Study: False statements preceded war

[1EZduzit]

The remaining Bush apologists are too busy eating their Freedom Fries to care about the truth.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

Some of us aren't actually Bush supporters. We just get tagged with that label, as nearly anyone in P&N does that has the audicity to state that Bush might have done something right during his presidency, or that he didn't do something in the manner that the BDS afflicted ones claim.

Until you guys figure out that going into Iraq was a group effort, stop trying to blame Bush as the sole culprit, and recognize that Democrats were part and parcel of it happening, then YOU are the partisan ones, not me.

Give your Bushit a rest. You do not fool anyone. Some Democrats were in the back seat but it was Dub behind the wheel. You Bush apologists need to quit trying to shift the blame.

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

Who handed bush the keys to the car and gave the roadmap?
Congress.

Who built the car
Clinton.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Who handed bush the keys to the car and gave the roadmap?
Congress.

Who built the car
Clinton.

OOohhhhh, this I gotta hear. Please explain to me how Clinton made Bush invade Iraq. I was pretty sure it was his fault, I just wasn't sure how.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

Some of us aren't actually Bush supporters. We just get tagged with that label, as nearly anyone in P&N does that has the audicity to state that Bush might have done something right during his presidency, or that he didn't do something in the manner that the BDS afflicted ones claim.

Until you guys figure out that going into Iraq was a group effort, stop trying to blame Bush as the sole culprit, and recognize that Democrats were part and parcel of it happening, then YOU are the partisan ones, not me.

Give your Bushit a rest. You do not fool anyone. Some Democrats were in the back seat but it was Dub behind the wheel. You Bush apologists need to quit trying to shift the blame.

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

Who handed bush the keys to the car and gave the roadmap?
Congress.

Who built the car
Clinton.

That is revisionist history. Dub asked for the keys "in case I need them." He said he would use the car only as a last resort. He lied. As soon as he got the keys he ran off.

It was Reagan who started building the car. Bush Sr. added to it and took it for a short test drive. Clinton kept it locked in the garage. He opened the door a few times but never took it out. Dubya ran off like a drunken cowboy and crashed into Iraq.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I bring up BDS afflicted ones and look who shows up, the chief of the BDS Club.

Surely that's no coincidence?

Surely it isn't. All you need to understand that Bush is a liar, a murderer, a traitor and a torturer is a functional brain and the ability to read. Sorry you don't qualify. :laugh:

Proud to be called a "BDSer" on AT P&N.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, some of us pointed out that not only Bush made statements that were incorrect, an entire gaggle of politicians from both sides did and did so for years before and during Bush's time in office. Bush alone making those statements could not have brought us into Iraq. The BDS crew in here seem to want to pretend otherwise. But that's there own dishonesty in dealing with this situation, along with whining about something that cannot be changed.

Yes. And some of us pointed out that time doesn't stand still and circumstances, events and reality changes over that period of time that continued to increment.

What was true is 1998 isn't guaranteed to still be true in 2003.

But you know this little fact destroys your talking point so you won't acknowledge it....will ya?

pssst. The fact is that those politicians you are ptitfully trying to make apologies for were still making their assertions about Saddam's WMDs long past 1998.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything you and the rest of the BDS afflicted in here are trying to claim.

Once again....you completely ignore the FACT that members of Congress DO NOT GET ACCESS TO ALL INTEL.

What members of Congress say is based solely on the limited information that they are given by the president and/or intel agencies at the request of the president. It is a proven fact that the administration squashed dissenting opinions and/or doubts prior to the invasion.

But little facts like that completely obliterate anything that you and the rest of the BAA (Bush admin apologists) here are trying to claim.

I have decided that the Bush supporters have so some level accepted that Mr Bush, at best, really screwed up with the war in Iraq. But to feel better they irrationally need to blame Clinton and the Democrats too.

This is a personal problem with them.

Some of us aren't actually Bush supporters. We just get tagged with that label, as nearly anyone in P&N does that has the audicity to state that Bush might have done something right during his presidency, or that he didn't do something in the manner that the BDS afflicted ones claim.

Until you guys figure out that going into Iraq was a group effort, stop trying to blame Bush as the sole culprit, and recognize that Democrats were part and parcel of it happening, then YOU are the partisan ones, not me.

Give your Bushit a rest. You do not fool anyone. Some Democrats were in the back seat but it was Dub behind the wheel. You Bush apologists need to quit trying to shift the blame.

--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980

Who handed bush the keys to the car and gave the roadmap?
Congress.

Who built the car
Clinton.

That's insane. Truly, how in god's name did you reconcile that logic? That's like blaming FDR for the death of millions of jews because he didn't intervene early in enough in Hitler's mad romp across Europe.

Who built the car?
Keys? Roadmap?

It's hard to believe you took the time to WRITE that.

Bush, his cabinet, and his closest enablers and manipulators were the architects and engineers of this disaster. Everyone else who allowed this to happen, moderate republics, some democrats, people like YOU who believed in and encouraged this madness, all deserve some degree of blame but none of you deserve to be in the same SENTENCE as Bush; it's two HUGELY different ball games of blame, entirely different ends of the spectrum.

 

[Siddhartha]

The best explanations I can think of to understand this "The Iraqi war is Clinton's fault" bs is:

1. The proponents are insane.

2. They are hoping that the rationale can be used in the next election cycle. Hell, if they could convince the voter that Kerry, a decorated veteran, is a lying coward. The voter will believe anything no matter how insane.

3. They are trolling the forum.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Ldir

That is revisionist history. Dub asked for the keys "in case I need them." He said he would use the car only as a last resort. He lied. As soon as he got the keys he ran off.

It was Reagan who started building the car. Bush Sr. added to it and took it for a short test drive. Clinton kept it locked in the garage. He opened the door a few times but never took it out. Dubya ran off like a drunken cowboy and crashed into Iraq.

That just might be one of the best analogies that I have ever heard. Probably would have been the best if you would have called Reagan Henry Ford.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you fucking read? Where did Blix say Iraq was complying? He didn't. Cooperating != complying. Stop being so ignorant and utterly moronic about this subject.

Hahaha, the guy who links Blix's January speech to discount my point on his speech in March is calling ME ignorant? Do I smell another Golden Mosque moment from you? I think I do! (Are you still claiming that place is Sunni by the way?)

I don't know what else to say to you. You KNOW that you're wrong... I know you aren't this stupid. You're just so fucking pigheaded that you will never, ever admit it. You based your point on a report from January probably because you didn't know that a similar report was issued by Blix in March showing a very different picture. If you had known about it, you wouldn't have linked something that was so easily blown apart.

Now, instead of talking on the substance of the issue you're trying to have a battle over definitions. (shocking that I predicted a descent into pedantry) Do you even know what compliance was defined as under resolution 1441? It's pretty vague when combined with a country's legitimate right to self defense, etc. which is also affirmed under other resolutions. The thing is that anyone who isn't an idiot can easily see what constitutes compliance. What the Iraqis were doing in December was clearly NOT compliance. What the Iraqis were doing in March was pretty clearly compliance. Yes there were issues that remained, but the inspections were going forth unimpeded and Blix expressed optimism that the other difficulties could be overcome. By any reasonable estimation that is compliance.

I don't know why I even bother with you, my attempts to make an honest assessment of the situation will certainly be met with idiotic responses from you due to some sort of percieved weakness. (ie. you SEE!? If there were some problems that means they weren't 100% in compliance and so we should have bombed and invaded and occupied them!! HURF BLURF) Any responsible person who was trying to have a legitimate discussion instead of promote an apologist agenda would not be arguing these points that you are. It's okay to be wrong sometimes, or to make a mistake. Just admit it when you do.

You should know that's it's OK to be wrong or make a mistake. You do it consistently and then proceed with your typical hand jive replies as if you weren't wrong, when you plainly were.

Here's a tip for you - Next time pay attention to the words and you won't end up getting so completely and utterly schooled.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You should know that's it's OK to be wrong or make a mistake.

Even your TURD IN CHIEF and his lying criminal gang of murderers, traitors and torturers couldn't make that many "mistakes" without figuring they didn't know their fucking asses from the proverbial hole in the ground, but thier lies, treason and murder are the direct cause of the deaths of 3,931 American troops in their war of lies. It's long past time to chuck their traitorous asses to the curb, try and convict them for their crimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You should know that's it's OK to be wrong or make a mistake. You do it consistently and then proceed with your typical hand jive replies as if you weren't wrong, when you plainly were.

Here's a tip for you - Next time pay attention to the words and you won't end up getting so completely and utterly schooled.

Hahaha, looks like I pricked your ego a little bit there huh? Poor TLC. It must get frustrating to lose these arguments over and over, that I do understand. You do have me at a bit of a disadvantage though, I'm not really sure what I can say to you when you are this divorced from reality.

Are you seriously still trying to argue that you were right? There's simply no way a responsible, informed, or intellectually honest person could be making the argument you are trying to make.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You should know that's it's OK to be wrong or make a mistake. You do it consistently and then proceed with your typical hand jive replies as if you weren't wrong, when you plainly were.

Here's a tip for you - Next time pay attention to the words and you won't end up getting so completely and utterly schooled.

Hahaha, looks like I pricked your ego a little bit there huh? Poor TLC. It must get frustrating to lose these arguments over and over, that I do understand. You do have me at a bit of a disadvantage though, I'm not really sure what I can say to you when you are this divorced from reality.

Are you seriously still trying to argue that you were right? There's simply no way a responsible, informed, or intellectually honest person could be making the argument you are trying to make.

Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Yeah I'm not sure wtf TLC in thinking here, Blix wrote an entire book about this fiasco and his position is irrefutable; Iraq was complying with U.N. weapons inspectors, inspectors had found NO evidence of an active WMD program, and their inspection was abruptly and prematurely terminated by the U.S.

It's not like you need to get your info straight from the horses mouth (who would want that after all?), all you had to do was take your head out of the sand at some point during the last 5 years or so to realize the public consensus was in lock step with what eskimospy is telling you.

 

[1EZduzit]

For those of you with short (or selective) memoiries (cough-TLC-cough) you might try refreshing your memories with this little timeline.

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

 

[Harvey]

Colin Powell disagrees with TastesLikeChickehSh8 in 2003:

Powell's doubts over CIA intelligence on Iraq prompted him to set up secret review

Specialists removed questionable evidence about weapons from draft of secretary of state's speech to UN

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 2, 2003
The Guardian

Fresh evidence emerged last night that Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, was so disturbed about questionable American intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he assembled a secret team to review the information he was given before he made a crucial speech to the UN security council on February 5.

Mr Powell conducted a full-dress rehearsal of the speech on the eve of the session at his suite in the Waldorf Astoria, his New York base when he is on UN business, according to the authoritative US News and World Report.

Much of the initial information for Mr Powell's speech to the UN was provided by the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, set up a special unit, the Office of Special Plans, to counter the uncertainty of the CIA's intelligence on Iraq.

Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," according to the magazine.
.
.
(continues)

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Colin Powell disagrees with TastesLikeChickehSh8 in 2003:

Powell's doubts over CIA intelligence on Iraq prompted him to set up secret review

Specialists removed questionable evidence about weapons from draft of secretary of state's speech to UN

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 2, 2003
The Guardian

Fresh evidence emerged last night that Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, was so disturbed about questionable American intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he assembled a secret team to review the information he was given before he made a crucial speech to the UN security council on February 5.

Mr Powell conducted a full-dress rehearsal of the speech on the eve of the session at his suite in the Waldorf Astoria, his New York base when he is on UN business, according to the authoritative US News and World Report.

Much of the initial information for Mr Powell's speech to the UN was provided by the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary, set up a special unit, the Office of Special Plans, to counter the uncertainty of the CIA's intelligence on Iraq.

Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," according to the magazine.
.
.
(continues)

:Q

Neocon planning :thumbsdown:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Reputation? When I want a BDS afflicted moron's opinion of what they think of me I'll flat out ask you.

The plain truth is that Iraq did not COMPLY (In caps because you seem to neglect the fact that it's the operative word here.) with resolution 1441 and Blix being anti-war himself and claiming that 'Well, Iraq is kind of cooperating, even though they are not giving us what we are asking for.' was not nearly enough. Besides that, his own personal anti-war views on the matter should have never come into play in the first place as they did when he tried to softball things in Febuary and March.

Saddam had manipulated the UN for 12+ years already and his useful idiots in the sphere of public opinion were ready to enable him again. Not this time.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Reputation? When I want a BDS afflicted moron's opinion of what they think of me I'll flat out ask you.

The plain truth is that Iraq did not COMPLY (In caps because you seem to neglect the fact that it's the operative word here.) with resolution 1441 and Blix being anti-war himself and claiming that 'Well, Iraq is kind of cooperating, even though they are not giving us what we are asking for.' was not nearly enough. Besides that, his own personal anti-war views on the matter should have never come into play in the first place as they did when he tried to softball things in Febuary and March.

Saddam had manipulated the UN for 12+ years already and his useful idiots in the sphere of public opinion were ready to enable him again. Not this time.

Which is a convoluted way of saying that the war was already a forgone conclusion before Blix's reports.

You're prety good at convolution and obfuscation.

And, of course, you currently appear to be a first-class tool, to anyone who's been following this little fit you've been having.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Reputation? When I want a BDS afflicted moron's opinion of what they think of me I'll flat out ask you.

The plain truth is that Iraq did not COMPLY (In caps because you seem to neglect the fact that it's the operative word here.) with resolution 1441 and Blix being anti-war himself and claiming that 'Well, Iraq is kind of cooperating, even though they are not giving us what we are asking for.' was not nearly enough. Besides that, his own personal anti-war views on the matter should have never come into play in the first place as they did when he tried to softball things in Febuary and March.

Saddam had manipulated the UN for 12+ years already and his useful idiots in the sphere of public opinion were ready to enable him again. Not this time.

Which is a convoluted way of saying that the war was already a forgone conclusion before Blix's reports.

You're prety good at convolution and obfuscation.

And, of course, you currently appear to be a first-class tool, to anyone who's been following this little fit you've been having.

Of course the war was a foregone conclusion. Blix knew it, which was why he took the softball stance he did in Febuary and March. We all knew Saddam wasn't going to comply and that the UN was still not going to do a damn thing about it when he didn't, again, for the umpteenth time.

The tools are the ones trying to pretend that if we just gave Saddam another chance, he would have come clean. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS! He had no intention of comig clean and the tools in here damn well know it. Saddam had all the power in his hands to stop this invasion and he threw it away because of his own pride, along with the word you lefties just love..."hubris." Yet you give him a pass and try to make him the victim instead.

That's just pathetic. Saddam was no victim. He was a player and he played you and others right to the very end. Tools? You were Saddam's tools and still are.

 

[bamacre]

This mumbo-jumbo, inspections, etc., is all meant to make logic seem more complicated than it really is. The truth is even if Saddam did have those weapons, they weren't any threat to us. And they weren't why we went in there.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Reputation? When I want a BDS afflicted moron's opinion of what they think of me I'll flat out ask you.

The plain truth is that Iraq did not COMPLY (In caps because you seem to neglect the fact that it's the operative word here.) with resolution 1441 and Blix being anti-war himself and claiming that 'Well, Iraq is kind of cooperating, even though they are not giving us what we are asking for.' was not nearly enough. Besides that, his own personal anti-war views on the matter should have never come into play in the first place as they did when he tried to softball things in Febuary and March.

Saddam had manipulated the UN for 12+ years already and his useful idiots in the sphere of public opinion were ready to enable him again. Not this time.

Which is a convoluted way of saying that the war was already a forgone conclusion before Blix's reports.

You're prety good at convolution and obfuscation.

And, of course, you currently appear to be a first-class tool, to anyone who's been following this little fit you've been having.

Of course the war was a foregone conclusion. Blix knew it, which was why he took the softball stance he did in Febuary and March. We all knew Saddam wasn't going to comply and that the UN was still not going to do a damn thing about it when he didn't, again, for the umpteenth time.

The tools are the ones trying to pretend that if we just gave Saddam another chance, he would have come clean. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS! He had no intention of comig clean and the tools in here damn well know it. Saddam had all the power in his hands to stop this invasion and he threw it away because of his own pride, along with the word you lefties just love..."hubris." Yet you give him a pass and try to make him the victim instead.

That's just pathetic. Saddam was no victim. He was a player and he played you and others right to the very end. Tools? You were Saddam's tools and still are.

It didn't matter what Saddam did, the neocons were going in anyways.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This mumbo-jumbo, inspections, etc., is all meant to make logic seem more complicated than it really is. The truth is even if Saddam did have those weapons, they weren't any threat to us. And they weren't why we went in there.

Why did we go in then?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Reputation? When I want a BDS afflicted moron's opinion of what they think of me I'll flat out ask you.

The plain truth is that Iraq did not COMPLY (In caps because you seem to neglect the fact that it's the operative word here.) with resolution 1441 and Blix being anti-war himself and claiming that 'Well, Iraq is kind of cooperating, even though they are not giving us what we are asking for.' was not nearly enough. Besides that, his own personal anti-war views on the matter should have never come into play in the first place as they did when he tried to softball things in Febuary and March.

Saddam had manipulated the UN for 12+ years already and his useful idiots in the sphere of public opinion were ready to enable him again. Not this time.

Which is a convoluted way of saying that the war was already a forgone conclusion before Blix's reports.

You're prety good at convolution and obfuscation.

And, of course, you currently appear to be a first-class tool, to anyone who's been following this little fit you've been having.

Of course the war was a foregone conclusion. Blix knew it, which was why he took the softball stance he did in Febuary and March. We all knew Saddam wasn't going to comply and that the UN was still not going to do a damn thing about it when he didn't, again, for the umpteenth time.

The tools are the ones trying to pretend that if we just gave Saddam another chance, he would have come clean. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS! He had no intention of comig clean and the tools in here damn well know it. Saddam had all the power in his hands to stop this invasion and he threw it away because of his own pride, along with the word you lefties just love..."hubris." Yet you give him a pass and try to make him the victim instead.

That's just pathetic. Saddam was no victim. He was a player and he played you and others right to the very end. Tools? You were Saddam's tools and still are.

It didn't matter what Saddam did, the neocons were going in anyways.

We'll never really know because Saddam didn't comply.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are you actually STILL trying to insist that Blix claimed Iraq was complying after you already failed to do so and then began your tap-dancing routine?

lol. What a weasel you are.

Yes, I'm flat out saying it.

The only way that someone could view what was going on in March 2003 as non-compliance would be those interested in taking the narrowest possible definition of the word in order to back up a decision they have already made/a position they have already decided to defend to the death. (this would be where you come in) You know this as well as I do.

You realize that with the reputation you have on these boards that calling someone else a weasel is pretty hilarious, right?

Reputation? When I want a BDS afflicted moron's opinion of what they think of me I'll flat out ask you.

The plain truth is that Iraq did not COMPLY (In caps because you seem to neglect the fact that it's the operative word here.) with resolution 1441 and Blix being anti-war himself and claiming that 'Well, Iraq is kind of cooperating, even though they are not giving us what we are asking for.' was not nearly enough. Besides that, his own personal anti-war views on the matter should have never come into play in the first place as they did when he tried to softball things in Febuary and March.

Saddam had manipulated the UN for 12+ years already and his useful idiots in the sphere of public opinion were ready to enable him again. Not this time.

Which is a convoluted way of saying that the war was already a forgone conclusion before Blix's reports.

You're prety good at convolution and obfuscation.

And, of course, you currently appear to be a first-class tool, to anyone who's been following this little fit you've been having.

Of course the war was a foregone conclusion. Blix knew it, which was why he took the softball stance he did in Febuary and March. We all knew Saddam wasn't going to comply and that the UN was still not going to do a damn thing about it when he didn't, again, for the umpteenth time.

The tools are the ones trying to pretend that if we just gave Saddam another chance, he would have come clean. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS! He had no intention of comig clean and the tools in here damn well know it. Saddam had all the power in his hands to stop this invasion and he threw it away because of his own pride, along with the word you lefties just love..."hubris." Yet you give him a pass and try to make him the victim instead.

That's just pathetic. Saddam was no victim. He was a player and he played you and others right to the very end. Tools? You were Saddam's tools and still are.

It didn't matter what Saddam did, the neocons were going in anyways.

We'll never really know because Saddam didn't comply.

You cannot hide behind the Saddam red herring TLC.

The Bush administration is still criminal.