AT will need more bandwidth if we are going to talk about TLC's lies. Be sure we include the fact that things change. President Clinton said true things in 1998 that became false by the time Dub said them in 2003. The UN inspectors were proving this which is why Dub rushed to yank them out of Iraq.
Democrats were guilty of trusting the Bush administration. We should never make that mistake again.
WOW!!!
I wish someone would have told me that not a single factor in the world changed in the 5 years between when Clinton was looking at intel and made those statements about Iraq and Bush was looking at the "same" intel.
LOL, I knew you wouldn't be man enough. You like to accuse everyone else of being pussies, but the truth is you like to dish it out but you can't take it.
Meow, Meow, Meow
Evidently you can't read, it was in English. We shouldn't go after Bush for his lies which caused a multitude of murders because "we can't go back to 2002 and fix it". Yet, its ok to go after Saddam way after his crimes had been committed. You can't have it both ways and still hold a moral authority. So stop your whining and let justice be served.
In the big picture one should also consider the false statments after the war and the miserable planning of the occupation.
Misson Accomplished, Last Throes, we have the Iraqis trained, etc. It leaves anyone with even half a brain wondering how the hell did we end up in such a mess. Piss poor leadership is the best case scenario and you can't blame that on the Dem's.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,584
- 984
- 126
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Remember that the UN inspectors were being jerked around by Iraq. How long was that supposed to last. Iraq was impeding the investigations whenever they could.
So the entire configuration changed in two years.
Senior Dems and Repubs had information from pre-Bush and did not speak up.
Both Congress and the WH had their own agendas. Each was probably aware of the others and a mutual unspoken pact was to not spill the beans.
Not really. That was 1998. Not in 2002. There were minor issues but Iraq was cooperating well.
How do you figure two years? It was five years from 1998 to 2003. What do you mean by entire configuration? Iraq WMDs were gone by 2003. That is what UN inspectors were finding when Dub yanked them out.
That's not really accurate. The head UN inspector said shortly before they were yanked out by the US invasion that things were going well, that Iraq was complying, etc. While I'm certain some of this compliance was due to the US saber rattling, the fact that we attacked anyway despite this shows pretty clearly that we were going to attack no matter what.
Lots of evidence showing bush's disdain for truth. His war propaganda machine raged havoc on American minds through fear mongering. Thankfully, the majority of Americans woke up. Now if we could only bring the villains to justice it would be complete.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
He said Iraq was complying? Really?
More revisionist history from the anti-war crowd:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...3/inspectors_1-27.html
Yeap, he sure did.
Nice try though, taking an article from January when Blix said Iraq was not complying instead of taking something from March when Hans Blix said that they were. Not that I'm surprised... I'm used to these sorts of lies from you by now. Actually now that I think about it its far more likely that you just had no idea what Blix said in later statements, because once again you probably don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.
His final report basically said that they had found several small infractions by Iraq in various areas, but nothing that amounted to much of anything. To quote Mr. Blix "they cooperated like hell, they were pro-active" in March.
Originally posted by: Harvey
QFT!
I remember that. Thanks for saving me the search time for the post. :beer:
No problem. To be honest I get more pleasure then I should out of showing that guy up.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Harvey
QFT!
I remember that. Thanks for saving me the search time for the post. :beer:
No problem. To be honest I get more pleasure then I should out of showing that guy up.
Mind if I share in your fun?
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,838
- 8,430
- 136
doesn't matter at all to me how many lies bush told/is continually telling.
what matters is that he and his fellow conspirators are apparently going to get away with all of it legally, based on the notion that they knew they were going to perp a scam and were well-prepared to cover their asses to do it.
they are also not going to suffer any from a moral point of view as they have shown by infinite and quintessential example that they are all obviously morally bankrupt.
so it seems that whatever the price they are going to pay from a historical perspective, the money/power gains they have garnered from this "war on terror" that they have fabricated far outweigh in importance the sordid legacy they will surely leave behind them.
it bothers me that all one has to do is apply an ounce of common sense to the whole "bush led us to war based on lies" issue to realize that bush and his profiteering backers scammed and scared the country into a war we never should have undertaken.
yet, it seems a higher priority for some that common sense be swept aside in favor of promoting odd pieces of minutiae that's been cobbled into some bizarre form of limped strained logic for the express purpose of deception, avoidance and disseminating misinformation.
it's all so obvious, yet the attempts continue to no avail.
it's already been made quite clear from a historical perspective the intent and modus operandi that bush and his cohorts used against the people of the USA.
braying about with false and misleading conjecture in defense of bush and his ilk merely shines a spotlight on their misdeeds and mistakes all the more brighter.
edit - spl
what matters is that he and his fellow conspirators are apparently going to get away with all of it legally, based on the notion that they knew they were going to perp a scam and were well-prepared to cover their asses to do it.
they are also not going to suffer any from a moral point of view as they have shown by infinite and quintessential example that they are all obviously morally bankrupt.
so it seems that whatever the price they are going to pay from a historical perspective, the money/power gains they have garnered from this "war on terror" that they have fabricated far outweigh in importance the sordid legacy they will surely leave behind them.
it bothers me that all one has to do is apply an ounce of common sense to the whole "bush led us to war based on lies" issue to realize that bush and his profiteering backers scammed and scared the country into a war we never should have undertaken.
yet, it seems a higher priority for some that common sense be swept aside in favor of promoting odd pieces of minutiae that's been cobbled into some bizarre form of limped strained logic for the express purpose of deception, avoidance and disseminating misinformation.
it's all so obvious, yet the attempts continue to no avail.
it's already been made quite clear from a historical perspective the intent and modus operandi that bush and his cohorts used against the people of the USA.
braying about with false and misleading conjecture in defense of bush and his ilk merely shines a spotlight on their misdeeds and mistakes all the more brighter.
edit - spl
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Right. Even though Iraq wasn't complying, they were complying. Just ignore the infractions that did exist and, voila, compliance.
:roll:
Are you really going to make me continue beating you down? Can you at least admit that you were wrong about Hans Blix's statements before the war?
I know you're just trying to change the argument away from the one in which you just got owned as this is what you always do, but for once please can you just stay on what we were talking about (what Blix said) and not take us on a meandering journey through what counts as compliance in your head?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Delusional much?
You didn't beat me down. You made yourself look like a fool with your lame reply. Yeah, compliance is compliance, as long as you look the other way and ignore some things.
Here's what Blix said about Iraq's compliance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ripts/blix_012703.html
Continue to revel in your beatdown, moron.
:roll:
You just don't know when to quit do you? If you look at what I said originally before you chimed in with your two cents you would realize that I said "the head UN inspector said shortly before they were yanked out"... that Iraq was complying. This was in MARCH. The article you keep trying pathetically to link here is from JANUARY. Two months before, and two briefings about Iraq earlier then what I was talking about. You know he gave several of those right?
In effect your argument is "What you said about Hans Blix's opinion on Iraqi compliance in March is wrong because he thought something different in January." I hope I don't have to tell you how stupid that is.
You obviously didn't read the article I linked or you would know that, but by all means continue to revel in your ignorance. It's sort of your thing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter