Nitemare:
Bwuahahaha!
Yes, I agree that is almost, but not, quite, as good as the evidence Bush went AWOL (I don't give a rat's butt about whether he went AWOL or not, FWIW, and have never said otherwise.)
You have nothing, nothing, nothing, but your stupid innuendo, and on top of it, RITTER IS RIGHT!
Sheezh, the level of sophistication on this board can be so low it's scary....
-Robert
Bwuahahaha!
Yes, I agree that is almost, but not, quite, as good as the evidence Bush went AWOL (I don't give a rat's butt about whether he went AWOL or not, FWIW, and have never said otherwise.)
You have nothing, nothing, nothing, but your stupid innuendo, and on top of it, RITTER IS RIGHT!
Sheezh, the level of sophistication on this board can be so low it's scary....
-Robert
Do you know the meaning of the word 'proof'? HOP, tell him. CAD, you're free to teach him also, seeing as how you corrected someone today for using the word 'prove'.
Still waiting for heartsurgeon to get in here and shout down all those stating as fact that Ritter is a pedophile/child molestor. (See my post above) Oh wait, they're not ~ls (cool word CAD) so it's ok.
Hey make up your own shortcut. ~!'s and ~but's are taken
(I suggest creative use of the right side of the keyboard. Personally I like =)
~but's are more mainstream leftists. They may agree with the facts, then have a "but" statement at the end
Originally posted by: alchemize
~but's are more mainstream leftists. They may agree with the facts, then have a "but" statement at the end
Ah, another good one...though ~l is better. (I can't wait for people on the right to answer questions using 'but'
)Nitemare:
No, we expect you to admit you don't have a clue whether the charges were founded or unfounded. Since the charges were dismissed, they could have had the wrong person, or the case could have had some other serious defect. He is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Not the other way around as you would have it. LOL, you right wingers are like creation scientists, the truth is what you want it to be. Besides, even if he were a child molester, that doesn't mean what he says is wrong. LOL, you guys are pitiful.
-Robert
No, we expect you to admit you don't have a clue whether the charges were founded or unfounded. Since the charges were dismissed, they could have had the wrong person, or the case could have had some other serious defect. He is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Not the other way around as you would have it. LOL, you right wingers are like creation scientists, the truth is what you want it to be. Besides, even if he were a child molester, that doesn't mean what he says is wrong. LOL, you guys are pitiful.
-Robert
He's also INNOCENT until he PLEA BARGAINED and had the RECORD SEALED. There was a crime committed, by his own words. He's never said what it was. If it was spitting on the sidewalk, or mooning a sherriff, why doesn't he say so? Why was the record sealed? Oh yah I'm sure you really want the record sealed for having an open container of beer.
Any nimcompoop who concluded "Bush lied" on such a complex issue can certainly come to a reasonable conclusion on a issue as simple as this one. Or perhaps not, when blinded by being a ~! You can only connect the dots in one direction, when it supports you.
Doesn't stop all the ~!'s and ~but's from drawing their unreasonable conclusions all day long on here, does it?
Go to the vault, Gaard, what did I say about proof? lol Originally posted by: alchemize
Doesn't stop all the ~!'s and ~but's from drawing their unreasonable conclusions all day long on here, does it?
That's what I'm trying to say. Nobody who leans to the right will call Nitemare, or anyone else, on the carpet for what they are doing.
Heatsurgeon throws a hissy for everyone stating as fact that Bush was AWOL. CAD chastises someone for using the word 'prove'.
I'm not sure what was proven since I don't have any facts and neither does anyone else here. I see the District Attorney had a cow since he didn't get a chance to completely ruin Ritter and enhance his own reputation as a crime fighter. He fired the Asst. Prosecutor over the issue, which is a bit heavy handed.
Anyway, those cases are probably hard to make with the entrapment issue and nothing having happened, except MAYBE an attempted masturbation. ALLEGEDLY, he didn't want to have sex with the "GIRL" so I'm assuming that's why they went lightly on him. Plus there was no real girl involved.
So, what does this all have to do with whether Ritter is right? Absolutely nothing.
Please come back when you have some real arguments, not irrelevant drivel.
-Robert
Anyway, those cases are probably hard to make with the entrapment issue and nothing having happened, except MAYBE an attempted masturbation. ALLEGEDLY, he didn't want to have sex with the "GIRL" so I'm assuming that's why they went lightly on him. Plus there was no real girl involved.
So, what does this all have to do with whether Ritter is right? Absolutely nothing.
Please come back when you have some real arguments, not irrelevant drivel.
-Robert
sorry to stumble into this a little late . . . could not believe a rehabilitation was being attempted on such an
utterly disgraced figure until i noted who the thread's originator was . . .
ritter's self-serving about-face was noted above (kudos tscenter). let me provide a link or two that allows ritter
to freely condemn himself and destroy any pretense of credibility the man thinks he possesses:
pbs interview 8/31/98
ritter's congressional testimony 9/15/98
thanks scott, my thoughts exactly.
utterly disgraced figure until i noted who the thread's originator was . . .
ritter's self-serving about-face was noted above (kudos tscenter). let me provide a link or two that allows ritter
to freely condemn himself and destroy any pretense of credibility the man thinks he possesses:
pbs interview 8/31/98
ritter's congressional testimony 9/15/98
thanks scott, my thoughts exactly.
let me help you . . .
when did ritter submit his resignation from unscom ? was it 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or . . . 8/26/98 ?
the view of the world ritter was favoring once he had resigned is dramatically different than the one
he has been foisting on the gullibe liberal-dom since them. it constitutes a complete reversal. he
never returned to iraq to conduct any inspections since his reignation, yet his tune changed. why ?
dr. kay's report proved what ritter 1.0 had generally feared, namely that saddam would and could
reduce his wmd programs to their bare and most manageable essentials, leaving the rest of the world
to scrounge for actual weapons that he did not require under the current political climate. ritter alludes
to concessions to iraqi non-compliance that would reward them for not cooperating. the man had his
moment of sanity.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: alchemize
~but's are more mainstream leftists. They may agree with the facts, then have a "but" statement at the end
Ah, another good one...though ~l is better. (I can't wait for people on the right to answer questions using 'but'
No, it's ~! not ~|. ~! is a liberal with anger. ~but is one who recognizes something but always finds an excuse, and we're working on more back at the RWC camp(also doubles as neo-con central command).
CkG
Edit - "at" to "as"
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Once again, no it did not. You keep spreading lies about Kay's report, then slinking away when I challenge you to back them up. You are as contemptible as the rest of the Bush tools who eagerly perpetuate the vile character assassination of Scott Ritter. Not a fact among you, but you bleat innuendo and allegations as if they were solid information (much like the rest of Bush's "solid information", curiously enough).
The bad news, boys and girls, is Ritter was right and Bush was wrong. People like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix and Joseph Wilson help make the case that Bush lied. Slander them all as much as you must, but each of them has more integrity than our Liar in Chief could ever hope for. When you obediently repeat his lies, you become just as low as he is.
Ritter was right, Bush was wrong.
Ritter told the truth, Bush lied.
Ritter served his country, Bush served his rich contributors.
your funny in a most unintentional way. you've had better and more noble failures. here you
are just parodying your own sorry history on this board with new lows and with no end in sight.
there is nothing to 'slink away' from; the stench of your spewage is tolerable . . . just barely.
more than once i have sited kay's report, quoted it verbatim, threw in blix's february 2003
presentation, quoted it verbatim, and laughed as your creative juices took each of them for
a dizzying ride - when you did take them for a ride. a number of times - like now - you create
an imagined history of successful challenges or just dismiss the whole point with childish
retorts.
as for ritter telling the truth, i agree . . . just read above his 1998 congressional testimony and
his 1998 pbs interview. the boy was barely a month removed from his principled stand. we knew
the man before and after his fling with ethical conduct. cheers.
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
LOL. Sure you did. You said Kay proved Iraq had WMDs. He did nothing of the sort. The entire report is littered with innuendo, "could have been". "might be used for", etc., ad nauseum. Every single time I refuted one of your delusions by quoting Kay's actual words, you ran away. When you include Kay's comments from recent interviews, you have a whole lot of nothing. Nada. Zilch.
You were wrong, get over it, move on.
i triple and quarduple dare you to find one quote of mine where i said dr. kay proved iraq had wmds. you have resorted to outright
lies to build your demented pseudo-reality. given your worsening symptomology, it was only a matter of time before you reached
this debased point. very fitting.
yes, the report does play its cards close to its chest, to be safe against overstatement owing to recent history, but that hardly begins
to describe the loads of detail he fills page after page with. when dr. kay says he found a clandestine lab and safehouse network run
by the iraqi intelligence services, and he does not doubt that this was 'clandestine', a 'lab', a 'safehouse network', operated by the
'iraqi intelligence service', you scrape the edges for a grammatical morsel that can save your delusions from utter collapse. how can
you can live like that ?
ofcourse, this only appllies where dr. kay qualifies his discoveries. what about where he doesn't ? the north korean misssile deal isn't
so qualified, the continuing work on ricin and alfatoxin aren't similiarly qualified, new long range missile technology, illegal fuel propellant
production for scud variants, all iraqi intelligence service labs systematically santized ?!?!? hello ? you still there, you poor, poor thing.
and the clincher being even if we indulge in your childish games, innuendo or no innuendo, iraqi officials were still responsible
to declare all biological and chemical programs that could be weaponized. there is no innuendo in that fact that the iraqis
deliberately did not do this. they in fact worked to destroy, sanitize, and lie there way to a sanction-free state. i hope i have
made your innuendo a game reserve for the desperate beyond all hope.
oh, and not a word on your basketcase friend ritter ? don't like the alternate truths ritter has to share, eh ? he fits your
pathetic profile to a tee. its the second time i'm asking. try for a third ?
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter