intention or collateral. To say you know such things is dishonest.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"got them all" or "blew the all up" aren't direct quotes -they do however paraphrase what you have said, here and in the past. You keep trying to say that Clinton's bombings took care of it - which means - you think he blew them all up or got them all.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer, Cad. I'm afraid that's another untruth (or, more precisely, two untruths).

What I've said, over and over, is that according to Scott Ritter, Clinton's bombings destroyed Iraq's remaining nuclear capabilities and at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities. When I've abbreviated this, I said something like "no significant remaining WMD capabilities." Your statement was false.

Re. "taking care of it", as I explicitly stated in the previous message, the "it" was "any remaining threat from Iraq". Your other statement was false too. Two for two.

You can continue to try to claim I'm wrong but Clinton didn't follow up to see what he hit after lobbing a couple hundred missiles into Iraq. Therefore we don't know what we did or didn't hit, nor do we know what if anything was destroyed. Also, we don't know the extent of damage they did, intention or collateral. To say you know such things is dishonest.

CkG

Bah. More falsehoods and noise. Please show me your proof that Clinton "didn't follow up to see what he hit". While I'm not privvy to the photos myself, I'm quite comfortable that every attack was followed up with aerial intelligence of one sort or another. To claim otherwise is bogus, pure partisan excrement. And before you wind up your spin machine to yammer about the limitations of aerial photos, be prepared to demonstrate you were equally critical of Powell's U.N. pony show with his 8x10 color gloosy photographs with the circles and the arrows and the, "these are facts, not assertions" mantra.

Clinton's follow-up was good enough to know they eliminated any significant threat from Saddam Hussein. While that's inconvenient for Bush, it's the truth.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"got them all" or "blew the all up" aren't direct quotes -they do however paraphrase what you have said, here and in the past. You keep trying to say that Clinton's bombings took care of it - which means - you think he blew them all up or got them all.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer, Cad. I'm afraid that's another untruth (or, more precisely, two untruths).

What I've said, over and over, is that according to Scott Ritter, Clinton's bombings destroyed Iraq's remaining nuclear capabilities and at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities. When I've abbreviated this, I said something like "no significant remaining WMD capabilities." Your statement was false.

Re. "taking care of it", as I explicitly stated in the previous message, the "it" was "any remaining threat from Iraq". Your other statement was false too. Two for two.

You can continue to try to claim I'm wrong but Clinton didn't follow up to see what he hit after lobbing a couple hundred missiles into Iraq. Therefore we don't know what we did or didn't hit, nor do we know what if anything was destroyed. Also, we don't know the extent of damage they did, intention or collateral. To say you know such things is dishonest.

CkG

Bah. More falsehoods and noise. Please show me your proof that Clinton "didn't follow up to see what he hit". While I'm not privvy to the photos myself, I'm quite comfortable that every attack was followed up with aerial intelligence of one sort or another. To claim otherwise is bogus, pure partisan excrement. And before you wind up your spin machine to yammer about the limitations of aerial photos, be prepared to demonstrate you were equally critical of Powell's U.N. pony show with his 8x10 color gloosy photographs with the circles and the arrows and the, "these are facts, not assertions" mantra.

Clinton's follow-up was good enough to know they eliminated any significant threat from Saddam Hussein. While that's inconvenient for Bush, it's the truth.

And Clinton's follow-up report is.....?

Lets see what Clinton has said about his little event over in Iraq in 1998.
Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know.

"...BUT WE DON'T KNOW."

Care to again try to say "Clinton's follow-up was good enough to know they eliminated any significant threat from Saddam Hussein."?

Now as you your BS dodge - We didn't "take care of it" - because we simply DON'T KNOW.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Oops - forgot to include this gem from that interview with Clinton and Dole.

"[Clinton]...I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there."

Keep it up Bow...

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

You are predictable.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"got them all" or "blew the all up" aren't direct quotes -they do however paraphrase what you have said, here and in the past. You keep trying to say that Clinton's bombings took care of it - which means - you think he blew them all up or got them all.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer, Cad. I'm afraid that's another untruth (or, more precisely, two untruths).

What I've said, over and over, is that according to Scott Ritter, Clinton's bombings destroyed Iraq's remaining nuclear capabilities and at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities. When I've abbreviated this, I said something like "no significant remaining WMD capabilities." Your statement was false.

For example, as expected, you avoided this. Didn't mommy teach you to apologize when you lie?

Re. "taking care of it", as I explicitly stated in the previous message, the "it" was "any remaining threat from Iraq". Your other statement was false too. Two for two.

... and you avoided this ...

You can continue to try to claim I'm wrong but Clinton didn't follow up to see what he hit after lobbing a couple hundred missiles into Iraq. Therefore we don't know what we did or didn't hit, nor do we know what if anything was destroyed. Also, we don't know the extent of damage they did, intention or collateral. To say you know such things is dishonest.

CkG

Bah. More falsehoods and noise. Please show me your proof that Clinton "didn't follow up to see what he hit".

... and this ...

While I'm not privvy to the photos myself, I'm quite comfortable that every attack was followed up with aerial intelligence of one sort or another. To claim otherwise is bogus, pure partisan excrement. And before you wind up your spin machine to yammer about the limitations of aerial photos, be prepared to demonstrate you were equally critical of Powell's U.N. pony show with his 8x10 color gloosy photographs with the circles and the arrows and the, "these are facts, not assertions" mantra.

... and this.

Clinton's follow-up was good enough to know they eliminated any significant threat from Saddam Hussein. While that's inconvenient for Bush, it's the truth.

And Clinton's follow-up report is.....?

Lets see what Clinton has said about his little event over in Iraq in 1998.
Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know.

"...BUT WE DON'T KNOW."

Care to again try to say "Clinton's follow-up was good enough to know they eliminated any significant threat from Saddam Hussein."?

Now as you your BS dodge - We didn't "take care of it" - because we simply DON'T KNOW.

CkG

And while you responded to the last point in my comments, you conveniently trimmed the heart of Clinton's comments, namely:

• "So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

Which we did. And as you also conveniently failed to mention, those inspectors found no evidence of significant remaining WMD capabilities, which is exactly what Ritter said and Kay proved. There is a difference between knowing with 100% certainty and knowing well enough to realize Iraq was not the "uniquely urgent threat" claimed by Bush.

We had inspectors in Iraq to confirm what we already believed: Clinton's bombing successfully destroyed most of Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. Unfortunately for Bush, their ongoing confirmation of this was threatening support for invasion, so he rushed in with both barrels blazing before Americans figured out they were being had.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Your other BS isn't part of my point - it was diversion from you. My point was that YOU nor ANYONE can say that the threat was eliminated after the 1998 episode. I explained my usage of "quotes" - they weren't direct quotes.
Now run along unless you can prove Clinton's "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand."(yes that's a direct quote from you

)
NO ONE KNOWS how successful those 300-400 missiles were. We don't know the extent of damage either(collateral or deliberate). Again - it would be dishonest for ANYONE to say they know because NO ONE followed up on it.

CkG

 

[EXman]

the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

all the other threads already cover those. you don't have to control every thread. There are two side to every coin.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Your other BS isn't part of my point - it was diversion from you. My point was that YOU nor ANYONE can say that the threat was eliminated after the 1998 episode. I explained my usage of "quotes" - they weren't direct quotes.
Now run along unless you can prove Clinton's "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand."(yes that's a direct quote from you

)
NO ONE KNOWS how successful those 300-400 missiles were. We don't know the extent of damage either(collateral or deliberate). Again - it would be dishonest for ANYONE to say they know because NO ONE followed up on it.

CkG

Of course it wasn't part of your point. You can't admit you made a mistake, let alone lied. I'd try to change the subject too if I were in your shoes ... but then again, I make a real effort to quote people honestly and accurately.


For the record, this was the original point:

Originally posted by: me
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Your replies have been one diversion after another. You run along.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Your other BS isn't part of my point - it was diversion from you. My point was that YOU nor ANYONE can say that the threat was eliminated after the 1998 episode. I explained my usage of "quotes" - they weren't direct quotes.
Now run along unless you can prove Clinton's "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand."(yes that's a direct quote from you

)
NO ONE KNOWS how successful those 300-400 missiles were. We don't know the extent of damage either(collateral or deliberate). Again - it would be dishonest for ANYONE to say they know because NO ONE followed up on it.

CkG

Of course it wasn't part of your point. You can't admit you made a mistake, let alone lied. I'd try to change the subject too if I were in your shoes ... but then again, I make a real effort to quote people honestly and accurately.


For the record, this was the original point:

Originally posted by: me
The first half of your list precedes Clinton's four-day bombing action against Iraq. It nicely demonstrates the use of current, valid intelligence data to launch a focused, limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand. An attack, by the way, that did NOT kill some 10,000 innocent people, cost us $200 billion and counting, and make us a pariah to the rest of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I'd mostly attribute it to a combination of Bush administration deception, especially related to the willful manipulation of intelligence analysis to support a predetermined course of action, and a lack of the leadership and political backbone to stand up to a panicked populace and say, "I don't care if Bush did say you're with us or you're terrorists, we have serious questions that must be answered before we rush to invade another country based on fear and rumors."

Your replies have been one diversion after another. You run along.

OK, riddle me this. What do 300-400 missiles do? - they blow stuff up - no? Now what exactly was the "problem"? Could it be WMDs?
/me checks Clinton's address to the nation
Yup - WMDs it was.
Now when you say that the "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand." - what exactly do you mean except that the 300-400 MISSILES(which blow stuff up) actually destroyed the threat(WMDs)?
You are dishonest Bow. You continue to stick with your BS story about the 1998 bombings inspite of DIRECT evidence it isn't backed up by fact. But then again I guess - "but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there." means that the problem was successfully addressed.

Now again - are you still going to claim you don't think we blew them all up? Are you going to continue to think that the "problem" was addressed by 300-400 missiles when there was ZERO follow up to see what if anything was destroyed?
The only thing people can honestly say about the success of the 1998 bombing is "WE DON'T KNOW".

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, riddle me this. What do 300-400 missiles do? - they blow stuff up - no? Now what exactly was the "problem"? Could it be WMDs? (What did I say?)
/me checks Clinton's address to the nation
Yup - WMDs it was. (Not that!)
Now when you say that the "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand." - what exactly do you mean (What did I say?) except that the 300-400 MISSILES(which blow stuff up) actually destroyed the threat(WMDs)? (Not that!)
You are dishonest Bow. You continue to stick with your BS story about the 1998 bombings (What did Kay say? What did Blix say? What did Ritter say?) inspite of DIRECT evidence it isn't backed up by fact (That's simply a bald lie.). But then again I guess - "but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there." means that the problem was successfully addressed.

Now again - are you still going to claim you don't think we blew them all up? (What did I say?) (Not that!) Are you going to continue to think that the "problem" was addressed by 300-400 missiles when there was ZERO follow up (What did I say? Prove there was ZERO follow-up. I think it's another bald lie.) to see what if anything was destroyed?
The only thing people can honestly say about the success of the 1998 bombing is "WE DON'T KNOW". (What did Kay say? What did Blix say? What did Ritter say?)

CkG

ROFL. You can spin and twist and contort all you want, but the simple fact is I did NOT say the things you claim I said; I did, however, say things that contradict what you claim I said. You started with one lie. You continue to lie more and more to try to cover it up. I don't know whether to call you Clinton or Bush. I can tell you this: the first step in filling the hole you're standing in is to stop digging.

You invent claims you can easily attack. You have no interest in an honest discussion. I already answered every question you pose above, often repeatedly. I won't waste everyone's time again, including mine, by repeating the same stuff over and over in the vain hope you'll pull your head out and actually read it. You won't acknowledge anything that contradicts your party-line dogma. That's one of the reasons you resort to inventing quotes; you can't bother to pay attention to what others actually say.

But spin away, Sir Cad. I'm sure it's only a flesh wound.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, riddle me this. What do 300-400 missiles do? - they blow stuff up - no? Now what exactly was the "problem"? Could it be WMDs? (What did I say?)
/me checks Clinton's address to the nation
Yup - WMDs it was. (Not that!)
Now when you say that the "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand." - what exactly do you mean (What did I say?) except that the 300-400 MISSILES(which blow stuff up) actually destroyed the threat(WMDs)? (Not that!)
You are dishonest Bow. You continue to stick with your BS story about the 1998 bombings (What did Kay say? What did Blix say? What did Ritter say?) inspite of DIRECT evidence it isn't backed up by fact (That's simply a bald lie.). But then again I guess - "but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there." means that the problem was successfully addressed.

Now again - are you still going to claim you don't think we blew them all up? (What did I say?) (Not that!) Are you going to continue to think that the "problem" was addressed by 300-400 missiles when there was ZERO follow up (What did I say? Prove there was ZERO follow-up. I think it's another bald lie.) to see what if anything was destroyed?
The only thing people can honestly say about the success of the 1998 bombing is "WE DON'T KNOW". (What did Kay say? What did Blix say? What did Ritter say?)

CkG

ROFL. You can spin and twist and contort all you want, but the simple fact is I did NOT say the things you claim I said; I did, however, say things that contradict what you claim I said. You started with one lie. You continue to lie more and more to try to cover it up. I don't know whether to call you Clinton or Bush. I can tell you this: the first step in filling the hole you're standing in is to stop digging.

You invent claims you can easily attack. You have no interest in an honest discussion. I already answered every question you pose above, often repeatedly. I won't waste everyone's time again, including mine, by repeating the same stuff over and over in the vain hope you'll pull your head out and actually read it. You won't acknowledge anything that contradicts your party-line dogma. That's one of the reasons you resort to inventing quotes; you can't bother to pay attention to what others actually say.

But spin away, Sir Cad. I'm sure it's only a flesh wound.

Dodging are you?
What exactly did you mean by "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand." then?

This ought to be good.

CkG

 

[leeboy]

CAD could care less if Bush lied to him and the world. Typical sheep. He'll have 8 long years to lie to himself some more come November. Tick, tock, time is running out CAD and his like.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dodging are you?
What exactly did you mean by "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand." then?

This ought to be good.

CkG

Good God, would you please learn to read? Please?

From my 2/25 post at 7:53 p.m. CST:

• "Re. the rest of your comment, what was "successfully addressed" was any remaining threat from Iraq. You remember that threat, right? That "uniquely urgent threat" (according to GWB) that wasn't because Clinton already eliminated it ... without killing 10,000+ innocent people or spending $200 billion. By the way, where did I say "blow them all up", and in what context? It wasn't this thread. Is this just another quote you invented for ease of diversion, or is it something real taken out of context?"

Then again at 10:00 p.m. CST:

• "Re. "taking care of it", as I explicitly stated in the previous message, the "it" was "any remaining threat from Iraq". Your other statement was false too. Two for two."

Any other questions? (I've probably already answered them.)

 

[chess9]

CAD:

How do YOU spell O-W-N-E-D?

-Robert

 

[JTech007]

I think Cad and Bow need their own forum to play ping pong all day long.
Nov is coming, then we can spend the next four years talking about how we are going to impeach the next president (Either GWB or Kerry) from office.

Like someone said eariler, you have to decide which rat smells better to you..

 

[etech]

Bow, was the threat the weapons themselves or the regime that wanted to acquire and than possibly use them as they had in the past?



chess9, you are out of jr. high aren't you? That seems to be the only group still doing the "owned" thing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Dodging are you?
What exactly did you mean by "limited attack that successfully addressed the problem at hand." then?

This ought to be good.

CkG

Good God, would you please learn to read? Please?

From my 2/25 post at 7:53 p.m. CST:

• "Re. the rest of your comment, what was "successfully addressed" was any remaining threat from Iraq. You remember that threat, right? That "uniquely urgent threat" (according to GWB) that wasn't because Clinton already eliminated it ... without killing 10,000+ innocent people or spending $200 billion. By the way, where did I say "blow them all up", and in what context? It wasn't this thread. Is this just another quote you invented for ease of diversion, or is it something real taken out of context?"

Then again at 10:00 p.m. CST:

• "Re. "taking care of it", as I explicitly stated in the previous message, the "it" was "any remaining threat from Iraq". Your other statement was false too. Two for two."

Any other questions? (I've probably already answered them.)

OK, and that "remaining threat" according to you was what? What exactly was the "threat"?

Am I going slow enough for you to keep pace?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Bow, was the threat the weapons themselves or the regime that wanted to acquire and than possibly use them as they had in the past?

The threat was Iraq hurting the U.S. or its allies to any signifcant extent.

 

[Sternfan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

I can't remember if it was 1998 or 96 Clinton launched 70+ Tomahawk Missiles into Iraq he had no idea what he was hitting it was just important to do it. So he did not invade but he did KILL. The missiles were also launched on that same Intel.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Bow, was the threat the weapons themselves or the regime that wanted to acquire and than possibly use them as they had in the past?

The threat was Iraq hurting the U.S. or its allies to any signifcant extent.

And this "remaining threat" was gone because Clinton launched a couple hundred missiles into Iraq? What did we hit that caused this "remaining threat" to go away?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

I can't remember if it was 1998 or 96 Clinton launched 70+ Tomahawk Missiles into Iraq he had no idea what he was hitting it was just important to do it. So he did not invade but he did KILL. The missiles were also launched on that same Intel.

Yeah but it was only the Iraqis he killed and the cost was insignificant.

My problem isn't with killing Iraqi's, hell those Bastards were dancing in the street after 9/11. My problem is Bush using dodgy Intel to mislead us into supporting his excellent adventure in Iraq which has destabilized the region and cost us in American lives and billions of dollars.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

I can't remember if it was 1998 or 96 Clinton launched 70+ Tomahawk Missiles into Iraq he had no idea what he was hitting it was just important to do it. So he did not invade but he did KILL. The missiles were also launched on that same Intel.

So when Clinton launches missiles to destroy weapons, he has no idea what he's hitting. But when Bush launches a full scale land invasion to destroy weapons (and force regime change and liberate the Iraq people and uncover mass graves and establish a democracy in the Middle East), he's showing his "great resolve" against "the threat of evil". Seems like the double standard continues.

This argument has been beaten to death, but I still need to know why launching a full scale land invasion based on 5 year old intel that his predecessor already acted on is considered a valid case for war.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

I can't remember if it was 1998 or 96 Clinton launched 70+ Tomahawk Missiles into Iraq he had no idea what he was hitting it was just important to do it. So he did not invade but he did KILL. The missiles were also launched on that same Intel.

So when Clinton launches missiles to destroy weapons, he has no idea what he's hitting. But when Bush launches a full scale land invasion to destroy weapons (and force regime change and liberate the Iraq people and uncover mass graves and establish a democracy in the Middle East), he's showing his "great resolve" against "the threat of evil". Seems like the double standard continues.

This argument has been beaten to death, but I still need to know why launching a full scale land invasion based on 5 year old intel that his predecessor already acted on is considered a valid case for war.

They gotta say something to legitimize the act.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TheGameIs21

Originally posted by: smashp
the irony is you remember every pertinant quote by a democrat but dont acknowledge and ignore quotes by Republicans.

Not irony... Just a remiinder to all the Democrats who are wanting to damn GWB for his actions even though Democrats are shown above to have agreed with his reasoning at one point.

When did they invade and occupy a country based on dodgy intel?

I can't remember if it was 1998 or 96 Clinton launched 70+ Tomahawk Missiles into Iraq he had no idea what he was hitting it was just important to do it. So he did not invade but he did KILL. The missiles were also launched on that same Intel.

So when Clinton launches missiles to destroy weapons, he has no idea what he's hitting. But when Bush launches a full scale land invasion to destroy weapons (and force regime change and liberate the Iraq people and uncover mass graves and establish a democracy in the Middle East), he's showing his "great resolve" against "the threat of evil". Seems like the double standard continues.

This argument has been beaten to death, but I still need to know why launching a full scale land invasion based on 5 year old intel that his predecessor already acted on is considered a valid case for war.

The reason you think that we're arguing that Clinton didn't know what he was hitting is because you don't understand the argument. We probably did have a good idea what we were targetting in 1998, but unfortunately there was no follow-up to see what if anything was really destroyed.

CkG